the evolving mind

What makes people happy? First, having their basic biological and psycho-social needs met: enough food to eat, a safe and comfortable place to live, limited stress, a number of supportive relationships, meaningful work (paid or unpaid)….

Second . . . um, here is where it gets complicated. More money? Nope. A more prestigious job? Nope.

So what makes some people happier than others once their basic needs are met? From the science on the topic I am aware of two things. 1) Personality. Some people simply have the genes and neuroanatomy that makes breaking into a smile easier. They generally feel better, whatever the ups and downs of life bring them. Doesn’t matter how their parents raised them; doesn’t matter if they have a god in their lives, etc. In terms of the fine structure of their brain and their balance of hormones and neurotransmitters, it seems they simply have “the right stuff.”

A new nation-wide statistical study on the average happiness levels in US has additionally found this: maybe the “littler things” can add up to a significant degree.

[T]hey found a very close correlation between people’s subjective life-satisfaction scores and objectively estimated quality of life. [source]

Andrew Oswald, of the University of Warwick, and Stephen Wu, of Hamilton College, identified lifestyle factors such as the following as playing a role in the happiness (as measured by a subjective life-satisfaction questionnaire):

precipitation; temperature; wind speed; sunshine; coastal land; inland water; public land; National Parks; hazardous waste sites; environmental ‘greenness’; commuting time; violent crime; air quality; student-teacher ratio; local taxes; local spending on education and highways; cost of living.

It seems that with other things being equal (basic needs met, individual personality), the rainfall your area gets, and a whole bunch of other factors, can influence well-being.

When I first moved to Florida I noticed this about my new area: store clerks and other service providers seemed so much nicer. Sunnier in disposition. Now I know why that may be so. While it is not “something in the water,” it could be a bunch of things in the wider environment that lend themselves to more satisfying life experiences. And so the greater number of genuine smiles and warm words.

But wait, if too many people move to Florida (as is happening) that quality of life could substantially decline. So for the sake of my own future happiness, let me go on record as saying Florida sucks!

Technorati Links: psychology, sociology

Just viewed this over at Pharyngula. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. Beautiful and moving. A “religious” experience for the scientifically-minded.

Technorati Links: cosmos, humanism

This science news headline didn’t surprise me:

More mental health care called for in wake of Ft. Hood shootings

Clearly, the Army-base shooting that claimed many lives was a catastrophe. But should we throw money, in form of more mental health care, into the wake of the event? Will it prevent future events (very, very, very rare events at that)?

Stephen M. Stahl from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine believes that improving the care on military bases such as Ft. Hood -

could help prevent future dire consequences to U.S. soldiers as well as to the health professionals who deliver such services.

As you might guess. I’m skeptical. First there is the data he used to establish “it’s broke.”

. . . findings from interviews, surveys and education programs at Ft. Hood – data collected from more than 100 mental-health workers and nearly 300 command soldiers just prior to the shooting – show a low level of confidence in army mental health care.

From there he makes suggestions as to how to “fix it.” This, too, I am skeptical of, as I am skeptical of the entire field of psychology — my field.

My own guess (informed bias?) is that an increase of expenditure and care would be better directed not at the mental health of individuals, but at the health and functioning of the social groups, of the communities individuals work in. The two, of course, are strongly interrelated. Improve individual health and you improve community health. Improve community health and you improve individual health. In this case, the cheaper option, the option that may provide more bang for the buck (oops — hopefully less), might be a focus on the health of working social groups.

Then there is this question: Is more care always better care? I wonder. And so I am skeptical. Even in the wake of a catastrophe.

Technorati Links: mental health, psychology

A new blog carnival was posted yesterday: the 126th edition of the Skeptics’ Circle.

If we held a skeptics’ pride parade in NY city, would all participants head off in different directions?

Maybe.

One trend I applaud in contemporary culture is that it seems squareness is becoming more hip. Or at least less square. If that’s possible.

Technorati Links: skepticism

It is winter in Central Florida. Which means that the verdant green landscape has turned browner. Not slate gray like in northern climates. But duller nonetheless.

As I look out my window, a few things tell me it isn’t summer.

- The neighbor’s dogwood tree is half naked. The remaining leaves are reddish/greenish/brownish. And limp.

- Similarly, the bald cypress tree in our yard has lost most of its soft needles. The remaining ones are a bleached green or a shade of brown.

- The birds at the feeder. Chipping sparrows and goldfinches come around only when their food up north runs scarce.

I wonder how changing seasons (thanks to a wobbly planet) have influenced human beliefs. How different would our metaphysics be if the temperature was a consistent 75 and trees held their leaves all year.

Technorati Links: climate, metaphysics

Certainly humans are more civilized than chimpanzees. At times, sure, it doesn’t seem by much. Just prior to typing this I was listening to a blues station that played a song with these lyrics: You can have my husband but don’t mess with my man. Get it? Our kind can certainly be sexual opportunists. Other “brutish” human behaviors readily come to mind: warfare, xenophobia, school yard bullying, soccer riots, paid prostitution for sex, Valentine candies for sex, etc. Maybe it’s just me, but most television programming would make more sense if the actors were covered with fur. Oh yah, now I can see what’s really going on.

By definition human beings are the most civilized species. The online dictionary, thefreedictionary.com, provides this on civilized:

Having a highly developed society and culture.

