Feb 23 2010
I’m allergic to nature. No, not all of it. Dust mites, some molds, and apparently to a yellow tree pollen I noticed yesterday had finely dusted our car. This morning I am sneezing and blowing my nose. What tree produced it? I don’t know. The few species of holly within 100 feet of the driveway (one photographed above)? The laurel or live oaks? The long-need pine? Hmmm. I don’t. Maybe I ought to find out. Then I could be more specific about my allergy to nature.
Feb 23 2010
“Egalitarianism is not based on mutual love and even less on passivity. It’s an actively maintained condition that recognizes the universal human desire to control and dominate. Instead of denying the will to power, egalitarians know it all too well. They deal with it every day….In egalitarian societies, men tying to dominate others are systematically undermined, and male pride is frowned upon.” – Franz de Wall (8)
While social groups with a power structure categorizable as egalitarian may attain and benefit from a relatively harmonious state of social relationships lacking in physical violence and resource inequity (in access or possession), it would be naive to conclude that these social groups rely on completely different psychological elements from which they the structure is built. Certainly, in more egalitarian societies non-paternalistic philanthropic feelings can florish. Goodwill towards all mankind and all that. But are the building blocks of such societies different, or is just the end result?
My guess is just the end result. For even today people endowed with the same social propensities can build and function within a full range of social structures, from brutally despotic to pervasively empathic and compassionate. What determines the social structure individuals build? A number of key things, as we will see. However, at this point it may be advantageous to identify how human psycho-social building blocks can be differently employed.
While it may appear that in egalitarian societies people care more about one another, what makes the structure it is may consist of an effective group monitoring and disapproval of individuals with hierarchical strivings. As the lead quote maintains. Despots, in effect, are nipped in the bud. Exclusively selfish, violent strivings are governed down by tacit group rule. Rather than social power not being an issue in these societies, the power is spread much thinner. And so it is more difficult to recognize.
Rather than a society of “all roses and lute music,” more egalitarian structures are those in which individual vigilance and striving remain, but are put to the task of keeping others from dominating. Rather than an attitude of “who might beat me?” and “who might I beat?” there is one of “who might cheat the system?” and perhaps, “how might I cheat?”
It is, of course, fully possible if not likely that egalitarian societies contain happier citizens, on average. Some roses and lute music. My guess is that there might even be measurably lower average cortisol levels (9) in members due to the lesser threat of violence breaking out. That said, however, no social system is stress-free.
Of course, some of the satisfaction provided by more egalitarian societies might come not from perceptions that “we are all equal” but from the comfort that “few or none are better than me, and can thus boss me around.”
Consider the contemporary relationship between status and social esteem. Sure, owning a house is nice, but how nice is it when compared to the neighbors’? To your cohorts’? 1500 square feet may have been luxuriant in some other time, but don’t think a home that small is going to win you any wows today.
We are social animals. Not only do our social groups and the structure of these change, but the thinking and values of group members can change. One thing that doesn’t appear to change, however, is the our social nature, our inborn concern about what our groupmates are doing, how much they are esteemed by others. Relationships and coalitions are instinctively valued resource, even when food and mates are plentiful and/or can’t be hoarded by others.
—
(8) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 74
(9) Cortisol is a stress hormone.
Feb 23 2010
I’m not fond of the term “debunk.” It implies that something was fully bunk to begin with and then was thoroughly “de”-ed.
A news release at ScienceDaily last week got me thinking about it. The title read, Study Debunks Millennia-Old Claims of Systematic Infant Sacrifice in Ancient Carthage
With a title like that I expected to encounter a slam-dunk argument. But check out the lead paragraph [bold mine].:
A study led by University of Pittsburgh researchers could finally lay to rest the millennia-old conjecture that the ancient empire of Carthage regularly sacrificed its youngest citizens. An examination of the remains of Carthaginian children revealed that most infants perished prenatally or very shortly after birth and were unlikely to have lived long enough to be sacrificed, according to a Feb. 17 report in PLoS One.
And that debunks? Okay, the title was likely written from the U of Pitt publicity department, or something, and not the researchers themselves. But a quote by the lead researcher and argumentation further into the body of the piece raises similar questions. [Again, bold mine.]
“Our study emphasizes that historical scientists must consider all evidence when deciphering ancient societal behavior,” Schwartz said. “The idea of regular infant sacrifice in Carthage is not based on a study of the cremated remains, but on instances of human sacrifice reported by a few ancient chroniclers, inferred from ambiguous Carthaginian inscriptions, and referenced in the Old Testament. Our results show that some children were sacrificed, but they contradict the conclusion that Carthaginians were a brutal bunch who regularly sacrificed their own children.”
