Monday, May 4, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
More Autism Ridiculousness on CNN
A recent report on that trusted news network, CNN, titled, "'Horse Boy,' family find respite from autism in Mongolia," described how an autistic boy in Austin Texas began to show improvements in language skills after riding a horse named Betsy. The story cautions, however, that a distinction must be made between this kind of "recreational therapy" and the "medical treatment that uses horses and is supervised by a licensed speech-language pathologist."
Now everyone knows that licensed speech-language therapists, highly skilled in the methods of science, must be the only ones qualified to supervise this serious medical treatment -- I'm sorry, I can not write those words without laughing. Medical treatment? Riding horses? C'mon, how gullible do they think we are? Never mind, don't answer that question.
But, all kidding aside, you might wonder just how riding horses can be an effective treatment for autistic kids. Well, according to the licensed speech-language therapist CNN interviewed, the powerful movement of the horse is "having neurological impact on the autistic child." And I guess she should know since I'm sure she's not only had years of training as a neuroscientist, but also training in the research methods to make that determination.
On the other hand, this "therapist" cautions that "For some autistic children, riding too long can overstimulate their nervous system, leading to more erratic behavior" (Now, there's a factual statement about the nervous system if I ever heard one).
So, I guess the dilemma is to try to figure out beforehand which kids will respond which way. Perhaps they should enlist a psychic to help them with that.
Speaking of psychics, the story doesn't end there. The father actually brought in an African bushman who was a healer and noticed that his son improved after the healer laid his hands on the kid.
So, like any other logical, rational person, the father took his kid to Mongolia so he could experience both horses (yes, they have a lot of horses in Mongolia) and shamans. And, guess what? His kid's behavior changed dramatically! Well, whose behavior wouldn't change dramatically after being high jacked to Mongolia and forced to ride Mongolian horses and be healed by Mongolian shamans?
It's not until the end of the article that we finally read the following: "Rowan's applied behavioral analysis therapist has him studying math and English at the third-grade level -- a full year ahead of some of his peers." So, applied behavior analysis, the only scientifically documented treatment for people with autism, is what really produced long-lasting and measurable changes in the kid's behavior.
Then what about all the time and money spent on horses, speech-language therapists, African shaman, and trips to Mongolia? (If you couldn't tell, that was a rhetorical question.)
Before ending this post, however, I want to comment on Austin Texas. As a native Texan myself, I am loathe to criticize it too much (our last President notwithstanding) and also because it is a city with great music and restaurants. But, probably because Austin is a liberal bastion (surrounded by the reddest of red counties), it has attracted more than it's share of quack programs for autism.
Austin has the distinction to be the home of programs such as Thoughtful House and HALO, both of which promote therapies with no scientific foundation.
Thoughtful House claims to recover autistic children through "the unique combination of medical care, education, and research." Of course "medical care" is code for chelation therapy. Unfortunately, someone who claims to be a behavior analyst, Doreen Granpeesheh, Ph.D., is one of the founders of Thoughtful House along with the infamous Andrew Wakefield, M.D. (see my previous post, The Great Vaccine Scare Epidemic). Oh yes, Thoughtful House also offers hippotherapy.
HALO is the brainchild of the imminent scientific researcher (I'm being facetious, of course) Soma Mukhopadhyay, the mother of Tito and the developer of the Facilitated Communication-like method called Rapid Prompting. As you'll notice from her website, there is an extensive list of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting her method (I'm being facetious again).
So, now we can add hippotherapy and shamanism to the list of quack programs for autism that are in Austin. But, before we get too judgmental about Austin, we should take a look around our own communities. I think we'll find this ridiculousness is everywhere.
Now everyone knows that licensed speech-language therapists, highly skilled in the methods of science, must be the only ones qualified to supervise this serious medical treatment -- I'm sorry, I can not write those words without laughing. Medical treatment? Riding horses? C'mon, how gullible do they think we are? Never mind, don't answer that question.
