the evolving mind

A bit of new research caught my eye recently for two reasons. The article title read, Rethinking sexism: A daughter-father team examines how society maintains the status quo.

The finding -

both men and women respond in a more hostile way to a woman who violates sex-role expectations, than to one who adheres to them. Secondly, that the more an individual supports social hierarchy in general (that some people should have more power and resources than others), the more hostile they responded toward a woman who violated sex-role expectations.

Interesting stuff.

1) Any of you familiar with my “An Almighty Alpha” project know that I am quite interested in human hierarchical behavior. It is fascinating how status, power and sex and gender are inter-related.

As an aside, allow me to offer a couple conjectures about the above finding. First, both men and women reacted strongly because both are a part of the social group that roles and hierarchies bring some stability and predictability to. Second, the greater reaction to female violation of sex-roles makes perfect sense to me. My guess is that female sex-role violation involves a more “upward movement,” so to speak, than male sex-role violation. An upward movement in power and potential status presents a greater challenge to a group than downward movement.

2) The second reason the article caught my eye was due to article quotes by the researchers — the scientists — like this:

“It’s important for women to understand that judgment hurts everyone and that sexist judgment hurts women in particular.”

I don’t think I’m being sexist when I say that statements like the above strike me as non-scientific. Substitute “men” for “women” in the above and it would have struck me the same way. I’m pretty sure.

Why “non-scientific”? Because the #1 hat a scientists wears (or needs to) is that of an objective researcher. The over-arching goal is to discover what is. A strong belief or desire about what should be can get in the way of optimally objective science.

Of course, in the social sciences we find this dual role of professionals quite often. They do science and they do applied science. The try to understand the world and they try to solve problems in the world. For their to be a problem in the world, there must be a should not condition. Which is a value judgment, and values can insidiously influence the working of our minds.

Behavioral and social scientists have a tough task. They must often wear two hats. When doing the applied science, yes, keep the pure science hat on as well. Wear them both at once. But when doing the pure science, take off that “my job is to fix the world hat.” It could obscure your vision.

Technorati Links: psychology, social sciences

This NASA photo looks like a hole in the cosmos. Actually, it is of the Ring Nebula. (A nebula is a “A diffuse mass of interstellar dust or gas or both, visible as luminous patches or areas of darkness depending on the way the mass absorbs or reflects incident radiation.” [source]) The colors are the result of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation striking the instrument of observation here on Earth. If the Ring Nebula is a hole, that hole could be said to consist of a circular and semi-symmetrical discontinuity in received wavelengths of radiation. So no, don’t expect that you could fly through it as if traversing a portal into another realm.

The human mind comes primed to perceive the world in potentially helpful ways. But some of those ways may actually impede a more advanced understanding of the nature of the universe.

Consider this thought experiment: You witness a physics demonstration. First you observe a single diamond in an otherwise empty room. And by empty I mean no atmosphere: a complete vacuum. There is a count down and then an incredibly bright flash — despite the fact your are watching from behind a Fort-Knox grade wall with protective viewing screen. Where there once was a diamond there is now nothing. Absolutely nothing. No dust, no ash, no residue. The diamond has completely vanished.

In the least, our “knowledge” of object permanence has been violated. Wait, something can’t come from nothing or become nothing. But actually, it can, if we consider something to be mass and ignore the pure energy it has been converted into.

While my intellectual predispositions can go a long way in helping me to understand the universe, there may be times they actually get in the way.

Technorati Links: cosmos, philosophy

“Thou shalt be sensitive to other people’s feelings” is not one of the Ten Commandments. And it is probably a good thing. For some people would have difficulty living up it, through no fault of their own. It seems that more caring individuals may have acquired their noble trait not via prayer, but the genetic lottery-drawing that followed their mother and father having sex.

Here’s the scoop:

Researchers have discovered a genetic variation that may contribute to how empathetic a human is, and how that person reacts to stress. In the first study of its kind, a variation in the hormone/neurotransmitter oxytocin’s receptor was linked to a person’s ability to infer the mental state of others. [source]

Of course, in many cases, genes don’t completely determine our physical and psychological traits. The way I see it, they can set the range of possibilities for individual development. Nurture, or environmental input (disease, diet, learning experiences, etc.) will then determine where in a their own range of possibilities a person develops to. Still, there are limits, and each individual likely has a different range of what is possible for them.

If you can feel another person’s pain and respond humanely, don’t chalk it all up to spirituality. Thank the genes that control your oxytocin receptors.

Technorati Links: freethought, genetics, psychology

The unexpected can startle us in both unwelcome ways (think Halloween prank) and in ways that tickles our brains and emotions with pleasing novelty.

The first time I saw the above blossom I was tickled . . . pleased. I had not expected the pure white bracts to yield a bright red flower.

