the evolving mind

Men and women respond differently to marital infidelity. On average. Is this a learned response, something men and women acquire from their culture or from their own individual experience? The current default view argues it’s likely an innate difference (read genetic). A new study argues there is another option. [study source]

The nature perspective:

Research has documented that most men become much more jealous about sexual infidelity than they do about emotional infidelity. Women are the opposite, and this is true all over the world. The prevailing theory is that the difference has evolutionary origins: Men learned over eons to be hyper-vigilant about sex because they can never be absolutely certain they are the father of a child, while women are much more concerned about having a partner who is committed to raising a family.

But wait. Could nurture explain the differences? Have we missed something?

A nurture perspective:

But the new science suggests that the difference may be rooted more in individual differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history but that can fall along gender lines.

One’s “relationship history” influencing his/her response to cheating? How did they determine this?

The science:

Similar to earlier studies examining sex differences in jealousy, Levy and Kelly asked men and women which they would find more distressing—sexual infidelity or emotional infidelity. Participants also completed additional assessments including a standard and well validated measure of attachment style in romantic relationships.

“Attachment style?” What happened to “differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history”?

The finding:

those with a dismissing attachment style—who prize their autonomy in relationships over commitment—were much more upset about sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. And conversely, those securely attached in relationships—including securely attached men—were much more likely to find emotional betrayal more upsetting.

The problem:

Okay. If attachment style, something that supposedly reflects an individual’s personality, is related to relationship history, how do we know that some other factor isn’t responsible for that attachment style and/or personality and/or relationship history? How do we know that the experiential element is a causal factor vs. an effect?

If you are getting the sense that with this new study there’s a whole lot of talk relative to the little science it is based upon, get a load of this:

The bologna:

Some people—men and women alike—are more secure in their attachments to others, while others tend to be more dismissive of the need for close attachment relationships. Psychologists see this compulsive self-reliance as a defensive strategy—protection against deep-seated feelings of vulnerability. Levy and Kelly hypothesized that these individuals would tend to be concerned with the sexual aspects of relationships rather than emotional intimacy.

Oh lard. The above reads as nearly perfect psychodynamic boilerplate. “Defensive strategy” . . . “deep-seated feelings of vulnerability.” That’s what it always boils down to: damaged feelings. It seems that if we search hard enough, that’s what we always find.

In my opinion, innate gender differences still better explain differences in response to infidelity. Why? First, as mentioned in the study, these gender differences are cross-culturally evident. Second, numerous studies on animals have shown that if you change, oh, say the testestosterone or oxytocin levels to an individual very early in life, you change the individual’s “relationship trajectory” and later history. To then describe the phenomenon in terms of emotional experiences is to miss the more important point. It is to grant the emotional experience undeserved primacy.

As a tangent here, one of the things I find disturbing about psychodynamic therapy is the stealth morality often contained within. Often you will here this sentiment expressed in so many words: Because of your personal history, because you were “damaged,” you are not able to function according todays’ social ideals. And so you have anger-management issues, or “unfounded fears” or damaged self-esteem, or sexual insecurity, or what have you.

In sum, to find psychodynamic reasons for the way human beings behave frequently involves a denial of human nature. Or even a denial of individual nature.

Technorati Links: gender, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychology

Don’t mean to be pushy, but the 129th Skeptics’ Circle is out over at the SkepVet blog. You might want to check it out. But no pressure.

DO IT!

But only if you want to.

Technorati Links: blogs

Watch enough television and you will die. Eventually. It may take a few decades, but one day . . . you’ll be alive one minute, dead the next. In the room with you, as suspect #1, is the television. Guilty! Is it murder?

While the TV lacks motive, new evidence has come to light: Sedentary TV Time May Cut Life Short.

Australian researchers tracked the lifestyle habits of 8,800 adults and found that each hour spent in front of the television daily was associated with: • an 11 percent increased risk of death from all causes, • a 9 percent increased risk of cancer death; and • an 18 percent increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related death.