But, all kidding aside, you might wonder just how riding horses can be an effective treatment for autistic kids. Well, according to the licensed speech-language therapist CNN interviewed, the powerful movement of the horse is "having neurological impact on the autistic child." And I guess she should know since I'm sure she's not only had years of training as a neuroscientist, but also training in the research methods to make that determination.
On the other hand, this "therapist" cautions that "For some autistic children, riding too long can overstimulate their nervous system, leading to more erratic behavior" (Now, there's a factual statement about the nervous system if I ever heard one).
So, I guess the dilemma is to try to figure out beforehand which kids will respond which way. Perhaps they should enlist a psychic to help them with that.
Speaking of psychics, the story doesn't end there. The father actually brought in an African bushman who was a healer and noticed that his son improved after the healer laid his hands on the kid.
So, like any other logical, rational person, the father took his kid to Mongolia so he could experience both horses (yes, they have a lot of horses in Mongolia) and shamans. And, guess what? His kid's behavior changed dramatically! Well, whose behavior wouldn't change dramatically after being high jacked to Mongolia and forced to ride Mongolian horses and be healed by Mongolian shamans?
It's not until the end of the article that we finally read the following: "Rowan's applied behavioral analysis therapist has him studying math and English at the third-grade level -- a full year ahead of some of his peers." So, applied behavior analysis, the only scientifically documented treatment for people with autism, is what really produced long-lasting and measurable changes in the kid's behavior.
Then what about all the time and money spent on horses, speech-language therapists, African shaman, and trips to Mongolia? (If you couldn't tell, that was a rhetorical question.)
Before ending this post, however, I want to comment on Austin Texas. As a native Texan myself, I am loathe to criticize it too much (our last President notwithstanding) and also because it is a city with great music and restaurants. But, probably because Austin is a liberal bastion (surrounded by the reddest of red counties), it has attracted more than it's share of quack programs for autism.
Austin has the distinction to be the home of programs such as Thoughtful House and HALO, both of which promote therapies with no scientific foundation.
Thoughtful House claims to recover autistic children through "the unique combination of medical care, education, and research." Of course "medical care" is code for chelation therapy. Unfortunately, someone who claims to be a behavior analyst, Doreen Granpeesheh, Ph.D., is one of the founders of Thoughtful House along with the infamous Andrew Wakefield, M.D. (see my previous post, The Great Vaccine Scare Epidemic). Oh yes, Thoughtful House also offers hippotherapy.
HALO is the brainchild of the imminent scientific researcher (I'm being facetious, of course) Soma Mukhopadhyay, the mother of Tito and the developer of the Facilitated Communication-like method called Rapid Prompting. As you'll notice from her website, there is an extensive list of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting her method (I'm being facetious again).
So, now we can add hippotherapy and shamanism to the list of quack programs for autism that are in Austin. But, before we get too judgmental about Austin, we should take a look around our own communities. I think we'll find this ridiculousness is everywhere.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Headlines that Make You Go Hmm
A recent story in the L.A. Times about the Binghamton, N.Y. shootings had the following headline and deck:
Gunman targeted strangers
Jiverly Wong was shy, jobless and struggled with English. But Binghamton is at a loss to explain his rampage.
Hmm.
Gunman targeted strangers
Jiverly Wong was shy, jobless and struggled with English. But Binghamton is at a loss to explain his rampage.
Hmm.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Great Vaccine Scare Epidemic
Let's face it, we are all afraid. And the media feeds on our fears by constantly suggesting new things to fear -- food, water, air, toys, etc.
Although the media's obsession with things to fear may be a topic for a future post, the topic of this post is the unwarranted fear of childhood vaccines.
A recent article in the L.A. TImes, "California schools' risks rise as vaccinations drop," reported that more and more parents of children in affluent areas of California are choosing not to vaccinate or to to selectively vaccinate their children.
The problem, of course, is not just that the unvaccinated children may contract serious childhood diseases (e.g., measles, mumps, rubella) that have been for the most part eradicated in this country, but that if unvaccinated children contract a childhood disease, they may pass it on to other unvaccinated people, including infants before their scheduled vaccinations and pregnant women.
Why are these parents choosing not to vaccinate their children and, therefore putting other children and adults at risk?
