the evolving mind

This may seem a little odd. Researchers working with a team of 27 “medical opinion leaders” have taken the time — from everyone’s otherwise busy schedules — to . . . define “gut feelings.”

What? Gut feelings are . . . gut feelings. Why go to all the trouble to define a term like that?

Answer: They were doing science. Good science. Physicians understand that one of the elements that influences their decision-making is . . . you guessed it . . . gut feelings. So to better understand this variable they will study it. Task one involves clearly defining the variable so that 1) every knows exactly what they’re talking about (they are “on the same page,” so to speak), and 2) the variable can be isolated and measured.

Sure, some of science involves an exciting, unstructured tinkering in a lab or in the field. But the bulk of it, the part that reflects “the scientific method” (methodological exploration?) is an extremely disciplined pursuit.

Technically speaking, to experiment means to test a hypothesis. Drug x treats condition y; in rock layers x years-old you will find fossils of type y but not z. Etc. Before experimentation begins, however, scientists work with words. They generate a hypothesis. Prior or simultaneous to that crucial step is the definition of variables. Words and the precise use of them are fundamental to doing good science.

As for “gut feelings,” how was this variable defined? The news release informed me. The group of thinkers determined that there are two basic types of gut feelings, as the term pertains to practicing medicine. One type provides a “sense of alarm.” The other a “sense of reassurance.”

That might seem like a lot of fuss about a whole lot of basic nothing. But if you aren’t interested in dotting your Is and crossing your Ts, science probably isn’t for you.

The article tail contained this quote:

“Our next step will be to construct and validate a questionnaire as a tool to evaluate gut feelings as well as the diagnostic work-up and the contribution of major potential determinants like experience and contextual knowledge.”

What may come of this fuss over semantics? A better understanding of how to best make decisions when treating patients. That’s a fuss worth making.

Technorati Links: language, science

A new Carnival of the Godless is up. To read #126: Summer’s End Edition give the link a click.

Technorati Links: atheism

Imagine that most of the vegetative flesh in nature reflected light in the red part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Forests . . . red. Salads . . . red. Lawns . . . red. If this were the case, would red flowers lose much of their luster? I suspect as much.

Technorati Links: flowers, photography

When a person does something nice for/to us, we tend to feel indebted to them. Their “tit” results in either an immediate “tat” response, or the tacit holding of a tat-I.O.U.(35) It’s human nature. And it’s apparently chimpanzee nature, too.

Frans de Waal, in his book, Peacemaking Among Primates, writes -

“After a long grooming session among the males, a subordinate male may invite the female and enjoy a copulation without interference by others. These interactions give the impression that males obtain permission for an undisturbed mating by paying a price in grooming currency. The phenomenon has been dubbed sexual bargaining.” [bold mine](36)

In the above case the tit of grooming results in the immediate tat of sex. Do human males give women flowers and/or take them out for an expensive meal with a similar motive somewhere in mind?

The tat response, however, need not be immediate. As it often is not the case with human gifts of flowers and chocolates. Instead, the receiver feels indebted to the pleasure provider. In her book, The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Jane Goodall notes -

“Chimpanzees, without doubt, gradually learn the calming effect that their own grooming behavior is likely to have on others. Grooming can then be used with intent as a manipulative tool. Over and above this, chimpanzees at times show some understanding of the significance of grooming interactions between others.” (37)

When two chimps groom it “means” something to them. It’s a bit of a promissory note. And when two other chimps groom, individual chimps notice. The grooming chimps might have something going on socially. They have a relationship, which is a valued resource. Others notice and may even become jealous. As it is with humans.

The behavior of pleasing others is not what I would call Machiavellian — involving ruthless cunning — but it can be. In terms of an ultimate intent, this may reside outside of conscious awareness. Often, to be pleasant toward others is a way to signal peaceful intentions and an interest in creating/sustaining a relationship. That, in itself, is one whopper of a tat.

