the evolving mind

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

Those with a beef about an area of science that challenges their beliefs will frequently engage in ad hominem attacks. They cast aspersions on the motives of the scientists in question. Or maybe they use a ludicrously broad brush and claim all scientists are driven by equally questionable desires.

What really drives scientists to do what they do? Of course, scientists are a diverse bunch. For some, a desire for fame, to become the next Einstein, may play a small role. Others are as interested in the social consequences of their work as they might be interested in hosting a talk show on celebrity gossip. Meaning not a whit. For others, wanting to “save the world” in some shape or form might drive them. I think all, however, are driven to some degree by an elemental urge. What is it?

Consider this article on recent work by scientists: Why England’s soccer team keeps losing on penalties.

What?! That’s science? Sure is.

Scientists are a curious bunch. What are they curious about? It depends upon the person, as is obvious in the above research. Scientists love to explore, tinker and understand.

Although I am not a practicing scientist, that is my temperament. Here’s a telling habit: whenever a household item malfunctions beyond repair, before it hits the garbage bin I take it apart. For two reasons. 1) I’m curious what I’ll find inside. 2) To scavenge parts for possible future use.

What are you curious about?

Certainly, there is more to doing science, and a commitment to it as a profession. However, scientists can and will do their work lacking a motive to get rich, to take over the world, to kick Gawd in the balls, or (insert diabolic motive here:)______________. But lacking an elemental curiosity — they do nothing.

Technorati Links: motivation, science

You could could call testosterone the manhood hormone. And yes, it’s influence on human behavior has likely been exaggerated and even misconstrued. Nonetheless an influence one behavior has been detected by dozens if not hundreds of studies.

How great is the influence? It probably depends on the circumstance and a host of other factors.

Yesterday I came across a news release on the topic bearing this title: Testosterone does not induce aggression. As you can guess, it piqued my interest.

The writer of the news release, informed by material provided by the research authors, no doubt, included a discussion of how previous animal studies on testosterone have prejudiced our understanding of its influence on human behavior.

The prejudice thus grew over decades that testosterone causes aggressive, risky, and egocentric behavior. The inference from these experiments with animals that testosterone produces the same effects in humans has proven to be false. [bold mine]

Wow! Is that a myth-busting pistol in your pocket, or just the results of one study?

In their experiment, not only did the researchers find a lack of a positive correlation, but they also discovered that testosterone . . .

can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status. [bold mine]

That’s a hell of an if.

How was the study performed? It seems the subjects played a round or a few of what has been called the ultimatum game. And had their testosterone levels manipulated.

Dependent variable = testosterone level; independent variable = behavior in game. Good. And here’s what happened.

Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. “The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted,” sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. [bold mine]

I have a real beef with the word causes. Human beings aren’t billiard balls. If you believe any single element — genetic, physiological, social, etc. — causes a behavior, you are looking at things far too simplistically. For more on this topic, see my post, Imperfect Flowers: Religious Violence and How Simple Answers Misinform. (Particularly the simple answers misinform part.)

“In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression,” surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. [bold mine]

When I engage in surmising-behavior, I hope I pepper my words with qualifiers such as, maybe, sometimes, can, it seems, etc.

Hmm. Aggression never secures status? That sounds like a far too simplistic perspective to me.

Because critical thinking highlights the good and the strong, as well as the bad and the questionable, I would like to end on a high. I must say that neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger and economists Ernst Fehr and Michael Naef put together an intriguing study. With over 100 subjects, no less. Well done. It has provided me much to think about.

Technorati Links: behavior, testosterone

The Internet reminds me of the Cambrian explosion. What types of websites will be the equivalent of the phylum chordata and persevere and develop into highly successful forms (at least according to our own biases)?

I recently received an invitation to check out a science website. And I checked it out. At pulse-project.org I watched a lecture on What Makes Us Human by Robin Dunbar.

So cool. I love being able to attend lectures both at-a-distance and after-the-fact.

Will the website persevere in the short and medium terms (human standards)? I don’t know. But for now, I marvel at the potential.