Who better to ask then those eminent scientists, former Playboy Bunny and "actress" Jenny McCarthy and actor Jim Carrey.
According to these two public intellectuals, and contrary to every scientific study so far, autism is caused by vaccines. They have even founded an organization to promote their agenda, called Generation Rescue. And Jenny McCarthy has been on Larry King Live (with Jim Carrey) several times spouting her bizarre theories and, of course, hawking her books. She claims that she made a pact with God that if he (God) cured her son, she would crusade to help other parents.
Jenny McCarthy also claims, with no scientific support, that children diagnosed with autism can recover from their autism. Even though her own son apparently received ABA treatment, she claims that he was recovered through biomedical treatments, in particular, chelation. Gee, I guess the ABA was irrelevant. And if you don't believe Jenny or Jim, there are numerous testimonials on their website from parents. Who better than parents to determine what causes autism or what treatments are effective. After all, don't we look to parents of kids with cancer for the most effective treatments?
So, where do Jenny and Jim and other parents get their phobia of vaccinations?
From that famous scientist, Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who first claimed in a Lancet article that there was a causal link between the MMR vaccine and intestinal disorders that led to autism. In 2004, however, all of the authors of that study and the Lancet itself retracted their claim.
But it was too late; the damage had been done. Measles had once again reached epidemic proportions in Great Britain because parents were refusing to vaccinate their children, and with the assistance of other celebrities (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who believes there is a cover-up at the highest levels of the government and health agencies), the great vaccine scare epidemic reached the shores of the U.S.
Now we see that mostly affluent parents are not vaccinating their kids and the result will likely be a resurgence in childhood diseases. Ironic, isn't it, that the most affluent, and presumably, most educated people have been so easily persuaded to believe in something that has no scientific support. And, irony of all ironies, their children may be some of the ones who suffer most.
Of course, it is sad that their irrational decisions may result in great harm to other children, in particular those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or to pregnant women who, if they contract rubella, can pass it on to their fetuses causing brain damage or death.
This new age, in which otherwise intelligent people question the basic scientific methods that have reduced so much human suffering in the world, or the motives of scientists or public health officials, resembles the early middle ages more than the age of enlightenment.
So much the worse for these unenlightened people and for the rest of us.
Although the media's obsession with things to fear may be a topic for a future post, the topic of this post is the unwarranted fear of childhood vaccines.
A recent article in the L.A. TImes, "California schools' risks rise as vaccinations drop," reported that more and more parents of children in affluent areas of California are choosing not to vaccinate or to to selectively vaccinate their children.
The problem, of course, is not just that the unvaccinated children may contract serious childhood diseases (e.g., measles, mumps, rubella) that have been for the most part eradicated in this country, but that if unvaccinated children contract a childhood disease, they may pass it on to other unvaccinated people, including infants before their scheduled vaccinations and pregnant women.
Why are these parents choosing not to vaccinate their children and, therefore putting other children and adults at risk?
Who better to ask then those eminent scientists, former Playboy Bunny and "actress" Jenny McCarthy and actor Jim Carrey.
According to these two public intellectuals, and contrary to every scientific study so far, autism is caused by vaccines. They have even founded an organization to promote their agenda, called Generation Rescue. And Jenny McCarthy has been on Larry King Live (with Jim Carrey) several times spouting her bizarre theories and, of course, hawking her books. She claims that she made a pact with God that if he (God) cured her son, she would crusade to help other parents.
Jenny McCarthy also claims, with no scientific support, that children diagnosed with autism can recover from their autism. Even though her own son apparently received ABA treatment, she claims that he was recovered through biomedical treatments, in particular, chelation. Gee, I guess the ABA was irrelevant. And if you don't believe Jenny or Jim, there are numerous testimonials on their website from parents. Who better than parents to determine what causes autism or what treatments are effective. After all, don't we look to parents of kids with cancer for the most effective treatments?
So, where do Jenny and Jim and other parents get their phobia of vaccinations?
From that famous scientist, Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who first claimed in a Lancet article that there was a causal link between the MMR vaccine and intestinal disorders that led to autism. In 2004, however, all of the authors of that study and the Lancet itself retracted their claim.
