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.

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

]]> http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2010/03/blog-gone/feed/ 0 http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2010/03/sunday-sacrilege-speaking-it-real/ http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2010/03/sunday-sacrilege-speaking-it-real/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:29:33 +0000 Andrew Bernardin http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2010/03/sunday-sacrilege-speaking-it-real/

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]

Technorati Links: cartoon, freethought, religion

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.

Technorati Links: development, evolution, primates, psychology

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]

Technorati Links: images, psychology

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.

Technorati Links: correlation, psychology, relationships

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.

Technorati Links: language, photography

But in terms of science and becoming better informed, these “nothing” findings are important. An analogy might be the master car mechanic talking to the shop apprentice busy attempting to fix a difficult, persistent problem. The very first thing the master mechanic will ask is, “Well, what have you tried so far?” He wants to know what has thus far produced null results. For it is important information.

The following are two illustrations of the importance of frequently un-reported null results from the field of psychology.

1. In, Choosing a university degree is not linked to personality we learn that . . . well, the title told it but it’s worth re-telling.

The results indicate that personality does not have an influence when choosing a professional career.

Why is this discovered non-relationship important, if it stands up to analysis and replication? For one, many colleges and universities use personality measures to help guide students to their ideal career.

Admittedly, I was somewhat surprised by this finding, for I had assumed — assumed — that the trait of introversion/extroversion would likely influence what type of career a person pursued. I can picture introverts working in a science lab more than I can extroverts. And I can picture extroverts being more drawn to teaching. But it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Of course, the finding is about the choice of a degree, not the success an individual later experiences.

Another noteworthy null result was this:

The data obtained reconfirmed that “the sex of the individual is not an important variable in the connection between personality traits and general preference for topics studied at university”.

This “no connection” tells us something important about gender behavior today. It seems that on college campuses, in the least, men aren’t from planet medicine and women from planet English lit.

Thanks to that bit of null result I can sharpen the lense of my view of the world. Null results help trim away distortions in our thinking. Or, at least, they can shake the confidence with which we hold presuppositions.

2. Here’s another title that tells it all: IU study finds no consensus in definitions of ‘had sex’

A new study from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University found that no uniform consensus existed when a representative sample of 18- to 96-year-olds was asked what the term meant to them.

How is this important? In the least, when formally questioning individuals about their sex lives, you’ve got to get more specific in how you word the questions. You can’t assume that your concept of “had sex” is the same as another person’s. For instance, does oral sex count? Anal sex? Are those “having sex?” It depends who you ask.

In the area of gender, another null finding was produced.

Responses did not differ significantly overall for men and women.

Good to know. Certainly there are some average differences between the sexes. But being informed about when none are discovered plays an important role in honing our understanding.

Reporting and heeding null results is good science.

Technorati Links: gender, psychology, science

New experimental research out of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University has revealed that people in high places may actually be more likely to engage in what we call moral transgressions. When in a position of power, subjects tended to be both stricter in their judgments of others while being more lenient in their view of their own behavior [source].

While I guess this certainly can be classified as hypocritical if the person in question had gone on record condemning the behavior that he/she subsequently engaged in, I also believe that the perceived hypocrisy reflects our own psychological naiveté.

How so? First, we tend to hold idealistic morals. That something is absolutely wrong or right. More realistically, there are degrees of wrong and right-ness, determined in part by the motive and particular context the behavior occurred in. For example: Is killing an animal wrong? More wrong would included killing an animal for pleasure. Less wrong for food. Even less wrong, as self-defense. Etc. Also under consideration would be the social and emotional factors that may have played a role in the “decision.” Yes, it is often expedient and smart to judge guilt strictly, as if each us had a totally free will. But that isn’t the case. Motivations don’t grow on trees and are than consciously selected by those under their influence.

The other manner in which this perceived hypocrisy may be naive (and even the article title and the research paper title itself used the term “hypocrisy”) is the expectation that our current standards of right and wrong would be reflected in the behavior of all people, regardless of their social position.

But study the behavior of all the other primate species and you will discover that — gee, equality isn’t the norm. Not only does social position influence the behavior of primate individuals — from the extremely subordinate to the most dominant — but it also influences their expectations of the behaviors to anticipate from individuals in differing social positions.

Would we say it is absolutely wrong for one non-human primate male to mate with more than one female, more than “his share?” Actually, in terms of evolution, it may be more right. For often the more dominant individuals are stronger, more aggressive and fearless (great feature when needing protection) and even healthier than the less dominating individuals. While we may like to pretend that all primates, whatever species, are created equal, they are not.

Of course the contemporary human environment is very complex and different than that of our distant ancestors. I would be naive myself to apply, say, chimpanzee morality to human beings. But I do believe it bears keeping in mind that a one-size-fits-all morality is idealistic versus realistic. And that while our present moral standards — our thoughts — can be fully modern, the roots of our behavior may be much, much older.

Technorati Links: evolution, morality, psychology