the evolving mind

Who hasn’t had difficulty sleeping at one point or another in their life? Yet it seems that some people are naturally predisposed to it. (Naturally is a problematic word. Perhaps I should have used innately or physiologically predisposed.) Research on insomnia in adolescents has recently found a link between difficulties sleeping, anxiety and depression. But not just any type of link, a genetic link.

Significant genetic effects shared between insomnia, depression and anxiety suggests that overlapping genetic mechanisms exist to link the disorders.

Okay, no startling breakthrough, but another piece to the puzzle.

In related research, cognitive-behavioral (psycho)therapy to treat insomnia was tested and found effective.

Results indicate that 50 percent to 60 percent of participants with chronic sleep onset insomnia, sleep maintenance insomnia or both experienced remission of their primary sleep difficulty.

If you are having chronic sleeping difficulties, it seems that a form of talk therapy could help. Not psychodynamic, not family, but cognitive-behavioral. Which makes sense, for cognitive-behavioral therapy is relatively pragmatic in its approach to mental health. Consider what it entailed for the study in question [source].

Specific strategies included education on sleep regulating systems, sleep scheduling recommendations, sleep hygiene education, sleep consolidation therapy, stimulus control therapy, relaxation training, cognitive therapy and mindfulness training.

Certainly, no miracle cure, but very few treatments are perfectly effective. And in terms of those subjects that found no benefit, roughly 40 percent or so, you have to hope that there is a treatment out there for them. If not now, some day.

Hope you all get a good night’s rest tonight.

Technorati Links: genetics, mental illness, psychotherapy

The above is healthy growth on a healthy tree. Another of the trees that shade our yard is not healthy. It’s half naked and might have root rot. I’m grappling over the problem of whether to have a significant portion of it trimmed away or the whole thing outright removed. As the tree is an large oak (a water oak, not the stately live oak), it is an expensive proposition. Besides the money issue is the question of wildlife. I enjoy woodpeckers and woodpeckers prefer older, sickly trees. More insects to eat. If I take the whole thing down, less woodpeckers. If I don’t, greater chance it could fall down and cause property damage.

Darn, seems I can’t win this one.

Technorati Links: birds, flora

Video games = bad. Right? Wrong. Why? Because it is a hasty answer to a bogus questions: Are video games good or bad?

Critical thinkers will examine and critique a question before answering it. Video games–which video games? Good or bad–in what ways? And, importantly–good OR bad? Is this black/white thinking helpful?

While the vast majority of research into video games has focused on the violent type and how they might influence human beings to be more aggressive/violent, there have been a few studies on other types of video games having a more beneficial affect on behavior. But there are a few. A new one has just been published in the June 2009 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. And the science behind it seems relatively solid.

The article presents the findings of three separate studies, conducted in different countries with different age groups, and using different scientific approaches. All the studies find that playing games with prosocial content causes players to be more helpful to others after the game is over.

Co-author Brad Bushman said,

These studies show the same kind of impact on three different age groups from three very different cultures.

Good. I like that. But then I think Brad got a bit carried away with this statement,

The resulting triangulation of evidence provides the strongest possible proof that the findings are both valid and generalizable.

Boy do I hate the word “proof.” Fine, use it in mathematics. But for forensics and psychology and virtually all of science, I find the term inappropriate. Proof has too much certitude and finality infused into it. Evidence is better.

That said, we can now see how the question, “Are video games good or bad?” is a bogus question, particularly if we expect a brief answer.

-

[source] University of Michigan (2009, June 18). Some Video Games Can Make Children Kinder And More Likely To Help. ScienceDaily.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, media, semantics

I don’t know if the above is poisonous/toxic, but I bet it wouldn’t be very good eating. Not even boiled then served with a heavy cream sauce. But then again, I’ve never tried it.

Have any idea what it is? (Hint x200 & it is in a Grateful Dead song.) Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: flora, microscope

To belong or not to belong, that question is a relative no-brainer. Our kind is an essentially social species. Want to punish an individual? Send her to a corner, put him in solitary confinement, banish both from their people.

A recent, “paradoxical” research finding illustrates our instinctively social nature:

Children who join gangs feel safer despite a greater risk of being assaulted or killed.

Beneath seemingly “irrational” behavior one can discover important elements in human psychology. So many things can influence how we think-feel-behave.

Many people consider a fear of flying as irrational when compared to the lack of a fear of driving–the more dangerous of the two modes of transportation. But what does the fear of flying tell us about human psychology? That we are simply irrational creatures? No.

For a youth to join a gang isn’t irrational behavior. Rash, maybe. What is it then? I don’t know. But I do think we need a bigger vocabulary.

