the evolving mind

New research suggests that the “healing touch” of therapists can be learned via watching a DVD . . . in a little over an hour!

What is healing touch? According to Healing Touch International . . .

Healing Touch is a relaxing, nurturing energy therapy. Gentle touch assists in balancing your physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Healing Touch works with your energy field to support your natural ability to heal. It is safe for all ages and works in harmony with standard medical care.

Wow. Balancing physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being sounds like an advanced art, if not science (definitely not science). Good thing there are trained professionals to provide this service. At Healing Touch International, and scads of other places, you can find CERTIFIED HEALING TOUCH PRACTITIONERS. Which means they must have watched a DVD, too, and thus are qualified to speak highly of themselves. And charge significant bucks to touch patients in a manner called “healing.”

Here’s how the above mentioned research was conducted:

In the study, couples were randomized to either an experimental group using the program, or an attention control group.

Those in the experimental group watched a 78-minute DVD and read an illustrated manual on “simple touch and massage techniques.” Nothing about energy fields or spirituality was mentioned.

Caregivers [not professionals but family members] in the experimental group were asked to apply the instruction for at least 20 minutes, three or more times per week for a month. Those in the control group were assigned to read to the patient for the same amounts of time.

And the results? Simple touch was indeed therapeutic.

Results indicated significant reductions for all symptoms after both activities, indicating that companionship alone has a positive effect. However, while symptoms were reduced from 12-28% after reading, massage from the caregiver led to reductions of 29-44%. The greatest impact was on stress/anxiety (44% reduction), followed by pain (34%), fatigue (32%), depression (31%), and nausea (29%).

These research results “were recently reported at the 6th International Conference of the Society for Integrative Oncology.” And that explains why the lead investigator, William Collinge, made this statement:

“It appears that family members who receive simple instruction in safety and techniques can achieve some of the same results as professional practitioners.”

“Achieve some of the same results as professional practitioners”? Ah . . . how can he say that? There was no third group of professional practitioners that outperformed the experimental group in any way. We simply don’t know what the results of that group would have been given the particular circumstances. So Collinge can’t really say what he did. My guess is the paid professionals would have indeed done better, but not due to their training and certification. Rather, their better performance would be due to greater patient expectations for a positive outcome.

If you ask me, “healing touch” is the culinary equivalent of serving frozen pizza to restaurant patrons as the special of the day. Look, it comes on a fancy plate! The greater expectations of high quality are then self-fulfilled.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, skepticism

We’re having a small Thanksgiving get-together at our place this year. Perhaps that is why this Onion news-parody hit my funny bone as it did:

Grandma Concerned About Dinner Roll Count

ROCKFORD, IL—Local grandmother Eileen Stafford, 78, expressed concern Monday over the number of dinner rolls she should have on hand for this year’s Thanksgiving meal, appearing distressed when discussing the implications of there being either too many or possibly too few.

Ha! Earlier today I actually had a discussion with my wife about the optimal cranberry sauce. I kid you not.

Technorati Links: thanksgiving

The weather forecast for today: rain. Oh look, it’s raining right now. Current temperature: 67 degrees.

While I like the rain, I’m not fond of the muted light.

Philosophical query of the day: Because weather forecasts are probabilistic (60% chance of rain, etc.) are they then a-causal?

Of course not.

Then why do some scientists speak of causality breaking down in the quantum realm? Those events, too, are probabilistic. Does that (and a lack of known mechanisms influencing the probability) make them a-causal? I don’t know. I tend to doubt it. This is such an important topic that a friend of mine and I plan on getting together next week to discuss it. We will roll up our intellectual sleeves, gulp down a few beers, and, armed with a slew of articles pertaining to the topic, attempt to advance our understanding. Forecast for success: 20%, depending on how you define “success.” (The probability for getting buzzed is quite a bit higher.)

If I attain enlightenment on the topic, I’ll be sure to share it.

Technorati Links: nature photos, philosophy, quantum theory

Oxytocin has been called the love or cuddle hormone. And, in fact, it does appear to play an important role in these types of behavior. But new research finds there is more to it than that.

In an article titled, The narrow line between love and jealousy I learned of a study at the University of Haifa into oxytocin and non-lovey-dovey emotions.

The findings show that those participants who inhaled the “hormone of love” displayed higher levels of envy when the opponent won more money and of gloating when they were ahead.

Well that’s not very cuddly.

Hold onto your hats, it gets worse. Or better — depending on your aim. Earlier research found a link between oxytocin and, gulp, aggression levels. So maybe you don’t want to spritz that gift box of chocolates with the vaporized hormone. Depending on the circumstances, it could backfire.

