the evolving mind

Okay, “relationships key to mental health” is a bit of a d’uh! science fact. But the reason for this fact — that we are a preeminently social species — is something that merits highlighting. Ours is a culture that tends to proclaim and preach “it’s all about the individual.”

Additionally, the types of converging evidence is intriguing. The particular, new study, found this:

As children go back to school this fall, a new cross-cultural study finds that for both Chinese and American middle schoolers, students who feel supported by their teachers tend to have higher self-esteem, and those who don’t feel supported by fellow students are more likely to be depressed.

You may wonder how the variables feel supported and self-esteem were defined and measured. These are great questions, worthy of investigation. From a reading of the news release, my sense is that this study was a piece of softer science. But because its findings dovetail with so many other studies, I have some confidence in it.

Technorati Links: psychology, relationships

What is the name of this stunningly cool, wandering celestial body*? Time’s up. Jupiter.

Photo thanks to NASA.

*This is the origin of the term planet, loosely.

Technorati Links: astronomy, NASA

Wow. It seems the evolutionary precursor of the human heart was cold-blooded. And reptilian! In recent research a genetic link has been discovered between the hearts we’ve got in our chests and those found in lizards. Holy leapin’ scientific wizardry!

Here’s some background information, courtesy of ScienceDaily, one of the sites that carried the news release:

From an evolutionary standpoint, the reptiles occupy a critical point in heart evolution.

While bird and mammalian hearts have four chambers, frogs and other amphibians have three. “How did hearts evolve from three to four chambers?” [Benoit] Bruneau said. “The different reptiles offer a sort of continuum from three to four chambers. By examining them, we learned a lot about how the human heart chambers normally form.”

He explained that with four chambers—two atria and two ventricles—humans and all other mammals have completely separate blood flows to the lungs and to the rest of the body, which is essential for us to be warm-blooded.

And the discovery? Researchers at the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease pin-pointed a/the gene responsible for change in heart formation. The Tbx5. Interestingly, and relevantly, this gene has also been linked to congenital heart disease.

[We now bring you a snarky freethought tangent:]

. . . So Gawd doesn’t hate the babies that come into the world with this birth defect. Whew! That would be a lot of hating. Roughly 35,000 children each year in this country are born with congenital heart disease.* Gawd just did a shoddy job guiding human evolution! Which makes more sense. Well, to somewhat more reasonable believers in god-nonsense it does.

-

* Source

Technorati Links: evolution, Intelligent Design

If a title causes a reader to react, Huh?, it’s probably not a very good one.

Like this one. But maybe I’m just a nitwit: Prolonged stress sparks ER to release calcium stores and induce cell death in aging-related diseases.

Oh my gosh. Emergency rooms across the land have already enacted Obama’s death panels . . . by killing cells in the elderly . . . clever.

But no. ER means “endoplasmic reticulum.” What the hell is that? A part of the cell. Because words/terms interest me, why don’t we break endoplasmic reticulum down.

Endo = internal

Plasmic = cell stuff (roughly)

Reticulum = “A netlike formation or structure; a network” (definition from here).

So there you have it. Obama has infiltrated the network of your very cells to enact his death panels. Or something.

Technorati Links: science, writing

Are humanists a bunch of pansies? Although, on average, humanists may rate higher on pacifism than other groups of Americans, I’m sure there are individual humanists that would respond to the accusation with a knuckle sandwich to the accuser’s kisser. Others might say, “well, thank you for the compliment.” I’m not sure what I would do.

The most recent Humanist Symposium is up over at The Greenbelt. The post has been prettied up by a bunch of . . . you guessed it.

As for me, I am certainly a pansy-photographer. And a petunia-photographer, as evidence by the above image.

You want to make something of it!

Maybe I’ve had too much coffee today. Would I become a kinder, gentler Andrew if I switched to Sanka?

Technorati Links: flowers, humanism

I turn to science when I need questions answered. I also turn to it when I don’t have any specific questions in mind. Why? Learning about science interests me — it’s a pleasurable way to pass the time, so to speak. While one person may read mystery novels, I stick my nose in science websites and nonfiction books.

Naturally, because it is my practice, I tend to think it is better than other options. But I do realize that it is largely a matter of taste. Sure, if I want to glorify my preferences I could claim that by learning about science I am keeping my facts-database and cognitive-toolbox up to date. And so my beliefs and decisions will be better ones.

Consider the following three findings that caught my interest. Could the information gained from them bring any important insights? Maybe.

1) Question: When is a flower a weed?

Answer: When it grows where you don’t want it. In Cape Tulips: Pretty But Pests In Pastures, CSIRO Entomology’s Dr John Scott said -

“We are initiating a one-year study to see if it would be feasible to control one and two-leaf Cape tulips (Moraea flaccida and M. miniata) using the rust fungus Puccinia moraeae as a biological control agent.”