Okay, we’ve got to consider all evidence. I assume some of that evidence is the weak stuff of the reports and inscriptions mentioned. Still. And, get this, the researchers’ results show that some infants were indeed sacrificed. But not as many as assumed. Um, does this qualify as a debunking? Moving a line of degree of something doesn’t seem to rise to that level, if you ask me.
And if you do ask me, debunking is a description of an activity better suited to Scoobie-Doo and his gang when they pull back a curtain to reveal the guy running the projector of the ghost image haunting some poor dupes. Now that’s a debunk.
Feb 22 2010
Feb 22 2010
Gee, maybe the cliché is wrong. Perhaps you’ve heard it: It’s not the destination, but the journey.
New research suggests that at least when it comes to vacations, the statement ought to be revised this way: It’s not the destination, but having one and planning for it.
A study published in the online in journal, Applied Research in Quality of Life, shared this finding:
[V]acationers tend to be happier than non-vacationers in the lead up to their break, but once they are back, there is very little difference between the two groups’ levels of happiness. [source]
Happy anticipation. A sweet emotion.
And speaking of anticipation (what a lame segue!), I anticipate heading over to the Gaytheists later today to check out this post: Humanist Symposium: A Delightfully Gay Edition.
What will I find there? I don’t know about the destination, yet, but my journey over will bring me some sweet anticipation.
Feb 22 2010
Mood can influence your decisions. Not always, and perhaps not by much. But there is a growing body of research that demonstrates that thinking is not a purely cognitive (“mental”) activity. As mentioned yesterday, social context will influence it. Emotional state will too.
Recent research into mood and shopping decisions didn’t just compare good mood vs. bad, but two varieties of more pleasant moods. The news release posted at ScienceDaily included this summary of the results:
“We found that pride enhanced desire for public display products,” the authors write. “Feeling pride led people to want nice watches, shoes, and clothing for going out. However, pride did not enhance desire for home products.”
In contrast, the emotion of contentment led people to want products for their homes.
This research actually shows the influence of both emotion and social-emotion on decision-making. Interesting.
Why should findings like this be of interest to non-psychologists? Because any person aspiring to be a critical thinker should be aware of the many ways thought can be influenced. Including those ways outside of conscious awareness.
To know thyself is to understand how thinking can be skewed and to realize the importance of taking remedial counter-measures, whenever possible.
Feb 21 2010
The Holy Momma — as depicted in a humongous Sicilian house of worship.
Me, I prefer houses of pancakes.
Look at all that gold. And the crowns.
I am skeptical of skeptics who “are religious.” For it is a focus on facts, measurable, replicable, reliable facts, that does or at least should lead the skeptic. Not a superficially glittering argument, not a finery of worldview. Facts.
Feb 21 2010
Do human beings have free will? Well, what do you mean by will and what type of freedom? Seriously.
Students of psychology understand there are a number of things that severely challenge the notion of free will. First and foremost among these is the fact that we are social creatures that have been shaped by others and continue to be influenced by them. Socialization, enculturation, myriad types social learning experiences and events…. Social context has a strong influence on our behavior — even cognitive behavior — an influence we are largely ignorant of.
Recent research into altruism, of all things, demonstrates how our behavior can be influenced outside of conscious awareness.
I wrote, “of all things,” because by definition altruistic behavior requires putting aside selfishness to help others. Which in a sense implies free will, for how else to you put aside selfishness?
As reported in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, and as it appeared in this EurakAlert news bulletin — Pay it forward: Elevation leads to altruistic behavior — the simple act of watching a video clip of other people expressing an inspired, caring attitude can change the likelihood that a person will choose to behavior altruistically.
The results revealed that participants who watched the uplifting TV clip were more likely to volunteer for another research study than volunteers who saw the neutral TV clip, suggesting that elevation may make us more willing to help others. However, anybody can say they will volunteer for a subsequent study or would be willing to help another person. The researchers wanted to see if elevation can result in actual helping behavior…..
The results of this second experiment were striking — the participants who viewed the uplifting TV clip spent almost twice as long helping the research assistant than participants who saw the neutral TV clip or the comedy clip, indicating that elevation may lead to helping behavior.
Additionally, when it comes to free will — the question whether I am ultimately free to do x or y, this important issue also surfaces: Where did and does the “I” come from? The whole notion of free will rests upon an illusion of pure agency. And in the case of altruism, how truly altruistic is it if the individual behaving unselfishly doesn’t have a fully autonomous self in the first place?
No man or woman is a psychological island. Beneath the sea of conscious awareness lies a substrate of social connectedness. One that shaped the present self and still influences it today.
Feb 20 2010
I’m sure it bothers many of you, too. To hear anyone with an alternative view, no matter how whacky and mis-informed, called a skeptic. So we have 911-skeptics, Holocaust-skeptics, vaccine-skeptics, and even evolution-skeptics.