But it was too late; the damage had been done. Measles had once again reached epidemic proportions in Great Britain because parents were refusing to vaccinate their children, and with the assistance of other celebrities (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who believes there is a cover-up at the highest levels of the government and health agencies), the great vaccine scare epidemic reached the shores of the U.S.
Now we see that mostly affluent parents are not vaccinating their kids and the result will likely be a resurgence in childhood diseases. Ironic, isn't it, that the most affluent, and presumably, most educated people have been so easily persuaded to believe in something that has no scientific support. And, irony of all ironies, their children may be some of the ones who suffer most.
Of course, it is sad that their irrational decisions may result in great harm to other children, in particular those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or to pregnant women who, if they contract rubella, can pass it on to their fetuses causing brain damage or death.
This new age, in which otherwise intelligent people question the basic scientific methods that have reduced so much human suffering in the world, or the motives of scientists or public health officials, resembles the early middle ages more than the age of enlightenment.
So much the worse for these unenlightened people and for the rest of us.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Tragedy of Guns
The latest in the tragedy of guns is the killing of four Oakland California policemen two days ago. After a routine traffic stop, the assailant shot and killed the two police officers and then two SWAT officers later using an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hand gun.
The assailant was a parolee who had missed several appointments with his parole officer. Some in California are viewing this as an outcome of a much larger problem in California of monitoring parole offenders.
However, I see it more as another tragedy of our liberal gun laws, the blame for which can be placed squarely at the door of the NRA and their rabid push for no restrictions of any kind on guns.
The NRA apparently believes that everyone has the right to own as many guns of any kind as they want and that this right is granted in the Constitution. And unfortunately, emboldened by a string of Supreme Court decisions, the NRA and its supporters have embarked on a journey to overturn more local and state gun control laws.
But some of the NRAs arguments are based on twisted logic. For example, the NRA says that "Guns don't kill people, people do." That's right. People kill people WITH GUNS! No one walks into a mall and kills scores of people with a baseball bat. The NRA will also say that if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns. It is true that even if all guns were outlawed one could still get a gun. But the point of meaningful gun control is to make it much more difficult.
The NRA's main argument has always been that it is our right under the constitution to own guns. But at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified (in 1791) the "well regulated militia" it refers to was composed of ordinary citizens, so the authors wrote that the "right of the people . . ." was not to be infringed, the people being the militia. But today our militia is a formal standing army, so this amendment obviously needs to be interpreted in that context and not, as the gun enthusiasts believe, to allow everyone to own as many guns as possible.
Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz once stated that not only does the finger pull the trigger, but the trigger pulls the finger, implying that the presence of a gun makes its use much more likely. Road rage shootings are a perfect example. If you have a gun within arm's reach in a car when another driver offends you, you are much more likely to use that gun. Again, people kill people, but they are more likely to do so with guns.
Since it's pretty clear that human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon, our only hope to reduce the carnage caused by people with guns, is to pass stronger laws regulating guns and enforce them strictly.
I keep wondering when all the mothers of the victims of gun violence will form a Mothers Against Guns just as mothers did years ago to fight drunk driving. I also wonder how many people need to die tragically and senselessly before our legislature(s) will stand up to the gun lobby and enact real gun control or, better yet, ban the sale of any guns except those used for legal hunting, and hold parents responsible if their children use the parent's gun to kill someone.
Most law enforcement officers are in favor of stricter gun laws which is understandable as the tragedy in Oakland demonstrated all too clearly. Why, then, do legislators support the NRA instead of those who lay their lives on the line for us everyday?
The bottom line is that if we don't do something soon, we will continue to witness mass murder with guns in our streets, schools, city council chambers, hospitals, and homes. Are we okay with that?
The assailant was a parolee who had missed several appointments with his parole officer. Some in California are viewing this as an outcome of a much larger problem in California of monitoring parole offenders.
However, I see it more as another tragedy of our liberal gun laws, the blame for which can be placed squarely at the door of the NRA and their rabid push for no restrictions of any kind on guns.