Murdering beautiful tulips! Is that legal! Where is PET-B (people for the ethical treatment of blossoms) where you need them! Just kidding.

The trouble with these flowers: the grow in pastures where livestock can’t eat them and are even poisonous.

Insight: “Weed” is just a word; a category of unwelcome plants. Could a rose be a weed? Sure, if it grows in an unwelcome place.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: education, science

Advanced cultures no longer view their leaders as super-human beings with super-normal powers. Okay, so we may erect monuments to them. But we recognize they were of flesh and went the way of all flesh.

To believe in the supernatural existence of religious entities . . . well, you might as well believe in ghosts. I don’t.

—

[I took the above photo in the main square of the small, Italian Island of Ustica]

Technorati Links: freethought, photography, religion

It seems there really is a smell of death. Stench, really. Anyone familiar with what happens when, say, a mouse gets stuck behind the refrigerator and dies . . . . (get the clothespin for your nose!) . . . . knows it all to well Moist road kill will do the same thing. Or a lizard or worm sliced in two by a mower blade and left for bacteria to do their eating.

What’s that smell? Decomposing fats. More specifically . . .

David Rollo, professor of biology at McMaster University, found that corpses of animals, from insects to crustaceans, all emit the same death stench produced by a blend of specific fatty acids.

I’m assuming that the smell produced by decomposing larger animals is included in “corpses of animals.”

Why do those molecules so potently punch us in the nose?

“As explained in our study, fatty acids—oleic or linoleic acids—are reliably and quickly released from the cells following death. Evolution appears to have favoured such clues because they were reliably associated with demise, and avoiding contagion and predation are rather critical to survival.”

Of course, the above finding [link] doesn’t explain why my dogs, upon encountering something rank-smelling in the grass, will promptly roll in it.

Technorati Links: biology

Biological forms may look nicely “designed” from a distance, but when you look closer you will spy imperfections.

What type of imperfect form is the above? Image at 60x. Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

A new study out of the UK and New Zealand has found that “common mental disorders” may be more common than previously thought. Perhaps twice as common.

The mental disorders in question include anxiety disorders, depression, and substance dependency. The reason for the difference in calculations? While many studies have relied on cross-sectional data(measuring all age groups at one time) provided by hindsight self-reports, newer findings have relied on longitudinal studies (tracking individuals for years and years).

A sample finding -

The best retrospective studies [looking backwards], the US National Comorbidity Surveys (NCS) and the New Zealand Mental Health Survey, have found the incidence of depression from ages 18 to 32 at a rate of about 18 percent. But they have been roundly criticized by some for their rates being too high. The latest analysis from the Dunedin Study found 41 percent of that age range had experienced clinically significant depression.

As I had hoped, the article’s author did address a very important issue with this brief paragraph -

On the one hand, it could be argued that the diagnostic standards have been set too low if so many people can be considered mentally ill. On the other hand, perhaps these findings argue for more and better mental health care because the disorders are more common than anyone had realized.

During my most recent years teaching development psychology, one slide I presented on late-life sexual changes in males contained this information: While earlier editions of our textbook had stated that the incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in 40 year-olds was roughly 7%, the latest edition had the number at close to 40%. For 65+ year old men, the older textbook had the percentage with ED at less than 20. In the newer book the percentage was over 60. The class would discuss explore reasons for the almost unbelievable increase.

Erectile dysfunction may be more common than previously thought. Depression and other mental disorders may be more common than previously thought.

In terms of present thoughts, I am left with a number of them:

> When we learn about something, we can better identify it. With a sharper focus comes the ability to better probe and see what was undifferentiated before.

> When we have words for something, we will use them. Where we lack words, we will over-extend the use of other words. Many disorders fall along a spectrum, but we only have words to describe the two poles.

> With effective treatments comes financial and professional incentives to use those treatments and to make specific diagnoses. When health care professionals can give their patients definite answers, “You have X; here’s a prescription for Y,” the patient walks away with two desired things: Something to call his/her troubling condition, and something to do about it right away.

> In the case of anxiety and depression, if these conditions are so common, can we really call them mental “illness”? Why the human propensity to become mentally ill? On the face of it, it doesn’t seem very adaptive. Yes, some studies have found that a little bit of a bad thing can come with benefits. Mildly depressed individuals actually tend to make more realistic predictions about future developments than do rosy-eyed others; slightly schizophrenic individuals (those with schizotypal personalities) tend to be quite creative . . . .

> Lastly, an observation. It likewise doesn’t seem very adaptive for so many animals in the wild to have fleas and parasites and other physical ailments. (Ailments that we have effective treatments for, and so nearly never suffer from.) Why should human beings be different in a different realm? The brain is a very complex organ that functions in a complex environment: social, emotional, intellectual, etc. Why wouldn’t it be prone to imperfect functioning?

Technorati Links: mental illness, psychology