Technorati Links: nature photos, science

This recent scientific finding speaks for itself:

Scientists have long known that opium-like painkillers, called opioids, relieve not only physical pain, but also some forms of emotional stress. Now, a new study reviewed by Faculty of 1000 Biology member Markus Heilig shows that small genetic differences in the gene for the opioid receptor can determine the intensity of people’s responses to social rejection. [source]

One study in the research consisting of gauging (via brain scans) subjects’ responses to being excluded from playing catch with others — in a video game.

The results showed that people with a certain mutation in their opioid receptor reacted more strongly to social rejection than those with a normal opioid receptor.

That’s darn interesting.

Does the above mean we should replace the thought/statement, “So-and-so is too sensitive!” with “So-and-so must have insufficient opioid receptor activity”?

It’s a thought.

Technorati Links: emotion, psychology

1) Caltech researchers have found that fruit flies, of all things, engage in “emotion-like” behavior.

In their Neuron paper, the Caltech team—led by postdoctoral fellow Tim Lebestky—found that a series of brief but brisk air puffs, delivered in rapid succession, caused flies to run around their test chamber in what Anderson calls a “frantic manner.” This behavior persisted for several minutes after the last of the puffs. [source]

True, the fruit flies didn’t shed tears. But how else could emotion-like behavior be noted and measured in this species? BTW, the like is essential for maintaining a scientific attitude.

2) Okay, monkeys don’t really “date.” But how do they choose mates? What is attractive to them: A nice head of hair, big, brown eyes, pouty lips? Certainly it wouldn’t be a shapely derriere, for only we bipedal apes have such fully developed gluteus maximus muscles. It seems that as with humans, part of what makes one monkey attracted to another is . . . scent. As to why: an individual that smells different likely has different genes. And different genes mean healthier offspring.

Although it is not entirely clear how the females work out whose genes complement theirs, the researchers believe it might be done through smell. Monkeys know their own body smell, which is partly determined by their genes. They will sniff out the males whose body odour is different giving an indication that their genetic make up is likely to be unlike theirs, say the scientists. [source]

Hmm. The next time I tell my wife why I love her, should I include, “And it probably has something to do with your smell. You smell different.”

When lovers “nuzzle up” to one another, nose at necks (where blood flows close to the surface), are they inhaling clues about one another’s genetic make-up?

3) Ancient Greeks on the island of Sicily worshipped the sun, directly or indirectly. How do we know?

Dr Alun Salt, an astronomy technician from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science at the University of Leicester, found that out of all the temples he surveyed in Sicily, all but three [of dozens] faced the rising sun. [source]

Worshipping the sun seems to me the most sensible of all religions. We know for a fact that life would be impossible without it. And forget about getting tanned at the beach.

Technorati Links: psychology, science

A bit of new research caught my eye recently for two reasons. The article title read, Rethinking sexism: A daughter-father team examines how society maintains the status quo.

The finding -

both men and women respond in a more hostile way to a woman who violates sex-role expectations, than to one who adheres to them. Secondly, that the more an individual supports social hierarchy in general (that some people should have more power and resources than others), the more hostile they responded toward a woman who violated sex-role expectations.

Interesting stuff.

1) Any of you familiar with my “An Almighty Alpha” project know that I am quite interested in human hierarchical behavior. It is fascinating how status, power and sex and gender are inter-related.

As an aside, allow me to offer a couple conjectures about the above finding. First, both men and women reacted strongly because both are a part of the social group that roles and hierarchies bring some stability and predictability to. Second, the greater reaction to female violation of sex-roles makes perfect sense to me. My guess is that female sex-role violation involves a more “upward movement,” so to speak, than male sex-role violation. An upward movement in power and potential status presents a greater challenge to a group than downward movement.

2) The second reason the article caught my eye was due to article quotes by the researchers — the scientists — like this:

“It’s important for women to understand that judgment hurts everyone and that sexist judgment hurts women in particular.”