The NRA apparently believes that everyone has the right to own as many guns of any kind as they want and that this right is granted in the Constitution. And unfortunately, emboldened by a string of Supreme Court decisions, the NRA and its supporters have embarked on a journey to overturn more local and state gun control laws.
But some of the NRAs arguments are based on twisted logic. For example, the NRA says that "Guns don't kill people, people do." That's right. People kill people WITH GUNS! No one walks into a mall and kills scores of people with a baseball bat. The NRA will also say that if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns. It is true that even if all guns were outlawed one could still get a gun. But the point of meaningful gun control is to make it much more difficult.
The NRA's main argument has always been that it is our right under the constitution to own guns. But at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified (in 1791) the "well regulated militia" it refers to was composed of ordinary citizens, so the authors wrote that the "right of the people . . ." was not to be infringed, the people being the militia. But today our militia is a formal standing army, so this amendment obviously needs to be interpreted in that context and not, as the gun enthusiasts believe, to allow everyone to own as many guns as possible.
Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz once stated that not only does the finger pull the trigger, but the trigger pulls the finger, implying that the presence of a gun makes its use much more likely. Road rage shootings are a perfect example. If you have a gun within arm's reach in a car when another driver offends you, you are much more likely to use that gun. Again, people kill people, but they are more likely to do so with guns.
Since it's pretty clear that human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon, our only hope to reduce the carnage caused by people with guns, is to pass stronger laws regulating guns and enforce them strictly.
I keep wondering when all the mothers of the victims of gun violence will form a Mothers Against Guns just as mothers did years ago to fight drunk driving. I also wonder how many people need to die tragically and senselessly before our legislature(s) will stand up to the gun lobby and enact real gun control or, better yet, ban the sale of any guns except those used for legal hunting, and hold parents responsible if their children use the parent's gun to kill someone.
Most law enforcement officers are in favor of stricter gun laws which is understandable as the tragedy in Oakland demonstrated all too clearly. Why, then, do legislators support the NRA instead of those who lay their lives on the line for us everyday?
The bottom line is that if we don't do something soon, we will continue to witness mass murder with guns in our streets, schools, city council chambers, hospitals, and homes. Are we okay with that?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Killer Antibiotics
A recent editorial in the L.A Times, "Resisting Antibiotics," stated that "The rise of bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, which kills more people in this country each year than AIDS, is believed to be a consequence of the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals."
The editors argued that stricter guidelines for antibiotic use in farm animals and livestock be imposed to prevent the situation from becoming even more dire.
Frequently omitted from stories about killer antibiotic-resistant bacteria, however, is how they came to be. Simply saying that antibiotics are overused doesn't explain how antibiotic-resistant strains develop; and it isn't by divine intervention.
Such bacteria do not just happen by accident, but by a process that approximately 50% of the American population still don't accept -- evolution by natural selection. Only this time, we humans are the agents selecting the killer bacteria by overusing antibiotics.
The process is elegantly simple. Antibiotics kill most of the bacteria they are meant to, but not all. Those that are not killed are naturally resistant, which means that we must develop new antibiotics to kill them. We end up in what evolutionary biologists call an "arms race," with the bacteria currently winning. So, for all the evolution naysayers and intelligent designers out there, here is direct and immediate evidence of evolution by natural selection.
For everyone else, this story shows how an understanding of how the world really works, in this case, evolution by natural selection, may actually save us from ourselves.
The editors argued that stricter guidelines for antibiotic use in farm animals and livestock be imposed to prevent the situation from becoming even more dire.
Frequently omitted from stories about killer antibiotic-resistant bacteria, however, is how they came to be. Simply saying that antibiotics are overused doesn't explain how antibiotic-resistant strains develop; and it isn't by divine intervention.
Such bacteria do not just happen by accident, but by a process that approximately 50% of the American population still don't accept -- evolution by natural selection. Only this time, we humans are the agents selecting the killer bacteria by overusing antibiotics.
