Mar 29 2010
Here’s a sampling of the past week’s posts at my new blog:
The Difference Between Resurrection and a Donut
Education No Extinguisher for Terrorism
An Incomplete Finding on High-Fructose Corn Syrup
And more . . .
Mar 21 2010
I’ve got a whole bunch of new posts over at 360 Degree Skeptic. Including:
Bogus Science Claim: Mind-Reading Researchers
It’s Not the Failure, It’s the Journey
Mar 13 2010
Recent posts over at my new site:
And others.
Mar 09 2010
Newest posts over at my new site:
The View From My Bunker
On Deicide – The Murder of a Supernatural Being
Research on Spirituality Misses the Point
Click on the 360Skeptic icon in the left sidebar to go there.
Mar 08 2010
My blog has officially gone to a new home. At that home I have just posted an article by this title: Skeptical of Research Linking Video Games With Violence
If you are a regular reader, please head on over. And if you encounter any problems, as I’m still working the bugs out, let me know.
Thanks.
Andrew
Mar 07 2010
Wow. The cartoonist even got the dress right. Almost. At least relative to the buttoned-up dudes who peddle their brand of mythology in my neighborhood.
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
Mar 07 2010
Can infants receive a message about their environment — about how they should behave once up and about, to better fit it — from the milk they drink from their mother’s breast?
That would be something. And a new study of rhesus macaque monkeys suggests that it does happen. Sort of.
In a ScienceDaily article, Baby Monkeys Receive Signals Through Their Mother’s Breast Milk That Affect Behavior and Temperament, I learned . . .
Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution and the University of California, Davis are using this natural variation in breast milk quality and quantity to show that a mother’s milk sends a reliable signal to infants about their environment. This signal may program the infant’s behavior and temperament according to expectations of available resources and discourages temperaments that prove risky when food is scarce. [bold mine]
In the experiment, the researchers manipulated one variable, the richness of mothers’ milk (via their diets) to see if it would influence another variable, the subsequent temperament and behavior of the infants fed on this milk. And yes, they discovered a difference.
At 3 to 4 months old, each infant was temporarily separated from its mother and assessed according to its behavior and temperament. The study found that infants whose mothers had higher levels of milk energy soon after their birth coped more effectively (moved around more, explored more, ate and drank) and showed greater confidence (were more playful, curious and active). Infants whose mothers had lower milk energy had lower activity levels and were less confident when separated from their mother.
While this finding is very interesting, as a critical thinker I am left with questions. Here are two:
1. Can we really use words like signal and message to describe what transpires? Those words imply both a sort of information sent, vs. say, a molecular triggering, as they also imply an intellectual deciphering of the information. This, I believe, is misleading to some degree.
2. Is it possible that the quality of a mother’s milk reflects her social status as much as it does the general availability of food in the environment? Mothers at the bottom of the macaque hierarchy, and macaques are extremely hierarchically-oriented animals, may have lesser access to quality foods and greater exposure the stress and factors that could influence the quality of their milk. To me, this would make good sense of an infant’s subsequently less-risky behavior. When your mother is at the bottom of the hierarchy and/or has poor quality relationships, and your mother is your number one form of early social support, it pays not to behave in a risky manner. Walk more softly, otherwise you could get chased and bitten and perhaps exiled to social Siberia. Which isn’t good for survival. Hmm.
Nonetheless, the data generated from the study, an experiment, provided me with good food for thought. So to speak.
Mar 06 2010
Man, wouldn’t it be cool to walk the surface of Mercury?
Yet, if you did it every day . . . ho-hum?
Due to psychology mechanisms such as habituation (with repeated exposure to a stimuli we respond more and more weakly), novel events tend to excite us more.
Before I head out into my relatively rich and wild backyard (relative to Mercury’s desert landscape) to do some gardening, I wish I could shake the bulk of my familiarity with it from my mind. My experience would be less tedious and more WOW!
[photo thanks to NASA]
Mar 06 2010
As recently reported in the journal Psychological Science, new research has found correlations between both the amount of talk a person engages in, the type of talk, and their reported happiness.
What was the source of their data? Good question.
Volunteers [doesn't say how many] wore an unobtrusive recording device called the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) over four days. This device periodically records snippets of sounds as participants go about their lives. For this experiment, the EAR sampled 30 seconds of sounds every 12.5 minutes yielding a total of more than 20,000 recordings. Researchers then listened to the recordings and identified the conversations as trivial small talk or substantive discussions. In addition, the volunteers completed personality and well-being assessments. [bold mine; source]
The research findings include two noteworthy results.
1) Greater well-being was related to spending less time alone and more time talking to others: The happiest participants spent 25% less time alone and 70% more time talking than the unhappiest participants. [bold mine]
“Related to” = there was a correlation. Causal?
2) The happiest participants had twice as many substantive conversations and one third as much small talk as the unhappiest participants.
I must give the article writer kudos for including numbers. With numbers a vague statement like “more time talking” becomes more precise.
So, what does the above mean? Are happier people happier becomes they more readily express their feelings, their thoughts about matters important to them? Maybe. Before engaging in my own analysis, I’ll share the researchers’:
These findings suggest that the happy life is social and conversationally deep rather than solitary and superficial. The researchers surmise that — though the current findings cannot identify the causal direction — deep conversations may have the potential to make people happier. They note, “Just as self-disclosure can instill a sense of intimacy in a relationship, deep conversations may instill a sense of meaning in the interaction partners.” [bold mine]
Again, kudos for acknowledging the inability to jump from a correlation to causation. Which brings us to this: “Deep conversations may have the potential to make people happier.” May have — good. But there are a number of things that I suspect are involved, including these:
A. Happier people are likely more inclined to engage in conversation and perhaps even have the emotional fortitude to venture into deeper conversations. In this case, the arrow of causation between the correlated variables would be the opposite of the implied.
B. Extroverted individuals, on average, score higher on measures well-being. And extroverts are more driven to engage in conversation. If not controlled for, it is possible that this other variable caused increases in both talk, depth of talk, and happiness.
To me, a most likely scenario includes a bi-directional influence between talk and happiness, with other factors, including personality, exerting influence as well. The bi-directional element would consist of this: People who feel more comfortable with themselves and accepted by others are more likely to engage in more intimate conversations. Likewise, people who are capable of engaging in appropriate self-disclosure with others will likely develop intimate relationships with others — and talk is by-and-large how we form and maintain relationships — and subsequently feel better about their condition.
As social creatures we feel better when we have people in our lives who understand and accept us. We feel secure when we have relationships we can trust and rely upon. Security in relationships equals a healthy and satisfied social self. And perhaps we can throw into the mix an element of self-efficacy. People who have developed and maintained “deeper” relationships subsequently have the confidence that they can form new relationships if and when needed.
Can more substantive talk make us happier? Sure, if it helps build and maintain quality relationships. And that’s what all this talk about talk boils down to — in my opinion. The ability to forge and sustain relationships.
Mar 05 2010
Is there a reason why the above rose leaf is so beautifully rimmed with water droplets? It depends on what we mean by reason.
Many words carry a number of definitions and and even greater amount of connotations.
If by reason we mean an understood cause, yes, there is a reason (a number of mechanisms, actually) that explain how the leaf and water came to look like that.
If by reason we mean a purpose for it, or even intent behind it . . . that’s another question.
Before answering a question, the critical thinker will frequently ask questions of the question. No, not to be a pain in the butt, but to clarify the inquiry so as to better understand and answer.
Feeds