William McCrew, author of The Cultured Chimpanzee: Reflections on Cultural Primatology, more overtly addresses the issue -

“Reciprocal grooming allows for social accounting (debt, interest, risky investment) in the primary currency (grooming itself) or in other services that can be exchanged at a rate. (How many minutes of grooming equals a leg of freshly killed monkey?) Grooming is likely to be the basic currency, since it is universal and everyday, but some ledgers may last a lifetime, and some may not balance (Dunbar & Sharman, 1984). Thus, politics may explain social grooming between adults, whether this relates to sex or power, or both. [bold mine](38)

Pleasing others — via physical grooming, verbal grooming, or some other means — is a social currency. Because belief in an invisible, great being who cares about us is a form of social behavior, we can find quite a bit of tit-for-tat relationship-concerns in many if not most religions.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: belief, bible, primates

Is corporal punishment an effective way to discipline children? Or does it do more harm than good?

The best way to find out would be to conduct a long-term “spanking experiment.” Assign parents to one of two groups. Group A uses spanking as a form of discipline on their children, Group B does not. For 3, 5, 10 years collect data on which children are getting into more trouble, experiencing more emotional and educational difficulties, etc. Because this is “best way” science, it would be fully blinded. Those doing the measuring could not know what children where in which group.

That hypothetical research, and the strong data it generated, would go a long way to settling the issue once and for all. But the experiment would be complicated, time-consuming, expensive. Oh, and did I mention unethical?

So on to less-best methods. Fortunately, there is a whole bunch of weaker data about the effects of spanking on children. And more of it keeps coming in. More research equals better science.

The September/October 2009 issue of Child Development includes two studies by a team of researchers at 6 universities, including Harvard and Columbia.

Findings include the following-

They conclude that when parents use physical discipline through childhood, their children experience more behavior problems in adolescence.

Teens of parents who stop using physical discipline when their children are young are less likely to have these behavior problems.

Notice the important qualifying term in the title to the news release?

Parental physical discipline through childhood linked to behavior problems in teens

“Linked.” There is no proof, no absolute resolution implied. That’s good science writing.

The second study found that low-income parents who discipline young children with spanking have children with “more aggressive behaviors and less sophisticated cognitive development in the next two years.”

[C]hildren who were spanked more often at 1 behaved more aggressively when they were 2 and had lower scores on tests measuring thinking skills when they were 3.

The title to the news release for this study showed a higher degree of confidence in the causal relationship between variables:

In study of low-income toddlers, spanking found to have negative effects

Was it warranted? Maybe. The researchers certainly did attempt to control for such factors as bi-directional influences (the child’s personality and behavioral tendencies influencing the parent’s choice of methods of discipline.

The study also found that children who were more aggressive at age 2 and had lower cognitive development scores at ages 1 and 2 were not spanked more at ages 2 and 3. “So the mothers’ behaviors look more influential than the children’s,” said Berlin.

Another factor controlled out of the equation was verbal punishment, which frequently accompanies spanking. The researchers found that -

Unlike spanking, however, verbal punishment alone didn’t affect either children’s aggression or their cognitive development. But interestingly, when verbal punishment was accompanied by emotional support from moms, the children did better on the tests of cognitive ability.

While many people believe that the “badness” of spanking is a no-brainer, other people — people of other times and in other socioeconomic/cultural conditions –believe that spanking makes sense. Fortunately, with good science we can progress beyond what seems to make sense to what actually is the case.

Technorati Links: parenting, science

Is there a war against religion in this country? If there are skirmishes, or even fights, I certainly wouldn’t call them a war. The supposed attacks on the church are akin to what happened to me last weekend: a few red ants crawled onto my sandaled foot and bit it. Unpleasant, yes, but not a war. Not a conflict between equal powers.

Churches in this country are alive and well. As they are around the world (I photographed the above behemoth in Cefalu, Sicily). They just hate being questioned, treated like a down-to-earth equals, and having limits placed on their reach. And so they get very irritated when it happens.

Me, I applaud the “attack” on religion by we ant-like atheists. But I don’t want to eliminate religion. I just want to drive it out of schools (with the exception of history and objectively taught religion courses), and limit it’s political influence. Religion is fascinating. (If not more than a bit kooky.) Why wouldn’t I tolerate well-behaved forms?

Technorati Links: atheism, religion

One of the nice things about our home planet is the weather. Sure, it’s cold enough to kill a naked human at the poles, hot enough kill a thirsty person in the desert regions, and the hurricanes and wildfires can be a bit of a nuisance. But overall the Earth is quite habitable.