Humor likely relies on the unexpected as well. But the unexpected element can’t be so “far out” that it doesn’t make sense. Consider this from the Onion:

Montessori School Of Dentistry Lets Students Discover Their Own Root Canal Procedures

NEW YORK—Inside the Montessori School of Dentistry, you won’t find any old-fashioned cotton swabs, or so-called periodontal charts, or even any amalgam fillings. That’s because at this alternative-learning institution, students are being encouraged to break away from medical tradition and discover their very own root canal procedures.

Engaging in off-the-cuff speculation here, for humor to work, there must be a convention to be violated. Aha! Your expectations set you up for this but you got that!

Some of us may be drawn to skepticism for similar convention-violating experiences. People thinks this but the truth is that.

Hmm. How to put that last idea to a test? What about this. Check out The 124th Meeting Of The Skeptics’ Circle. See if you detect any clash of expectations.

Then again, sometimes it can be pleasing to have expectations confirmed. Darn. Maybe the matter is not that simple.

Technorati Links: humor, photography, skepticism

As a skeptic I tend to question everything. Furthermore, I doubt the implausible, and, yes, will ridicule the ridiculous. While the recent news of a near-miraculous psychological treatment doesn’t rise to the level of ridicule-worthy, upon reading about it a slew of red flags came to mind. It struck me as implausible, and so I doubt. See if you spot any red flags.

1) The title:

Full recovery now possible for an ‘untreatable’ mental illness

Wow. That’s quite a claim. “Full recovery.” How many treatments for serious mental illness lead to full recovery? Not many. Instead, they more often provide relief, with a significant number of individuals experiencing relapse. Also, what was the time frame for determining that a “full recovery” had been achieved? It seems that after 3 years of treatment, “full recovery” was maintained through to the fourth. Hmm. Was the outcome gauged by therapist evaluation, client responses to a questionnaire?  So many questions.

2) The claims:

In one study Schema Therapy was shown to be more than twice as effective in bringing about full recovery as a widely-practiced traditional treatment (Transference Focused Psychotherapy). Schema Therapy was also found to be more cost-effective and to have a much lower dropout rate. In a second study group schema therapy led to even stronger outcomes than those in the previous investigation over a briefer period with a 0% drop out rate and a recovery rate of 94% over an 8 month period.[bold added]

A “0% drop out rate and a recovery rate of 94% over an 8 month period”? Are you kidding me? That is unheard of and borderline miraculous. Big red flag. I’m not saying the finding is bogus, but, from what I know about psychology, my plausibility meter is waving wildly.

3) The treatment itself: “Schema Therapy.”

Schema Therapy is an integrative approach, founded on the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy, then expanded to include techniques and concepts from other psychotherapies. Schema therapists help patients to change their entrenched, self-defeating life patterns – or schemas — using cognitive, behavioral, and emotion-focused techniques. The treatment focuses on the relationship with the therapist, daily life outside of therapy, and the traumatic childhood experiences that are common in this disorder. Dr. Young believes that Schema Therapy’s greater effectiveness arises in part from its use of “limited reparenting,” which is not part of other approaches to BPD.[bold added]

Jargon alert! If you didn’t catch a whiff of pseudoscience (at least of the immature-science variety) in the above, you need only to follow the link to the website, www.schematherapy.com. With some digging I discovered this additional information about the treatment, which is based on, what else but . . .

Schema Theory:

The four main concepts in the Schema Therapy model are: Early Maladaptive Schemas, Schema Domains, Coping Styles, and Schema Modes.

The 18 Early Maladaptive Schemas are self-defeating, core themes or patterns that we keep repeating throughout our lives.

The 5 Schema Domains relate to the basic emotional needs of a child. When these needs are not met in childhood, schemas develop that lead to unhealthy life patterns. The 18 schemas are grouped into 5 broad schema domains, on the basis of which core needs the schema is related to. [source][bold added]

Four concepts and 18 maladaptive schemas and 5 schema domains? I think they left out the partridge in a pear psychoanalytic tree. Sounds like pseudoscience to me. Or the sales pitch to a pyramid scheme. And speaking of sales, did you know that you can become a certified Schema Therapist? Yes, but it will cost you.

4) The Marketing (from the Schema Therapy website)

In particular, we plan to offer two levels of training and certification: Standard Certification (approximately $4900 USD) and Intensive Advanced Certification (approximately $7900 USD). We will provide more details in February. [source]

Another red flag. Or two. I wonder if in the studies cited the therapy was performed by certified Schema Therapists (what, no trademark?). If so, did the therapists also perform the evaluations? Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to access the full source articles.

A final red flag: In my online digging I discovered a brochure for Schema Therapy from 2007. Two years back it was already being touted as a “Breakthrough Treatment.” By those selling training sessions for it.

Is the finding bogus? I don’t know. I await further research by truly neutral third parties.

