As regular readers might guess, a recent news release of the science kind got me thinking about pleasure. Here’s the lead:

Many cancer patients in Europe are being denied access to adequate pain relief because of over-zealous regulations restricting the availability and accessibility of opioid-based drugs such as morphine. [source]

It additionally seems to me that many people have a biased view of pleasure, including relative pleasure (moving away from suffering), and when and how it’s okay to pursue it. For example: the upper-class guy who buys a powerful jet ski and spends an afternoon thrill-seeking before retiring to a bar veranda for a couple cold cocktails — perfectly acceptable. The dude in the depths of the slums taking drugs and consorting with his pals in an abandoned building — not okay.

Certainly, it’s not a simple issue. And in a well-functioning society we do need shared values. But black and white thinking about drugs, or jet skis, for that matter, is just not very enlightened. And in my estimation, not very humane, either.

Technorati Links: culture, drugs, pleasure

The above photo taken in our yard of ivy climbing a live oak got me thinking about the term “Ivy League.” These schools are notoriously prestigious. A place for Richie Rich and other affluent bastards to attend–those lucky guys and gals.

Of course, luck has little to do with attending a Harvard or Yale. Family connections and the benefits of upper-class resources, sure. You might say, however, that luck has something to do with the prosperity of these schools and, by consequence, their students. An argument could be made that the ivy of affluent education climbs upon a mass of work-generated surplus.

Face it. Education is expensive. When guys and gals are in school, they aren’t engaged in resource-generating work. In a sense, they live off the fat of the land. A fat produced and harvested by others.

Advanced education has affluence to thank for its existence. And, almost ironically, the affluent have the less-affluent to thank for the resources they benefit from. For crops don’t grow themselves, goods don’t manufacture themselves . . . etc.

So sure, go ahead a be proud you attended Princeton. But be thankful as well.

Technorati Links: affluence, education

In this coming series of posts (in this category — what will become a chapter in my Almighty Alpha book) I will examine the line between hierarchical social organizations (power progressively concentrated in the few or one at the top) and egalitarian (power more equitably shared by all).

Boehm himself concluded that whether or not Homo sapiens is a hierarchical species is a controversial issue. (2) And there are certainly those who argue that we are not, not by nature, anyway. Eight years before Boehm’s book appeared, Margaret Power released, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee. She wrote:

“In most gathering-hunting societies the woman occupies a position of prestige equal to that of the man and is recognized as being equally important.” (3)

While I might argue with the qualifier “most,” there are other, perhaps more important, issues raised by her statement. Two immediately come to mind: 1) How do we determine whether or not a society is egalitarian? Just knowing one by seeing one? That’s not very scientific. 2) Are there perhaps many shades of gray–social groups that are neither outright egalitarian nor outright hierarchical, but some hybrid of the two?

As for the most–really? For a single counter-point, there is this group of Amazon hunter-gatherers:

The Matses are polygamists with each man having one or more wives. Until recently, the Matses men commonly kidnapped and assimilated women from other tribes (or Peruvian and Brazilian women) into Matsés society. (4)

Okay, so maybe that is one exception to what is otherwise the rule. But what is the rule?

The Wikipedia entry on the subject has this:

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies. [bold mine] (5)

Are hunter-gatherer societies remarkably egalitarian? Some of them no doubt are, perhaps most. Apparently. I say apparently for two reasons. First, because a social group is not overtly hierarchical does not mean it is thus purely egalitarian. There can be types and degrees of both: more-hierarchical social structures and more-egalitarian. Second, because we don’t readily perceive the dynamics of power attainment, signaling and protection, for they could be quite subtle, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

The previously mentioned Christopher Boehm expressed an interesting perception of egalitarian social structures. He described them as “inverted hierarchies.” (6) In a traditional hierarchy, there is one individual at the top, keeping others down, so to speak. He or she may form coalitions to help fortify his/her position, but the top-most position is singular. In an egalitarian society, it is the “others,” functioning as a group or loose-knit coalition, that have the power and work to keep single, aspiring despots down. If the do have rulers and/or figureheads, they serve at the groups’ pleasure. (Much more on this later.)

We can see that even within more egalitarian social structures, power is an issue. Yes, power is more equably spread, but it is still a socially important and behavior-organizing feature. Additionally, coalitions tend to play an even larger role in more egalitarian societies. There is strength in numbers.