The process is elegantly simple. Antibiotics kill most of the bacteria they are meant to, but not all. Those that are not killed are naturally resistant, which means that we must develop new antibiotics to kill them. We end up in what evolutionary biologists call an "arms race," with the bacteria currently winning. So, for all the evolution naysayers and intelligent designers out there, here is direct and immediate evidence of evolution by natural selection.
For everyone else, this story shows how an understanding of how the world really works, in this case, evolution by natural selection, may actually save us from ourselves.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Pet Peeve: Part IV: Valet Parking
I don't know if anyone else is peeved by being forced to use valet parking, but here in Los Angeles, it seems as though there are as many valet parking attendants as there are illegal immigrants.
Now I know that valet parking is useful in some instances, but in L.A. almost every restaurant has valet parking, and here's what riles me in no particular order.
First, the valets take up parking spaces where I would normally park myself, for example, in the street. Sometimes the valets even get permission to park your car in parking lots in strip malls where the restaurant you are going to is located. What's worse, however, is that you are prevented from parking in those lots yourself. Is that legal? If so, who's getting the kickback from that arrangement?
Second, valets charge an arm and a leg and then expect a tip. Well, here's a tip: let me park my car myself and don't take up parking spots that I want to use. While recently in San Francisco, we paid $10 for the valet to park our car directly across the street from the restaurant, where, if there weren't any valets, we could have parked it ourselves. Of course, we didn't notice that until we came out of the restaurant and watched in utter disbelief as the valet walked across the street, got in our car, and made a U-turn to deliver our car to us. Needless to say, we didn't tip him.
Third, have you ever seen how valets drive your car when you're not looking? Believe me, you don't want to.
Lastly, perhaps there wouldn't be as many valets if people weren't so willing to pay someone exorbitant fees to park their cars. But many people seem to have the disposable income to afford such luxuries.
So I say, unless you're old or infirmed or are out for a very special occasion, why not park your own car and walk the short distance to the restaurant? Many people I see these days could use the exercise. And at least then we'd be competing with each other instead of valet attendants for parking spaces.
Obviously parking is in short supply in L.A and other cities, but that doesn't mean that every restaurant needs to have valet parking.
Give us our parking spaces back and the choice to park our own cars.
Now I know that valet parking is useful in some instances, but in L.A. almost every restaurant has valet parking, and here's what riles me in no particular order.
First, the valets take up parking spaces where I would normally park myself, for example, in the street. Sometimes the valets even get permission to park your car in parking lots in strip malls where the restaurant you are going to is located. What's worse, however, is that you are prevented from parking in those lots yourself. Is that legal? If so, who's getting the kickback from that arrangement?
Second, valets charge an arm and a leg and then expect a tip. Well, here's a tip: let me park my car myself and don't take up parking spots that I want to use. While recently in San Francisco, we paid $10 for the valet to park our car directly across the street from the restaurant, where, if there weren't any valets, we could have parked it ourselves. Of course, we didn't notice that until we came out of the restaurant and watched in utter disbelief as the valet walked across the street, got in our car, and made a U-turn to deliver our car to us. Needless to say, we didn't tip him.
Third, have you ever seen how valets drive your car when you're not looking? Believe me, you don't want to.
Lastly, perhaps there wouldn't be as many valets if people weren't so willing to pay someone exorbitant fees to park their cars. But many people seem to have the disposable income to afford such luxuries.
So I say, unless you're old or infirmed or are out for a very special occasion, why not park your own car and walk the short distance to the restaurant? Many people I see these days could use the exercise. And at least then we'd be competing with each other instead of valet attendants for parking spaces.
Obviously parking is in short supply in L.A and other cities, but that doesn't mean that every restaurant needs to have valet parking.
Give us our parking spaces back and the choice to park our own cars.
Pet Peeves: Part III: Stinky Food
At the risk of disclosing my identity, my office is in a hallway in which the inhabitants of other offices represent a diversity of individuals from different ethnic backgrounds.
At various times throughout the day, but especially at lunch time, when I walk down the hallway, the odors emanating from ethnic food assault my olfactory receptors. Sometimes the odors even find their way into my office forcing me to close my door.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love Mexican, Thai, and Indian food and I love how they they smell WHEN I'M HUNGRY AND OUT AT A RESTAURANT. But during the day at my place of work, the last thing I want to smell is Chinese or Indian food.