-

[source: Michigan State University (2009, June 4). Despite Increased Danger, Youth Gang Members Still Feel Safer. ScienceDaily.]

What makes a flower attractive? There are probably a number of factors involved. Probably the first step in answering that question would be to ask, “to whom?”

What makes one human being attractive to another human being? There are probably a number of factors involved. One such fascinating factor recently uncovered and studied is called “histocompatibility.” We prefer the smell of those who have complimentary immune systems to our own (for our potential offsprings’ health).

Recent research into mate choice in salamanders found this:

“Our data indicate that mate-choice decisions aren’t solely dependent on MHC, tail length, body size or any other single factor,” said DeWoody, a professor of genetics. “Mate choice is a complex process that takes many factors into account.”

(MHC is “major histocompatibility complex.”) Yikes, even salamanders have a complex “love life.”

Fortunately, we can get lazy and say “size matters” to salamanders. But not as you might think.

In addition to MHC, tail length plays a role in reproductive success. Male salamanders with longer tails were twice as likely as those with shorter tails to be chosen as sires.

The moral of the story? We like our mates “well endowed.” But as to what in their endowment individuals of one sex are attracted to in individuals of the other–that’s the real question.

Technorati Links: evolution, flora, sexuality

Less than half a century ago it was not unusual to see a television sitcom portrayal of gender roles with wives acting like innocent children. Their fully mature husbands needed to protect and educate them. More recently you may have seen a sitcom actress or heard a standup comedian joke about husbands being like large children that wives need to take responsibility for. In both cases I consider the humor as possibly providing insight into our culture. Insight into human nature? I certainly would not go that far.

That is not to say that I don’t believe there are likely innate gender differences. But to learn about them I won’t turn to popular sources of information. Their material might be summarized this way: “Men are from the Hardware Store, Women are from the Shoe Store.” Instead I turn to science. And a new piece of that has revealed an intriguing difference in male and female sexuality.

Here’s the ticker-tape announcement:

A study by Indiana University neuroscientist Heather Rupp found that a woman’s partner status influenced her interest in the opposite sex.

Let me break down the study results for you.

Women without sexual partner vs. women with sexual partners:

- No difference in subjective ratings of attractiveness of photos of men.

- Difference in duration of looking at photos of men. Women without sexual partners looked longer.

Men without sexual partners vs. men with sexual partners:

- No difference in subjective ratings of women in photos or duration of looking.

So there you have it. Sexually unattached women may do more looking at men. While for men their “partner status” doesn’t seem to matter.

Before we make a mountain out of a molehill, this is one study performed on a few dozen individuals in a laboratory setting. Still, it is a molehill. The article noted,

This is the first study to report whether having a current sexual partner influences interest in the opposite sex. Other studies have demonstrated that hormones, relationship goals and social context influence such interest.

While the above could be a piece to the puzzle of gender differences, it is only one, small piece. There are many more to discover and connect.

Technorati Links: gender, sexuality

How many stars and planets are there in the Universe? We can only guess-timate. No one has counted them all. Or likely could.

Imagine standing on the top of a skyscraper. But instead of looking up while your location is in the shadow of the Earth (night time), you look down during day time. You see what you think are individual human beings. They aren’t much larger than ants! But later you discover that instead of seeing individual people, you were viewing collections of whole populations of people. That one person was not a one person but an entire population of people. Such is the naked eye view of the cosmos.

Okay, go head and look back up into the night sky. Feel your mind get boggled? It should.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA

Hold onto your conservative hats, but researchers have found that come breeding season almost 1/3 of albatross couples of the Laysan species are female with female.

Shocking. Birds with lesbian tendencies. What kind of perverted Creator designed them?!

[source: Exploring the evolutionary consequences of same-sex sex: Lessons from the animal kingdom.]

Technorati Links: belief, liberalism

We can be more confident in a scientific finding when it is supported by other, similar research. Cornell psychologist and lead author of a new study, David Pizarro notes,

People have pointed out for a long time that a lot of our moral values seem driven by emotion, and in particular, disgust appears to be one of those emotions that seems to be recruited for moral judgments.

Reflecting that hunch, and supporting the work of others, Pizarro and his colleagues discovered this:

Participants who rated higher in disgust sensitivity were more likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion, issues that are related to notions of morality or purity.

Of course, there is more to it than a sensitivity to disgust. A person’s culture, social group, and learning experiences will play a role in what triggers disgust in them. Just a half-dozen decades ago in our country, many people would respond with disgust to the thought of blacks and whites dating. That thought rarely triggers disgust today. Like food choice, learning likely plays a huge role in moral development.

-

[source: Easily grossed out? You're more likely a conservative,
says Cornell psychologist]

Technorati Links: emotion, learning, morality