The above is one of the reasons I am partly dissatisfied with the term, skeptic. The general nay-sayer connotation. To me, however, what makes a skeptic a true skeptic are attributes such as these: 1) an initial reaction to any claim with an attitude like this: “I wonder what the evidence is behind the claim?” 2) a commitment to scientific information, reasoning and critical thinking. And, perhaps most importantly, 3) a lack of a guiding commitment to a cause. Besides getting things right.
Consider the vaccine “skeptics.” I’m sure many of them consider themselves skeptics. And we skeptics are the ones being duped by big pharma and the government. But could we consider their general position as truly skeptical? I would say not. Why?
Most importantly, they seem to have prematurely arrived at a conclusion and are stuck there due to commitment to a cause. Their education on the matter is flawed/incomplete. They appear to lack a commitment to scientific information and critical thinking.
An article I found buried on my desk got me thinking about this: Refusing Chickenpox Vaccine Associated With Increased Risk of Disease.
The primary finding of the research was summed up in the lead -
Children whose parents refuse the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine appear more likely to develop the disease, according to a report in the January issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
Seems like good, basic information. No fear-mongering, just facts. Further down in the piece we get to this statement, which is relevant to the current situation we have of parents refusing to vaccinate their children because they have been poorly informed of the risks — one of them completely bogus (causing autism):
The findings suggest that if more parents refuse vaccines, the incidence of varicella and related complications also may increase over time, especially among individuals at high risk of severe infection (such as pregnant women, infants and those with compromised immune systems).
Frequently there is a selfishness underlying a guise of skepticism. Because I want to hate the government, I’m going to convince myself that 911 was a conspiracy. Because I hate something or other about Jews or the Jewish state, I’ll find a way to deny the Holocaust. Because I’m over-protective of my child, I’ll reduce its minuscule risk of complications by avoiding vaccines, and indirectly increase the risk of other children becoming ill.
Sometimes the selfishness can merely be a preference for maintaining one’s preferred worldview. The true skeptic, like the true scientist, is committed to the facts first, what they might imply comes later. Often it’s reversed in the pseudo-skeptic.
Speaking of facts. While the numbers weren’t great in the above mentioned chicken-pox study, at least the article provides them. Bravo for that.
Among the 133 children who developed chickenpox, seven (5 percent) had parents who refused the varicella vaccine, compared with three (0.6 percent) refusals among the 493 controls. “Compared with vaccine acceptors, children of vaccine-refusing parents had a nine-fold increased risk of varicella illness,” the authors write. “Overall, 5 percent of varicella cases in the study population were attributed to vaccine refusal. We believe these results will be helpful to health care providers and parents when discussing decisions about immunizing children.”
Yes. Provide information, good information, unbiased information, and let parents choose. Numbers are good information. Raw numbers have yet to be spun into an argument meant to persuade. And that is why they are better.
As an example of weaker science reporting, we have this news release: Cannabis Damages Young Brains More Than Originally Thought, Study Finds. This topic, too, is important and there are people who have very strong opinions about marijuana. If against it, they prefer to hear how bad it is for individual health and society in general. If for it, the opposite.
Me, I just want the facts.
In the article about cannabis damaging brains I encountered no numbers. No specific finding. Just this:
“Teenagers who are exposed to cannabis have decreased serotonin transmission, which leads to mood disorders, as well as increased norepinephrine transmission, which leads to greater long-term susceptibility to stress,” Dr. Gobbi stated.
Decreased by how much in how many subjects? Increased by how much? How much greater susceptibility? And how was it determined?
The lead paragraph of the article strikes me as advocating a position.
Canadian teenagers are among the largest consumers of cannabis worldwide. The damaging effects of this illicit drug on young brains are worse than originally thought, according to new research by Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, a psychiatric researcher from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The new study, published in Neurobiology of Disease, suggests that daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain.
I find this piece subtly biased. It skirts the line of engaging in fear-mongering. Of course, if I were selfishly anti-marijuana I would welcome the article. If selfishly pro-marijuana I’d find reasons to refute it. To deny its conclusions.
As a skeptic I am disappointed by the science reporting not so much for the minor slant I perceive, but because the quality of the information is weak. Where are the specifics, the numbers, the facts?
Job one for the skeptic seeks out information. Not information guided by their pre-existing position, thus likely to confirm it. Rather, he or she seeks out the best, most reliable information available. Specific information, information not yet spun and packaged into emotional implications.
Feb 19 2010
Thanks to the Cassini spacecraft our eyes can appreciate this far-out view (in both senses of the term): Saturn’s moon Tethys “setting” behind it, with Saturn’s roughly 96% hydrogen atmosphere clearly visible. That image of those rocks, rocks!
[photo thanks to NASA]
Feeds
