the evolving mind

People fond of simple answers would prefer if there were a clean line in the sand, so to speak, between life and non-life–between what we categorize as “alive” and what call “inanimate.” But the more you examine the boundary, and refine the definition that creates the boundary, you encounter many problems. Like the virus. And, more recently, the prion.

An article I found over at ScienceDaily illustrates the point. The ground-breaking news:

…prions, bits of infectious protein devoid of DNA or RNA that can cause fatal neurodegenerative disease, are capable of Darwinian evolution.

Prions evolve?! If not ground-breaking, this news is at least sand-sweeping. Where’s that clean line between life and not?

Here are some important points drawn from the article:

1. Infectious prions (short for proteinaceous infectious particles) are associated with some 20 different diseases in humans and animals, including mad cow disease and a rare human form, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
2. Prions have the ability to reproduce, despite the fact that they contain no nucleic acid genome.
3. In viruses, mutation is linked to changes in nucleic acid sequence that leads to resistance. Now, this adaptability has moved one level down — to prions and protein folding — and it’s clear that you do not need nucleic acid for the process of evolution.”

As a final exclamation point, the tail section of the article carries this sub-head: “Quasi-Species.”

If there is a line in the sand, it is quite quasi.

Technorati Links: biology, evolution

“The war on Christmas” spilled no blood. So please quit tooting that bogus horn. Please.

[cartoon thanks to http://www.jesusandmo.net/]

Technorati Links: freethought

Why are boys better in math?

Wait, back up a minute. Do boys excel in math more than girls? If so, beyond the achievement, is there a difference in ability? Recent research says: Worldwide study finds few gender differences in math abilities

Seems like the researchers, with Nicole Else-Quest as the lead author of this meta-analysis, had at least a good quantity of data to base their findings upon:

Else-Quest and her fellow researchers examined data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Programme for International Student Assessment, representing 493,495 students ages 14-16 from 69 countries.

Their noteworthy and potentially important conclusion -

The finding that girls around the world appear to have less confidence in their mathematical abilities could help explain why young girls are less likely than boys to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

In the past I have speculated that the difference between male and female performance in math may boil down to a difference in interest level over innate ability. Of course, it is possible that the difference in interest could be, in part, innate.

The reason I think “interest” could be important in terms of whether or not we excel in some area or not, is that I can see how it would directly translate into motivation. Motivated individuals tend to “go farther” in the area of their interest. The researchers made mention of this as well.

Despite overall similarities in math skills, boys felt significantly more confident in their abilities than girls did and were more motivated to do well.

A number of things likely influence our motivation level, both innate and learned/acquired. Perhaps any gender gap in math achievement could be narrowed if, from an early age, girls were taught that math was “their thing.” I wonder.

Technorati Links: education, gender

That doesn’t happen very often. Walking with the dogs in our yard this morning, I got hit atop the head with hail. In Florida. Okay, the hail was half the size of peppercorns. But frozen stuff it was.  Actually, sleet is probably a better word for it.

It’s been a weird week of cold weather. Many many plants look like lettuce that has been placed in the freezer overnight, then thawed in the sink. A flaccid, dark brown/green. Some plants look fine, including our rose bushes. They are the wilder, more “ancient” variety (less tight blossoms with fewer petals). The plants that have weathered the cold better have thicker, waxier leaves it seems.

It is presently 32 degrees outside and looking like it’s going to be a gray day.

That is the live forecast from my spot on the globe.

Technorati Links: nature photography, weather

A recent neurological study found a correlation between cell phone radiation and Alzheimer’s disease symptoms. An inverse correlation. Surprise, surprise!

The researchers showed that exposing old Alzheimer’s mice to electromagnetic waves generated by cell phones erased brain deposits of the harmful protein beta-amyloid, in addition to preventing the protein’s build-up in younger Alzheimer’s mice.

Ok, the “highly-controlled” research was on mice. Still. The news release title read:

Cell phone exposure may protect against and reverse Alzheimer’s disease

At this point in time, what do we know about cell phone use and risks to the brain? Doesn’t seem that cell phones cause cancer. But they might help reduce your risk of Alzheimer’s.

Man, sometimes science is stranger than fiction.

Technorati Links: cell phones, health

It’s Friday. Thank Gawd for that. Actually, maybe we should thank social custom/convention for it. For if no one agreed it was Friday, it wouldn’t be Friday.

What is Friday? This is what the Online Etymological Dictionary says:

O.E. frigedæg “Frigga’s day,” (see Frigg), Gmc. goddess of married love, a W.Gmc. translation of L. dies Veneris, “day of (the planet) Venus,” which itself translated Gk. Aphrodites hemera. Cf. O.N. frijadagr, O.Fris. frigendei, M.Du. vridach, Du. vrijdag, Ger. Freitag “Friday,” and the L.-derived cognates O.Fr. vendresdi, Fr. vendredi, Sp. viernes. In the Gmc. pantheon, Freya (q.v.) corresponds more closely in character to Venus than Frigg does, and some early Icelandic writers used Freyjudagr for “Friday.”

Okay. How’s this: Today is the day–in a human-constructed pattern–preceding a day I do less office work. Yahoo!

If I punched a clock, today would be the day I before two sleep cycles without punching.

Party!

Technorati Links: culture, time

Good science is specific and accurate. Some recent psychological research seems not-so-good in that regard. Though the topic is important. Under the headline, Study shows serious emotional disturbances among children after Katrina, I learned -

A team made up of mental health professionals, emergency response experts, and researchers from several universities, including Virginia Tech, has published the results of a study that shows serious emotional disturbances among children who were affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Is “a team” of data-collectors from various fields better than, say, a couplet of highly specialized scientists? Sure, a team may be better for generating a greater quantity of data. But what about the quality?