“Highly” is certainly the operative word here. Chimps do live in implicitly organized, social groups that pass on behavioral habits (customs) to their offspring. So the difference is one of degree. At least beyond the gadgets, goods and tools provided by high technology that the vast majority of us own and use but in no way deserve credit for developing.

Still, chimps can be quite brutish, indeed. Is the bonobo a “more civilized” cousin better suited to be first-in-line for comparison to our kind? Consider sexual behavior. (Sexual behavior and civility? Yes. Hang with me.) Female bonobos are in a sexual attractive state for 3/4 of their cycle (chimps – 1/2); they have more forward-facing openings to their vagina and, not surprisingly, engage in frequent face-to-face sexual intercourse. (11)

How does this pertain to being more civil, more community-friendly? It is believed that frequent, face-to-face sexual activity can help establish and maintain a pair bond. And pair bonds (monogamous behavior) leads to family-friendly, less strife-filled communities.

In a sense, political conservatives have it right. Strong pair bonds can play a role in a more tranquil society. Of course, their insistence on procreation-only sex is ludicrous. In humans and in bonobos, they idea is frequent sex for the sake of social relations.

But here’s the thing. Bonobos don’t form long-lasting male-female pair bonds. In a sense, they extend their sexuality further into their social group. At times they seem to use it as the equivalent of the human handshake. And, brace yourself, female-to-female clitoral rubbing is fairly common.

So while both the bonobo and human appear to use sexuality as a sort of social glue (lubricant?), with humans the sphere of seeming recreational sexual activity is at least overtly constrained to the pair bond (or pre-pair bond).

Relevantly, primatologist Frans de Waal includes discussion of bonobo sexuality in his book, Peacemaking Among Primates. If humans engage in “make-up” sex, bonobos are masters at it.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

For years now, teachers have been teaching other teachers that there are different learning styles — visual, auditory — and that it pays to tailor your teaching to the student’s style. But maybe it ain’t so. A recent report in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest has seriously questioned that assertion.

Do teachers of teachers need to go back to the black board and begin teaching differently? May be. But before the old is erased and replaced with the completely new, there is some homework to be done. And by “homework” I mean research. It seems the problem is with the first batch.

What was the problem? The report -

reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as “auditory learners” and “visual learners”), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible. [source]

Oops. Of course, the problem can be remedied. Maybe there really is something to “the notion that teaching methods should match a student’s particular learning style.” But maybe there isn’t.

The final sentence of the news release might be a bit overstated, but valid:

Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.

Interestingly, the initial title to the Eurekalert post was also a bit overstated: Learning styles debunked. Overnight it was changed to Learning styles challenged.

See, people can learn.

Technorati Links: education, research

Once in my life, many years ago, I was fortunate enough to view an episode of the “Northern Lights” (Aurora Borealis) that just about knocked my socks off.

It would have had to knock my heavy winter boots off, first, for I was standing in the middle of a snow-crusted cornfield in northern Vermont. So intense was the display that I half suspected someone had slipped a hit of LSD into my maple syrup.

Alas, I no longer live in Vermont. No more northern lights for me. But wait. I am heading to the Green Mountain State this x-mas season. There is hope for me yet. In the least I’ll get to sample some very fine syrup. At best, I’ll have my socks knocked off.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, Northern Lights

I am liberal in my political leanings, but also generally skeptical. Regardless of the cause a claim might aid, I tend to question it.

And that is the case with a recent finding touted with this headline: Debunking fears: Latino growth does not boost crime.

In the lead paragraph I encountered a sentence which raised a red flag in my mind. See if it raises one in yours:

[A] new study from North Carolina State University debunks those fears [of increased crime and more], showing that the introduction of Latinos contributes to positive changes, not negative ones.

The flag? Gross-simplification alert. It seems to me that the introduction of Latinos to a community would involve a whole host of variables. What Latinos (from where, what age, what job skills, etc., etc.)? What communities (how large, how diverse, how affluent or not, job availability, etc., etc.)?

And as for the changes “contributed to,” they were all positive? Were all measured?

Some of my questions were answered by a description of the study, which was based on data from “the U.S. Census and other sources”:

The study examined the effects of significant Latino population growth between 1990 and 2000 in nonmetropolitan “boomtowns,” which emerged as Latinos arrived to fill new jobs in low-wage industries, especially meat processing.

Huh? From that kind of circumscribed data, they have debunked fears and shown that the introduction of Latinos contributes to positive changes only?

Mind you, it may be the case. But I’m skeptical. This finding may also be a case of adroit data-mining.

My own guess is that if you introduced a large number of Latinos into a non-boomtown area, the results might be different. Just as the case would likely be if introducing a large number of Canadians (of similar affluence, education, etc.).

Yes, there is too much stupid xenophobia in our society. But let’s not attempt to counter-act it with bogusly big claims generated by relatively weak science.

Better writing, more scientific writing, might have generated a title and content worded something like this alternative: “Challenging fears: Latino population growth alone not linked to crime.”

Technorati Links: politics, race, skepticism

Can something be beautiful and humorous at the same time? Excuse the armchair conjecture here, but it seems to me that humor involves, in part, viewing something non-seriously, while the perception of beauty relies upon a seriousness, albeit one with positive emotional hues.

Put another way, can you perceive something as beautiful while giggling?

Hmm. Maybe if two distinct parts of your brain are simultaneously active.

The above photo is of white crepe myrtle blossoms. Below, a news headline from the Onion.

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

Members of the earth’s earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

Funny.

Beautifully humorous?

Technorati Links: beauty, humor, perception, photography