In more egalitarian societies power lies in the hands of many group members; in hierarchical societies the power lies in fewer hands, with a clearer delineations of rank. But just how different is a coalition holding power over individuals from an individual holding power over a social group? An inverted hierarchy, indeed.

Perhaps in egalitarian societies we see manifest the informal politics of coalitions.

The following quote by Paul Ehrlich says a lot -

“Thus, in the transition to modern hunting and gathering Homo sapiens, there must have been a general trend toward softening of chimp-like dominance hierarchies, enabling evolution of the increasingly egalitarian, nonstratified societies that many scholars believe were characteristic of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. In them, coalitions presumably would have limited the power of otherwise dominant individuals. Furthermore, given that early hunting and gathering societies rarely had surpluses of food, the advantage of dominance would have been less than in agricultural societies. In the latter, as we will see, dominant individuals could appropriate the surpluses for themselves and begin the process of stratification and specialization that led to political states.”
(7)

In this quote we can see that progress toward or away from more hierarchical toward more egalitarian social structures did not occur in a vacuum. No, it was not some inevitable moral progress that led to the decline of strict hierarchies. Other factors were involved. Which we will explore.

—

(1) See de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001 & Maestripieri, D., Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007
(2) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(3) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1991, p.197
(4) http://www.matses.info/
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
(6) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(7) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000. p.209

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

Youth who self-identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual at higher suicide risk, say Montreal researchers

You know what it means, don’t you?! Deep down inside, gays and lesbians know they are sinning sinners, and this is why they hate themselves.

Wrong. How is it wrong? Let’s read the first paragraph, at least.

Mental health professionals have long-known that gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) teens face significantly elevated risks of mental health problems, including suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts. However, a group of McGill University researchers in Montreal has now come to the conclusion that self-identity is the crucial risk-factor, rather than actual sexual behaviours. Their results were published in February in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. [bold added]

Well, that’s not much of a help. And it actually contains an error itself. An error of omission. How so?

If you study psychological development you learn that personal identity develops in a social context. Not only are relationships a huge part of our identities, but a person’s identity is fashioned relative to their social context. They compare and contrast themselves with others. How are they alike, how are they different. And while being different in some regards can have positive mental health consequences (being better or the best at some valued ability or skill, etc.), being different from others can have negative mental health consequences (being the only black person in a white southern school, etc.).

The actual data itself is pretty interesting.

The researchers administered a detailed, anonymous questionnaire to nearly 1,900 students in 14 Montreal-area high schools, and found that those teens who self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or who were unsure of their sexual identity, were indeed at higher risk for suicidal ideation and attempts. However, teens who had same-sex attractions or sexual experiences – but thought of themselves as heterosexual – were at no greater risk than the population at large. Perhaps surprisingly, but consistent with previous studies, the majority of teens with same-sex sexual attraction or experience considered themselves to be heterosexual.

Yes, it really does appear that the self-identity part is key. It’s not until deep into the article, however — a place where conservatives are less likely to venture (or will find it easier to ignore) that what I see as the second crucial element is brought to light. Co-author Dr. Richard Montoro explains,

“The main message is that it’s the interface between individuals and society that causes students who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual the most distress.” [bold added]

Yes, it’s the interface. Both elements count. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine a hypothetical society in which homosexuality is popular and highly valued, with the minority heterosexuals are viewed as different, odd, and so heterosexuals may feel unworthy and alone. My guess is that in such a circumstance — given that particular interface — the heterosexual individuals who self-identify as heterosexual would be the ones with the higher risk for suicide.

So to conservatives who abuse this research I say, “Congratulations. You have shown to the world you are part of the problem.”

Technorati Links: homosexuality, psychology

My right-hand man.…
Seated at the right hand of the father.

That the right hand, and things near it, is conventionally equated with good, and the left with bad/sinister, is a curious phenomenon. It just got more fascinating. In a news release titled, Right-handed and left-handed people do not see the same bright side of things, I learned of a set ingenious experiments conducted at Stanford University by Daniel Casasanto. They boiled down to subjects placing items in either a box at their left hand, or one at their right. Without knowing that the purpose was to sort the things they perceived as bad from those they perceived as good, most right-handed subjects (with left hemisphere dominance) placed the good items in the box to their right. Can you guess where the lefties (right hemisphere dominance) put the items?

Yes, to the left.

In all tasks, right-handers tended to evaluate the object on the right better, while left-handers favoured the one on the left.