What qualified as “serious emotional disorders” (SED)? Good question.

Characteristics of SED include inappropriate behavior, depression, hyperactivity, eating disorders, fears and phobias, and learning difficulties.

Oh lard. What a laundry list. Not very specific, to say the least. With a lasso that large (and potentially fraught with subjective interpretation), the data-collecting-cowboys may have caught more than should have been caught.

So what, precisely, did they find? Fortunately, some precision in the findings is presented. They give us hard numbers. Kudos for that.

the estimated prevalence of serious emotional disturbances (SED) among residents of the affected areas was 14.9 percent. Of those, 9.3 percent of youths were believed to have SED that was directly attributable to Hurricane Katrina.

Of course, the message that will be drawn from this is likely to be: Children are vulnerable and can be harmed by traumas such as natural disasters. And there is likely a bit of truth to this.

But wait a minute. What about this conclusion: Children are remarkably resilient in the wake of profound trauma? Less than one in ten, after all, qualified as having one of the laundry-list emotional disturbances. And the children actually faired better than the adults!

A member of the research team said this:

“The prevalence of SED among youths exposed to Hurricane Katrina remains high 18 to 27 months after the storm,” Jones said. “This suggests a substantial need for mental health treatment resources in the hurricane-affected areas.”

Suggests indeed. But, again, wait a minute. Is Jones assuming that, given the problem, “mental health treatment resources” would actually accomplish something? Careful scientists don’t make such assumptions.

And there is reason to doubt that assumption. One day prior to reading the above I came across the following science news release and finding:

No evidence to support psychological debriefing in schools

Recent systematic reviews indicate that psychological debriefing of adults does not prevent post-traumatic stress disorder and it may even increase the risk of this disorder.

So before we rush in to help, we should attempt to honestly determine if our attempts to help will actually accomplish something.

Technorati Links: psychology, trauma

How primitive is our understanding of the cosmos? It’s relative. But not completely so.

How can we honestly gauge intellectual progress? In the least, by the technology (which relies upon predictive power) our current understanding produces. At best? That’s a topic for a more in-depth post.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, post-modernism

“The behavior of bonobos, unfortunately, is much less well known than that of chimps, and further study might reveal a darker side to their natures.” – Paul Ehrlich (19)

Compared to gorillas and chimpanzees, bonobos have some physical proportions that suggest movement toward the human. For example, their skulls are smaller to overall body size.(20) Do bonobos likewise have behavioral traits that suggest movement away from the more ‘barbarian’ ape toward the more ‘civilized’ human? While a number of people have described the bonobo as a relatively egalitarian ape (an early form of the liberal democrat?), many recognize some of the factors, rather than an innate goodness, that contribute to the behavioral differences we describe as more egalitarian.

Frans de Waal, in Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, says this about the bonobo: “They are better described as tolerant than egalitarian.”(21) In his book about the roots of human egalitarian behavior, USC biological anthropologist Christopher Boehm recognizes that the strength of female coalitions ‘puts a lid on’ the heirarchical strivings of male bonobos.(22) Lacking the strong female coalitions, how would the males behave?

Besides the above question, and pertinent to it, is it possible that our limited understanding of bonobos has misled us? In Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Ehrlich noted,

“Although bonobos are not as well studied as chimpanzees, we do known that there are also many aggressive interactions among males of that species. Individuals hit, bite, slap, shove, grab, and otherwise abuse one another and use a variety of bluffing and charging displays. Aggression by a dominant male is countered with various submissive reactions by lower-ranking males, including appeasing the aggressor by permitting him to mount.” (23)

Hmm. Maybe bonobos aren’t all that different from chimpanzees. Has the positive been accentuated to a degree that distorts? Besides all the seemingly friendly sex and lack of a preeminent male dominance structure, bonobo males do threaten one another by glaring and gesturing, as they also make submissive signs via hand-extension and prostrations. (24)

Perhaps the observed behavioral differences between chimpanzees and bonobos is not so much about their innate nature as it is about differing environments. Maybe both the chimp and the bonobo are somewhat like Swiss Army knives (less so than humans, of course), and their evident “nature” will change along with local conditions. Two naturally manipulated variables that confront the bonobo, and likely shape its behavior, are likely key to their relatively placid demeanor.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

I recently read a blog post, and listened to a podcast, about what to do when confronted with a family member or friend that . . . subscribes to patent nonsense. Call it woo, whether it be religious, paranormal or other.  I got to thinking. I’d here like to share my two cents.

1. Responding to woo is not an all or nothing affair. There are more options than these two: either you go guns blazing and blast that b.s. out of the air or you remain politely silent — an act that could be misinterpreted as tacit agreement.

Instead, your response can be individually tailored according to a number of important factors: the what of the belief, the who of the believer, the how of your relationship to the believer.

2. It is my aspiration to get better at gently planting seeds of doubt in the minds of family members and friends when confronted by their woo. Rather than tearing down another person’s beliefs, the more effective approach for me might be to explain how I arrived at my own position, in effect building it up. Perhaps more importantly, beyond any specific issue I hope to generally model an fair-minded yet skeptical attitude through asking good questions and expressing the educational virtues of curiosity and rationality.

Of course, my thinking about confrontations over beliefs may merely reflect my own preference for how to be corrected when wrong. I rarely respond well to being publicly bitch-slapped by the truth. Instead, I appreciate having a breadcrumb-trail of clues placed before me so I may make the progress and then own the conclusion myself.

Technorati Links: education, skepticism