Throw a book at that television! Then turn off the damn thing and open the book. It could save your life.

But maybe not. There is that “sedentary” in the title. And that may be the actual instrument of death.

While the study focused specifically on television watching, the findings suggest that any prolonged sedentary behavior, such as sitting at a desk or in front of a computer, may pose a risk to one’s health.

Nuts. Here I am at my desk. And here I will be for hours on end. Should I be wearing a Kevlar vest?

Okay, so maybe the television isn’t guilty of murder. From this statistical finding can we at least charge it with manslaughter?

Technorati Links: skepticism, television

New research has shown that playing music by Mozart helps them grow. In Mozart Therapy: A Sonata a Day Keeps the Doctor Away I read -

…research from Tel Aviv University finds that premature babies who are exposed to music by 18th-century composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart gain weight faster — and therefore become stronger — than those who don’t.

Wow. Moms and dads, you may want to rush out and buy some Mozart for your young child. You want a stronger child, don’t you? Science has shown it works wonders.

But maybe not. There are three important points to consider.

1) The likely explanation for the “how” of the affect is that the pre-term newborns moved less when Mozart was played. When resting they wasted less energy on movement, so to speak, and were thus able to put those calories, etc., into growth. The researchers themselves cite this as the likely mechanism.

2) The researchers did not control for other types of music and even other types of stimulation, acoustic or tactile (newborns’ vision isn’t sufficiently developed to go that route). My guess is that any type of stimulation that caught the newborns’ attention and held them in a relaxed state would yield the same results. Calling it “Mozart Therapy” is, in effect, engaging in a sort of ad hominem promotion.

3) The size of the effect was not mentioned. In terms of gauging the significance of a finding, this is crucial, yet too often left out. Tsk, tsk.

Sure, the research is interesting. But science shouldn’t be a sales pitch. And this bit of science comes across like it. At least to a degree. The same degree that weakens its scientific merit, in my opinion.

Technorati Links: Mozart effect, science, skepticism

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

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

As members of Costco, our household receives “The Costco Connection: A Lifestyle Magazine for Costco Members.” Although I like the store, the magazine — which is basically one long excuse for advertisements — has enough woo nonsense in it to trip even minimally sensitive b.s.-detectors.

Here’s a brief sampling from the January 2010 edition:

1. MegaRed “May Reduce the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.” At least the ad copy includes may.

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

2. Glucosamine 1500 mg tablets. “Highest potency” . . . “helps to maintain structural integrity of joints and connective tissue.”

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

But what a deal. This unevaluated product comes in it’s highest potency to do . . . what hasn’t been established.

3. Fish oil to “enrich your cell walls to keep them strong.”

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

4. SAM-e Complete (glad they don’t sell the SAM-e incomplete). “Restore and maintain your good mood daily.”

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

5. Article: “Detox Diets” has this pullquote – “Some claim that fasting helps health conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches, and skin diseases.”

Some claim. Clever.

Whether or not detox methods even work is, of course, not covered in the article. Instead, it begins with this analogy: Just as we need to periodically clean the filter on our vacuum cleaners, when our filtering organs –liver, kidneys, large intestine — are over-worked, why shouldn’t we give them a hand in cleaning out or detoxifying or helping remove the “body pollution” from them.

Egads. If my body is a temple, should that temple sometimes be considered a Superfund site?

In the article, fasting, purgatives (“oral cleansers”) and colonic irrigation are covered. By a “Denver-based writer for many publications.” Egads.

6. In the article “Hand-Washing IQ” you will learn that you should wash your hands after not just going to the bathroom, but even after such things as taking out the trash, smoking, and touching your hair.

Then you should promptly step back into your antiseptic bubble and cover all exposed body parts with latex.

7. Qunol “Increases cellular energy,” among other things.

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

8. Super Collagen + C “Promotes healthy skin” & “helps with weight control.”

Small print says -

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

ENOUGH! Personally, when I have health concerns I go to a doctor. Or do some research. I don’t go shopping.

