the evolving mind

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

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.

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

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.

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

Null results are important. “We tried to find something, and it twerent’ there.” But “nothing there” results rarely get reported, which is a shame. I can certainly see how positive results are more exciting — we gave group x a natural supplement consisting of purified essence of apple seeds (a cyanide compound), than they all died! Contrast that with a recent study into the use of Gingko Biloba and memory preservation in old age that produced this — we found nothing, no measurable response to the herbal supplement. Finding nothing just doesn’t capture our imaginations.

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

The transition is underway. To read my latest Almighty Alpha post, “The Gearbox to a Revolutionary Rank and File,” please check out the entry at my new blog.

Many people find it ironic and/or startlingly hypocritical when men, or women, who have risen to high places are discovered to have committed lowly behavior. Other people, myself included, may think something along the lines of, “What do you expect, they are still human beings.”

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

What is the identity of the above image? The correct answer to that question could be considered scientific: a precise location (name for it).

As a former psychology professor, I have seen how many students prefer fill-in-the-blank type questions vs. true/false or multiple choice.

What?! There is one correct answer?! Don’t I get credit for thinking, period?

True, simply parroting “the answer” is not indicative or a deeper type of learning. But to simply string words together in a longer answer that seems familiar to the instructor (resembling his/her own word strings) . . . ? Is that a higher learning, or just clever?

Hmm.

[photo of Devil's Tower thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: education, NASA

Two recent studies from the psychological sciences have perfectly illustrated the problem of variable correlation: Why we can’t jump to the conclusion of causation when we find an association between two measures.

1. Long-time cannabis use associated with psychosis

The finding of this study:

Young adults who have used cannabis or marijuana for a longer period of time appear more likely to have hallucinations or delusions or to meet criteria for psychosis, according to a report posted online today that will appear in the May print issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. [bold mine]

How much more likely, the inquiring mind would like to know. Fortunately, this article actually provided the information. A pleasant surprise.

[Y]oung adults who had six or more years since first use of cannabis (i.e., who commenced use when around 15 years or younger) were twice as likely to develop a non-affective psychosis and were four times as likely to have high scores on the Peters et al Delusions Inventory [a measure of delusion]. [bold mine]

Thank you for that precision in reporting.

In a study such as this, having potentially important cultural and political implications, I’d like to see not only the inclusion of a control group — to put things in an absolute perspective, so to speak — but also of a comparison group of alcohol users — to put things in a relative perspective, you could say.

That said, the point I wanted to make is that this finding was not the product of an experiment. No, researchers didn’t randomly assign youth to groups and one of these or more instructed to smoke X amount of marijuana. That type of study would generate results one could be confident about a causal relationship between the variables. But good luck getting a research grant for it. And getting it past the ethics board!

And the authors acknowledged the problem with the nature of their finding.

“The nature of the relationship between psychosis and cannabis use is by no means simple,” they write. Individuals who had experienced hallucinations early in life were more likely to have used cannabis longer and to use it more frequently…..[T]hose individuals who were vulnerable to psychosis (i.e., those who had isolated psychotic symptoms) were more likely to commence cannabis use, which could then subsequently contribute to an increased risk of conversion to a non-affective psychotic disorder.” [bold mine]

Exactly! Kudos to them for keeping that in mind and pointing it out.

Actually, do they deserve kudos for such an elementary level of critical thinking? Because it at least seems relatively rare, at least in the material provided to the more popular media, I’ll applaud it when I find it.

2. Teens with more screen time have lower-quality relationships

In a study on computer and video-game usage and quality of relationships, an association between variables was discovered.

Teens who spend more time watching television or using computers appear to have poorer relationships with their parents and peers, according to a report in the March issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

Again, the skeptical mind wants to know “how much poorer” and “how measured”?

The answer to the latter is “confidential questionnaire” as well as “an assessment of their attachment to parents and peers.” What kind of an assessment and by whom?To the former — kudos again! — the authors provide some numbers, such as:

The researchers also assessed interview responses from 976 individuals who were age 15 years in 1987 to 1988. Among these teens, more time spent viewing television was associated with lower attachment to both parents and peers. For every additional hour of television, teens had a 13 percent increased risk of low attachment to their parents and a 24 percent increased risk of low attachment to peers.

Conducting controlled experiments on lab rats and mice will only get you so far. And mice are notoriously bad video game players, so that would certainly be a confounding factor . . . . Could an experiment be conducted on this topic, with humans? I wonder.

Fortunately, as with the first study listed, these authors too, highlight the hazard of correlational findings by speculating about alternative explanations for theirs:

“However, it is also possible that adolescents with poor attachment relationships with immediate friends and family use screen-based activities to facilitate new attachment figures such as online friendships or parasocial relationships with television characters or personalities,” the authors write.

Exactly! And there are other possibilities.

So, do we conclude that the psychological sciences are worthless? No, not at all. But at the same time, we need to recognize the weak nature of much of the data generation and should refrain from making too much of non-controlled-experiment generated results.

Technorati Links: correlation, psychology, research