The author of the recent study speculates why this is so:

“these results demonstrate that perceptuomotor experiences, in this case the greater ease and fluidity of interaction with one or another side of space, are sufficient to generate stable associations between specific dimensions, such as space, and concepts of a high degree of abstraction, such as kindness, intelligence or honesty.”

You might say that a righty (thanks to left-hemisphere dominance) is more at ease with things to her right, and associates that ease with goodness. The opposite is true for lefties.

So there you have it. What does it all mean? For one, the god of the bible must have a left-hemisphere dominant brain, for he favors his right. For another, one aspect of human moral judgments is influenced by brain lateralization. Which is likely fully innate.

As for the 10% of the population that consists of lefties, if you want to “get on their good side” (their at-ease side), don’t be a right-hand man. Go left.

I particularly liked this statement from the article -

These data provide one of the first clear demonstrations that sensory-motor experience can exert a powerful influence on the conceptualization of even our most abstract ideas.

There is so much to “human nature.” While an understanding of this complexity may not put us at ease, understanding is good.

Technorati Links: culture, handedness, psychology

While I am not gay, I am an atheist.

As for my heterosexuality, it certainly wasn’t a lifestyle choice. The thought of getting closer to women excites deep regions of my brain. It’s simply not under the control of my conscious intellect. On the other hand, the thought of getting closer to, and say, kissing another dude — minus any learned homo-averse reactions — is about as appealing as the thought of eating a big spoonful of sand. My deep brain just “doesn’t get it.” Intellectually, however, I can understand how others have different deep brains than I do. So to speak.

But yes, I’m an atheist. If I must be classified. So I probably have a greater incentive to find nothing wrong with it. But again, I’ve done hours and days and weeks of research into the matter, and please, show me how being an atheist leads to “bad.” Atheist = bad is a bogus equation, unsupported by anything other than ignorant prejudice.

Okay, rant over. If you care to mingle with more non-theists and non-heterosexuals, I recommend clicking over to The Gaytheists. There you will find, Carnival of the Liberals #101: The Loopy Cough Medicine Edition.

Technorati Links: atheism, sexuality

Hey young thinkers, see all those bright dots in the night sky? Connect them and see what you can create! The beauty of this activity is that there is no right answer. Of course, your creations will likely reflect ideas your culture has planted in your mind. And perhaps the applause you anticipate for creations that “make sense” to your social group.

Still. There is no wrong answer. Which means there is no right answer.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: constellations, cosmos

Dads are expendable.

A little background: The title to a weekly segment of the class was “Textbook Dig.” I’d give the students time to research the topic in their books for supporting or refuting information. Then all students would “vote” on the truth of the statement — agree, disagree, mixed. I’d chalk up the score. (It seems that people love to be heard and have their opinion counted.)

Scoring complete, the discussion would begin. Task number one: analyze the statement itself. “All dads?” “Expendable how?” Etc. And then students would share the information in the textbook that led them to their conclusion.

Invariably, a number of students couldn’t resist bringing their own experiences into the mix. Because I had this experience, therefore the statement is true. Or, for such a contentious topic as this one, some students would argue from social convention. Well, this is the way it’s supposed to be. Reasoning detached from any evidence would be confidently offered. Such as Without a father in the house boys won’t have the role model they need to grow up to become men.

Besides moderating, I’d ask follow-up questions. While that sounds true, is there any research that supports it?

For this specific topic I recall ending the sessions with this sentiment: There may be a difference between what is necessary and what is optimal.

The above is perhaps a long-winded way of introducing new research I encountered yesterday. You can see how the title would have grabbed my attention:

Do children need both a mother and a father?

While the research doesn’t provide a slam-dunk answer to the question, it does frame the problem nicely. And offer findings from one type of prior studies to suggest an answer.

The presumption that children need both a mother and a father is widespread. It has been used by proponents of Proposition 8 to argue against same-sex marriage and to uphold a ban on same-sex adoption….

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that “fatherless” children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

“Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents,” said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. [bold mine]

As for the findings:

“The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well,” Biblarz said.

Of course, left unaddressed is the more common situation of children raised by just a mother. As for the title to this post, “When Two Moms are Better,” I believe that having two parents, whatever sex, is likely to be, on average, better than one. For many reasons — emotional, social, financial, etc.

Additionally, there were these specifics to the research finding:

Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.

No definite answers, but the science marches on. With each advance we become better able to answer questions. Even questions that pertain to issues of conventional morality and current social policy. Science is important.

Technorati Links: parenting, psychology

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

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