I will give Costco kudos for one thing: They have great deals on bulk toilet paper. Which has been proven effective for . . . .

Technorati Links: skepticism, supplements

If I told you, “Acupuncture might just work,” I hope you would respond with questions. That you would ask me to clarify what I meant.

Might just work for what?

Might just work how well — better than placebo?

Etc.

A new study on the use of acupuncture hit the Internet tubes a few days ago. The title: Acupuncture Reduces Hot Flashes, Improves Sex Drive for Breast Cancer Patients.

The lead sentence to the news release made a claim that got my skeptical gears spinning:

Not only is acupuncture as effective as drug therapy at reducing hot flashes in breast cancer patients, it has the added benefit of potentially increasing a woman’s sex drive and improving her sense of well-being, according to a Henry Ford Hospital study.

If the “added benefit” part didn’t raise a red flag in your mind, it should have. The focus of the study was on reducing side effects of breast cancer treatments, primarily hot flashes and night sweats, so to throw in improved sex drive and sense of well being as a top-of-the-page result is suspect. Particularly if the connection is not stated with due tentativeness.

In the study acupuncture (type not specified) was compared to Venlafaxine for the treatment of chemotherapy side effects:

To compare the two options, 50 patients were recruited from oncology clinics at Henry Ford. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either acupuncture or venlafaxine treatment for 12 weeks. The drug therapy group took venlafaxine orally each night, 37.5mg the first week and then 75mg for the remaining 11 weeks. The other group received acupuncture treatments twice per week for the first four weeks, and then once a week for the remaining eight weeks.

What happened?

The study found that both groups initially experienced a 50 percent decline in hot flashes and depressive symptoms, indicating that acupuncture is as effective as drug therapy.

What immediately jumps out at me is the lack of a control group. And yes, 50 patients overall is far too few to make any claims with confidence.

Also, much of the data was collected via subjects keeping a diary. Hmm.

Does acupuncture really work? For what? How well? While I doubt acupuncture is anything near what it is touted to be, there just might be something to it. I look forward to future research that will help clarify what that something is. If anything.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, skepticism

(Recycled material: I’m in holiday/travel mode. This material first posted on Dec. 29, 2008)

A Joke Atop a Joke

I think we can all agree that this headline is a joke, if not a double joke:

Head And Neck Injury Risks In Heavy Metal: Head Bangers Stuck Between Rock And A Hard Bass

I don’t get it: stuck between a rock and a fish? Was it a largemouth or a smallmouth bass?

Sometimes going obtuse is the best response to a bad pun. And thus the double joke. The title wording contains a joke of sorts, and the joke is so bad it is a joke.

But is the entire article itself a joke? And if so, in what sense of the word? You decide.

Here’s a paragraph describing the science:

The average head banging song has a tempo of about 146 beats per minute. The authors suggest that at this tempo head banging may cause headaches and dizziness if the range of movement of the head and neck is more than 75º. They report that at higher tempos and greater ranges of motion there is an additional risk of neck injury.

This research “news release” appeared on the ScienceDaily website, along with countless other sites.

Check out the final paragraph:

Luckily, there are a number of possible ways to protect against these injuries, write the authors. These include calling for bands such as AC/DC to play songs such as “Moon River” instead of “Highway to Hell”, public awareness campaigns headed by musicians such as Cliff Richard and the labeling of music packaging with anti-head banging warnings.

In what sense(s) of the word was this article a joke?

(Recycled material: I’m in holiday/travel mode)

One year ago I made a post about yet more bad science writing. The target, this article: Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible.

My criticisms included this paragraph:

Does the unconscious brain exist on a higher plane of our spinal column? I wonder — was this piece of poor reporting intentionally penned in a manner to give New Agers a chubby in their over-extending-the-meaning-of-science-findings chakra?

Yikes. Snarky.

To see the entire post, click here.

Because there seems to be an abundance of bad science writing, I’m sure I’ll be making many more posts on the topic in the years to come. Oh joy.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, skepticism