One thing I do know: concepts such as 18 maladaptive schemas and 5 schema domains, makes Schema Therapy immature science if not pseudoscience. Seems to be a contemporary equivalent of “theories” such as Freud’s outdated personality structure of the Id, Ego, and Superego. These Freudian constructs are metaphorical at best, fully mythological at worst. As for the concepts touted by Schema Therapy, they likewise strike me as attractive, superficial reasoning, far removed from verifiable, real-world attributes. Solid science it ain’t. At least not yet.

Technorati Links: psychology, skepticism

What’s the above worth? Hint: x60 & think outside the box. And by box I mean U.S. border.

Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscopic image, puzzle

There do not exist two categories of information and knowing: scientific and not-scientific. Instead, there is a spectrum, from nonsense to weakly scientific to thoroughly scientific. As a case in point I present this bit of “science” found over at Eurekalert, the news-service website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Talking to ourselves: How consumers navigate choices and inner conflict

That doesn’t sound so bad. The title is purely metaphorical, right? Not quite.

The authors conducted a study combining in-depth interviews, multi-dimensional scaling, and metaphors to identify some of the voices that engage consumers’ minds. They used “dialogic self theory,” which differentiates between the “Meta-self” and multiple selves. According to the authors, multiple selves have unique perspectives and speak from different positions with relatively independent voices, while the Meta-self reflects a distanced neutral perspective.

Hope you didn’t choke on that psycho-babble of the academic sort, psychodynamic department. Really, the above is considered science. Yet how scientific is a statement like, “one self will take over and dominate, which can lead to inner conflict.” Mind you, the subjects in this study had not been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (previously, multiple-personality disorder).

Because psychology is my field, I feel qualified in saying that the above borders on pseudoscience. Maybe I’d call it immature science. For that sub-type of psychology to mature into a stronger sort of science, one glaring need would be for . . . here I go again . . . greater precision. In word use and then in measurement.

Allow me to end with a speculation. It seems to me that some individuals are drawn to pseudoscience for the vague jargon it employs. How is vague jargon attractive? One can inject all sorts of wishful-thinking bogosity into it as well as to extract from it beautifully meaningful but recklessly hasty conclusions.

Technorati Links: pseudoscience, psychology

Yesterday I took a knife to green flesh. No, I wasn’t battling an alien species that threatened my family or my concept of yard aesthetics. Unlike the above, possibly related life-form that I presently lack a name for, the vegetative flesh was that of basil plants. Maybe you can guess what I made with it. Hint: there was garlic, olive oil, and parmesan cheese involved, as well as other ingredients.

If scientists ever discover that plants have feelings, I have no idea what vegetarians are going eat.

Technorati Links: biology, photography

If you ask me, the “New Atheist” has not sharp claws, but merely a bigger megaphone and more blunt way of speaking. Nonetheless, he and she may be more cat-like than other non-believing types.

This cartoon from atheistcartoons.com got me thinking about it:

Many have said that trying to get atheists to work together is like herding cats. Maybe so. If so, I say, “great.” For in a robust democracy I believe these two elements are essential: a diversity of thought and a diversity of personalities expressing their thoughts.

But that’s just the opinion of one fairly cat-like dude.

Technorati Links: atheism, culture

Yesterday, in my “bitter about chocolate” post, I bitched about science writing that leaves out important information. Information that would bring greater precision to the reporting. Today I have a contrasting sample of science writing to share. Just look at the title:

Transcendental Meditation Helped Heart Disease Patients Lower Cardiac Disease Risks by 50 Percent

And it gets better –

The nine-year, randomized control trial followed 201 African American men and women, average age 59 years . . . .

The study found:

* A 47 percent reduction in the combination of death, heart attacks, and strokes in the participants
* Clinically significant (5 mm Hg average) reduction in blood pressure associated with decrease in clinical events

Excellent! Numbers galore! There is nothing more precise than numbers. Good science writing will use them.

So why does science writing for the general public too often avoid numbers like the plague? A couple reasons come to mind.

First, numbers are associated with math and equations and all that sterile, boring, academic stuff. Yet used the right way, numbers are just numbers and will not chase people away. Just as an advertisement touting not just a great sale, but a 30% off sale will likely generate greater interest.

Second, the use of numbers in science reporting can make the findings less dramatic. Rather than reporting that, say, a new study has shown that drinking wine will reduce your risk of a heart attack, to more precisely report that drinking wine will reduce your risk of a heart attack from a baseline of 10% chance to 8% . . . well, how large-font worthy is that? Still, it’s the truth. And including the numbers is more honest reporting. Better reporting.

I believe it is possible for good science writing to be exciting and precise. Yes, we may need to educate the general public about the true nature of most findings. Rather than full earthquakes of discovery, they are tremors. That is the nature of science. Let’s be honest about it.

Technorati Links: education, media, science