the evolving mind

XKCD is one of my favorite comics. The content is frequently “outside the box.” Of course, I only know what’s inside the box, so maybe the content has merely impaled the corrugation.

Technorati Links: SETI

Too damn funny.

Are all fashion styles and accouterments of culture equally absurd to those on the outside?

Technorati Links: culture, humor

I don’t trust the decisions of politicians who don’t trust science. Why? Because politicians make policy decisions aimed at improving/protecting our country. However well-argued a policy or policy change may be, whether or not it will produce the desired results can be another matter. Scientific methodology is the best way to separate policies that do work or are likely to from those that don’t or won’t.

An example: Researchers in Texas have determined that a “zero tolerance” policy on drinking and driving has “zero effect” on producing positive change.

“Both in terms of the number of accidents and the blood alcohol of the drivers in those accidents, the research consistently showed that zero tolerance laws had no effect,” Grant said. “Other factors matter, but not these laws. . . . “

[A]mong drivers involved in traffic accidents, there is the same fraction of heavy drinkers, the same fraction of mild drinkers, the same fraction of nondrinkers,” he said. “It’s just not changing.” [source]

Given that the policy doesn’t work, why make law enforcement engage in expensive busywork?

Of course, the mere appearance of caring and doing something counts in the world of politics. Sadly.

Technorati Links: politics, science

Any idea what the above is? The post title is a clue. As is the fact that the magnification is x60. Here’s another hint: think prince in a pre-incarnation. Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: brain-teaser, photography

Sometimes the Onion’s news parodies are so funny and spot-on, it’s pure genius. Consider this piece:

Death Of 12 Schoolchildren Makes Perfect Sense

It will be a better world when the children in our public schools learn critical thinking skills. And thus become better consumers/evaluators of information. Teachers could use the one-paragraph mock news article as an example.

MYRTLE BEACH, SC—In a tragedy none have struggled to comprehend, a group of 12 schoolchildren on a whale-watching trip died in a perfectly logical manner Tuesday when their boat capsized one hour into its voyage. “How something like this could have happened—it’s completely imaginable,” said Coast Guard captain Don Broyard, addressing a group of reporters who were immediately able to make sense of the terrible disaster. “The way the unstable boat overturned, the powerlessness of the small children to fight against the current, the quick flooding of water into their lungs—the whole thing is so well within reason.” Capt. Broyard added that the state coroner would be more than happy to give parents still uncertain of how the tragedy happened a detailed, step-by-step explanation of every fatal injury.

The Onion — never has skepticism been so painfully delicious!

Technorati Links: critical thinking, skepticism

Are other animals, besides our own animal selves, capable of metacognition? In other words, are they capable of thinking about their thoughts? A new study looks into the issue. The title alone is noteworthy for its lack of bad writing.

Evidence Points To Conscious ‘Metacognition’ In Some Nonhuman Animals

Three cheers for that title!

Cheer one: “Evidence points to.” No overstating of the implications of the study. (E.g., “Study finds proof of.”)

Cheer two: Half-quotes around metacognition. The term itself is controversial — what exactly is it? — and the means of measuring it indirect.

Cheer three: The inclusion of Nonhuman before animals. This is an important point rarely made. And I think it needs to be made. We are animals, too. Yes we are.

Okay, on to the study. What evidence is there of metacognition in dolphins? If asked how to measure it, I’d have no clue. But some psychologists have begun to try. Study author David Smith . . .

recounts the original animal-metacognition experiment with Natua the dolphin. “When uncertain, the dolphin clearly hesitated and wavered between his two possible responses,” he says, “but when certain, he swam toward his chosen response so fast that his bow wave would soak the researchers’ electronic switches.

Other nonhuman animals show no such hesitation/vacillation when confronted with potentially uncertainty-producing options.

While one can imagine “gears spinning” in the dolphins brain, how confident can we be that this is a true sign of metacognition, of the animal thinking about its options in a more complex way than a more simply choosing? I don’t know. But it is a step in finding out.

Technorati Links: consciousness, psychology

Feeling down? Step not into my office, but into a bank vault. Thumb through a bunch of cash. That might improve your mood.

New research published in the journal Psychological science has found -

“Handling money (compared with handling paper) reduced distress over social exclusion and diminished the physical pain of immersion in hot water. Being reminded of having spent money, however, intensified both social distress and physical pain,” the authors said.

Symbols are powerful human tools. They help us perform work and they work on us.

Harriet de Wit, leader of the research team, noted,

[A]cquired symbolic value of money, perhaps because of associations with power or control, can influence responses to both emotional and physical pain.

Very interesting.

Technorati Links: mental health, psychology

Mystics claim that their experience of god (at least their perception of their god) and/or the transcendant/mystical realm is ineffable: you can’t put it in words. A recent Jesus and Mo cartoon humorously depicts characters reading books about the ineffable.

Can you put an experience in words? No, not really. Describing what swimming in the ocean feels like is a poor substitute for the actual thing. It doesn’t come close to relaying the full richness of the experience.

But then again, when is a description of an experience ever equivalent to the experience itself? It doesn’t matter whether the experience in question consists of sniffing flowers, having really good sex, or “feeling a presence of the divine.” Whatever that means.

Most religious terms make no sense to me. Which isn’t to say I haven’t had experiences of meaning/importance that I could attribute to something special. But that attribution is the work of the same brain that attaches words to objects and events.

The inability to capture “moving” experiences with words seems to me a completely different matter than whether or not we can shed light on how an experience is likely generated. Why does eating a great cut of steak make me almost melt in a puddle of pleasure? For X, Y, and Z reasons. Granted, we barely have X reason for why people may experience a divine presence in situation A or B. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons. And likely fully pedestrian reasons at that.

Technorati Links: language, religion

Can strong moral convictions be a bad thing? Aren’t we taught that people with unbudging convictions are esteem-worthy?

Psychologists from the University of Illinois recently “explored [the] interplay of moral convictions and religious beliefs as it relates to our trust in authority.” From their study, they concluded (in part) -

[P]eople with strong moral convictions seem to not only base their trust in judgment on a gut reaction, “they do not trust even legitimate authorities to make the right decision in the first place.”

Yes, in some circumstances, distrust of a legitimate authority may be called for. But in others it is an act of putting full stock in one’s own, less-informed position. Not a good thing.

But what do I know? I’m one of those liberal-minded individuals who will waffle on a topic when better/new information comes in.

And, by the way, I am sure that political liberals can be as dogmatically moralistic as conservatives.

Technorati Links: morality, psychology

This Onion video is just too “right on” to not share.

New Live Poll Allows Pundits To Pander To Viewers In Real Time