Study author Simone Shamay-Tsoory concludes:

“Subsequent to these findings, we assume that the hormone is an overall trigger for social sentiments: when the person’s association is positive, oxytocin bolsters pro-social behaviors; when the association is negative, the hormone increases negative sentiments.”

Rather than as the cuddle hormone, how should we instead think of oxytocin? The “social fabric” hormone?

Technorati Links: behavior, hormones

Thoroughgoing critical thinkers do not play favorites with ideas. As illustrated below.

The above NASA photo is of Saturn’s moon Enceladus. The eruption of ice jets on that moon was captured by the Cassini spacecraft/mission.

Are you kidding me? Thanks to technology, my eyes have seen things they otherwise would never see.

Technorati Links: cosmos, science

Perhaps more than being Natural Born Killers, human beings are natural born scientists. Or at least have the potential to be.

New research published in the journal Child Development has found that when preschool-age children ask those series of “why” and “how come” questions, they aren’t fishing for attention. They want answers. And not just any answer.

By looking at how the children reacted to the answers they received to their questions, the researchers found that children seem to be more satisfied when they receive an explanatory answer than when they do not. [source]

An explanatory answer. Anyone familiar with science knows that science does more than provide answers by connecting dots. It also reveals the mechanisms and processes between the dots, so to speak. Beyond B “because” A, there are variables and hypotheses and theories that reveal “how come” B follows A. In a sense, this is the reductionistic mindset innocently manifesting itself. While a basic answer might help us know about A and B alone, an answer that includes more information about underlying mechanisms — about the many variables and relationships potentially involved — can help us better understand whole classes of phenomena. We can take what we learned from one instance and apply it to other circumstances. Now that’s smart.

Unfortunately, not all nature born scientists continue their questioning ways. It seems that the scientific attitude of preschoolers wanes as they age. Why is that? How come?

Technorati Links: child development, psychology, science

Many a morning in the growing-light, or evening during the dimming of sky, I’ll spy a leopard frog on a lily pad in our goldfish pond. Build it an they will come.

This morning I re-realized that I have been feeding the hawks in the area. Indirectly. Just after dawn today one made off with a mourning dove that had been scavenging on the ground beneath our feeders. The hawks (red-shouldered variety) also dine on the squirrels that invariably find a way to steal seeds.

Hmm. Should I not feed the wildlife? My guess is that the loss due to predation is offset by the gain of better-fed stocks. But maybe not.

Certainly, I make sure to situate the feeders where predation is more difficult. There is some overhead cover and nearby brush for the feeding birds to make a hasty retreat into.

Would that red-shouldered hawk have snagged a mourning dove searching for a meal in a more wide-open area, had it not discovered one relatively hidden in the trees adjacent to my home? I wonder.

Food and shelter. You need both to attract wildlife. Perhaps the same is true for humans.

Technorati Links: birds, nature photography

While object are acted upon, subjects do the acting. But what happens when two objects collide? In the language of agency and causation, where do we pin our focus?

In an effort to sexy-up their reporting, science writers will often dress dumb objects and events in words denoting and connoting agency. Now we have a plot!

Consider this recent headline:

Watching a Cannibal Galaxy Dine

Certainly, galaxies are not agents that eat other galaxies. There is not intention, nothing resembling a plot-line, behind what “they” do. Galaxies are aggregates of cosmic matter that will collide with, merge, and even “absorb,” other galaxies. What’s the actual science behind the agency-speak?

A new technique using near-infrared images, obtained with ESO’s 3.58-metre New Technology Telescope (NTT), allows astronomers to see through the opaque dust lanes of the giant cannibal galaxy Centaurus A, unveiling its “last meal” in unprecedented detail — a smaller spiral galaxy, currently twisted and warped.

Is there any harm in “dressing up” scientific findings so they have a tiny tidbit in common with what you will find in a soap opera? Intention, power, the ability to “do evil” . . . agency.

I suspect so. But until I find evidence of harm, my suspicion itself is suspect.

Wait. Can a suspicion be suspect?

Technorati Links: science, semantics, superstition

The above pic is from a small mountain church in Sicily. In Olde-Tyme religion, people frequently prayed to “higher powers” to help protect them against invaders, and/or to persevere in battle. So bow down to the leader(s) of your people and they will help you (dead/invisible leaders, too). In the least, your group will better rally together. And you will lessen your chances of being slaughtered or conquered — and forced to bow down to a leader foreign to you. Deities included.

Technorati Links: freethought, hierarchy, religion