I don’t think I’m being sexist when I say that statements like the above strike me as non-scientific. Substitute “men” for “women” in the above and it would have struck me the same way. I’m pretty sure.

Why “non-scientific”? Because the #1 hat a scientists wears (or needs to) is that of an objective researcher. The over-arching goal is to discover what is. A strong belief or desire about what should be can get in the way of optimally objective science.

Of course, in the social sciences we find this dual role of professionals quite often. They do science and they do applied science. The try to understand the world and they try to solve problems in the world. For their to be a problem in the world, there must be a should not condition. Which is a value judgment, and values can insidiously influence the working of our minds.

Behavioral and social scientists have a tough task. They must often wear two hats. When doing the applied science, yes, keep the pure science hat on as well. Wear them both at once. But when doing the pure science, take off that “my job is to fix the world hat.” It could obscure your vision.

Technorati Links: psychology, social sciences

Yesterday, in my “bitter about chocolate” post, I bitched about science writing that leaves out important information. Information that would bring greater precision to the reporting. Today I have a contrasting sample of science writing to share. Just look at the title:

Transcendental Meditation Helped Heart Disease Patients Lower Cardiac Disease Risks by 50 Percent

And it gets better –

The nine-year, randomized control trial followed 201 African American men and women, average age 59 years . . . .

The study found:

* A 47 percent reduction in the combination of death, heart attacks, and strokes in the participants
* Clinically significant (5 mm Hg average) reduction in blood pressure associated with decrease in clinical events

Excellent! Numbers galore! There is nothing more precise than numbers. Good science writing will use them.

So why does science writing for the general public too often avoid numbers like the plague? A couple reasons come to mind.

First, numbers are associated with math and equations and all that sterile, boring, academic stuff. Yet used the right way, numbers are just numbers and will not chase people away. Just as an advertisement touting not just a great sale, but a 30% off sale will likely generate greater interest.

Second, the use of numbers in science reporting can make the findings less dramatic. Rather than reporting that, say, a new study has shown that drinking wine will reduce your risk of a heart attack, to more precisely report that drinking wine will reduce your risk of a heart attack from a baseline of 10% chance to 8% . . . well, how large-font worthy is that? Still, it’s the truth. And including the numbers is more honest reporting. Better reporting.

I believe it is possible for good science writing to be exciting and precise. Yes, we may need to educate the general public about the true nature of most findings. Rather than full earthquakes of discovery, they are tremors. That is the nature of science. Let’s be honest about it.

Technorati Links: education, media, science

Damn. There you were with all your beliefs in a row neater than ducklings following their mother. And “Boom!” New information hits you.

My advise: Don’t invest too heavily in any idea. And stay informed. That way you won’t be blind-sided.

If reading 200-proof science is a bit much for you, perhaps you can keep abreast of new developments by letting others sweeten up the hard-core jargon and numbers for you. Read science books and magazines written for the lay person.

And maybe check out the recent edition of the blog carnival, Scientia Pro Publica: #16 Us, Friends and Society.

—

Photo thanks to NASA.

Technorati Links: education, science

Hmm. That’s an interesting finding. Recent research has -

revealed an association between use of wireless telephony and increased content of the protein transthyretin in the blood. [source]

“Wireless telephony” includes cell phones and cordless home phones.

What does the above finding mean? Not much just now. No, it doesn’t mean cell phones cause brain cancer. It simply means that the use of wireless communication devices cause an increase in a type of protein present in cerebral fluids.

It is possible that the discovered brain changes caused by cell phone use are completely benign. There is also a chance they are not. How great is that chance? Good question.

Certainly in the short term — 10 years or less — it doesn’t seem there could be any dramatic effect on the brain and susceptibility to disease. For we have millions of subjects out there voluntarily participating in a naturalistic “experiment.” You may be a subject yourself. The preliminary finding: no extreme risks detected yet.

While I am not alarmed by the finding, I’m certainly not going to poo-poo it. Instead, I’ll place it in a perspective that reflects everything else we know.

Technorati Links: biology, cell phones, health