Thunder showers are frequent, short-loved, events here in Florida. I actually enjoy watching the flashes of lighting and hearing the crashes — providing I’m indoors. Were a lightning storm to come and stay for days, however, I would probably feel differently.

And that is why I recommend NOT moving to Saturn. Despite the fact that its license plate reads, “The Hula-Hoop Celestial Body.” The sixth planet from our sun has been experiencing a powerful thunderstorm that began not days ago, not weeks ago, but 8 months ago! It is the longest, continuously observed thunderstorm in our Solar System to have been recorded.

How do we now about this persisting weather event on a planet more than 146 million miles from Earth?

Lightning discharges in Saturn’s atmosphere emit very powerful radio waves, which are measured by the antennas and receivers of the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) instrument.

Kinda like my car radio when driving through a storm. Cool. And Saturn looks so placid in all the postcard images. Who knew. (I didn’t.)

[source]

Technorati Links: cosmos, weather

Last spring I transplanted a live oak sapling to a bare spot adjacent to our fence. I don’t know if the tree has grown a foot or an inch over the intervening months. It’s still a twiggy-looking thing, eight feet tall and not much more than eighteen inches wide.

But then again, maybe the bulk of the growth has occurred where I can’t see it: in the sandy soil. Maybe the roots have spread dramatically, and next year the little tree will impress me with visible growth.

One can hope.

Technorati Links: nature photography

A single science article caused me to both nod and shake my head while reading it. At was about a study on treating “crippling” shame.

What I agreed with was some the author’s thoughts about shame. Jessica Van Vliet, from the University of Alberta, went on record with -

“Shame can prompt us to make changes that will help protect our relationships and also preserve the fabric of society. It’s important to emphasize that shame is essential and has value. . . .The problem is when people get paralyzed with shame and withdraw from others. Not only can this create mental-health problems for people, but also they no longer contribute as fully to society.”

No, shame is not a “toxic” emotion, always bad. The ability to feel shame is a social emotion, innate to human functioning. But too much of it can be a bad thing. Just can be too much of any emotion.

Van Vliet transitioned into explaining how debilitating shame can be overcome. That’s when I began shaking me head. Her explanation seemed infused with psych-speak (“one of the key components to overcoming these feelings is to step back from the problem”). I kept wondering what data she used to base her conclusion upon.

How did she come to the finding that the news release of her research touts? What, precisely? did she find?

Making connections the key to overcoming shame

Disappointingly, the article made no mention of the actual research Van Vliet was basing her conclusion, and advice, upon. I had to do some sleuthing to find out. And what I found in an abstract of her paper almost made me blush.

Methods: The participants were nine women and four men between the ages of 24 and 70. Data came from interviews in which the participants recalled a distressing shame experience and described how they recovered. Emphasis was on the participants’ subjective perspectives, meanings, and interpretations. [abstract]

Poor quantity of data. Poor quality of data. It seems that “scientists” in the psychological fields (my own) are still quite adept at taking an inch of observation/interview/measurement and running four miles with it.

The article concludes this way -

“Connecting to others helps to increase self-acceptance, and with self-acceptance can come a greater acceptance of other people as well,” said Van Vliet. “People start to realize that it’s not just them. Other people do things that are as bad or even worse sometimes so they’re not the worst person on the planet. They start to say to themselves, ‘This is human, I am human, others are human.’”

Really? Is that really what happens? Or is that a mere veneer of client/therapist thinking laid over a complex, largely unconscious, phenomenon? Where the data is weak/soft, researchers should be overtly tentative in the explanations they propose. Otherwise, they aren’t doing good science.

Technorati Links: mental health, psychology, skepticism

The severely depressed live in a sad, dark state. One of the current problems with treatment medications is that finding the right drug is a largely hit-or-miss affair. Couple that with the time it can take for medication benefits to be realized, and you’ve got weeks and months of prolonged suffering.

Enter science.

Now, based on the final results of a nationwide study led by UCLA, clinicians may be able to accurately predict within a week whether a particular drug will be effective by using a non-invasive test that takes less than 15 minutes to administer. The test will allow physicians to quickly switch patients to a more effective treatment, if necessary. [source]

Wonderful.

If you care about people, about helping the sad, the downtrodden, the suffering, you should care about science. Why? Because science greatly improves our ability to do work. Including the humane work of lifting people up.

Technorati Links: mental health, science