This is yet another example of how people's behaviors intrude on others. It's like smoking, though less dangerous to one's health.
So, if you like to dine on stinky ethnic foods at your place of work, remember that others may not find the odor as pleasing as you do.
At various times throughout the day, but especially at lunch time, when I walk down the hallway, the odors emanating from ethnic food assault my olfactory receptors. Sometimes the odors even find their way into my office forcing me to close my door.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love Mexican, Thai, and Indian food and I love how they they smell WHEN I'M HUNGRY AND OUT AT A RESTAURANT. But during the day at my place of work, the last thing I want to smell is Chinese or Indian food.
This is yet another example of how people's behaviors intrude on others. It's like smoking, though less dangerous to one's health.
So, if you like to dine on stinky ethnic foods at your place of work, remember that others may not find the odor as pleasing as you do.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A New Survey on Christianity
I have good news and bad news.
The good news is that there are fewer Christians in the U. S. today than there were 20 years ago, according to a new survey of 54, 461 people taken between February and November of last year. I know it doesn't seem like it but only 75% of respondents identified themselves as Christian as opposed to 86% in 1990.
The bad news is that of those who identified themselves as Christian, there are more evangelicals than mainstream Christians. In other words, evangelicals make up a majority of those who consider themselves to be Christian. And more bad news is that there has been a huge rise in the number of those who attend megachurches.
On the other hand, more people now express no religious affiliation, and that is some good news.
Now, if I were to have my own country, there would be no religion at all. A lot of very bad things have been done to our fellow humans, either directly or indirectly, in the name of religion. And what ever good comes from religion (e.g., values, etc.), can be taught just as well, if not better, without religion.
I've always imagined that if extraterrestrials (ETs) ever really did visit Earth, they would look down on our primitive, silly religious rituals with people dressed in robes and shawls and elaborate head attire bowing and swaying, and kneeling and praying, watching while we kill and maim each other, and these ETs would just keep on going without giving us the time of day.
But, let's face it, we will probably never be without religion. But I can still dream, can't I?
The good news is that there are fewer Christians in the U. S. today than there were 20 years ago, according to a new survey of 54, 461 people taken between February and November of last year. I know it doesn't seem like it but only 75% of respondents identified themselves as Christian as opposed to 86% in 1990.
The bad news is that of those who identified themselves as Christian, there are more evangelicals than mainstream Christians. In other words, evangelicals make up a majority of those who consider themselves to be Christian. And more bad news is that there has been a huge rise in the number of those who attend megachurches.
On the other hand, more people now express no religious affiliation, and that is some good news.
Now, if I were to have my own country, there would be no religion at all. A lot of very bad things have been done to our fellow humans, either directly or indirectly, in the name of religion. And what ever good comes from religion (e.g., values, etc.), can be taught just as well, if not better, without religion.
I've always imagined that if extraterrestrials (ETs) ever really did visit Earth, they would look down on our primitive, silly religious rituals with people dressed in robes and shawls and elaborate head attire bowing and swaying, and kneeling and praying, watching while we kill and maim each other, and these ETs would just keep on going without giving us the time of day.
But, let's face it, we will probably never be without religion. But I can still dream, can't I?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Pet peeves: Part II: Feeding Animals
No, this is not about animals feeding, but about people who feed "wild" animals.
We used to have a neighbor who fed the local wild life. She would leave her screen door open while she was at work so the squirrels could come inside and eat from her cat's food bowl. Often, before she left for work, she would take a bowl of potato chips and pretzels and throw them out for the crows who, after a few days of this, would congregate and fly around her squawking and generally making a nuisance.
She apparently believed that she was doing these animals a favor.
Another neighbor used to take cat food across the street to feed wild cats. At one time, a neighbor of my mother's was feeding an entire herd of wild cats.
At the park where I used to run, people would go with peanuts just to feed the squirrels. In no time, these squirrels became as obese as their human feeders.
Now I'm sure that these human feeders have good intentions, or at least they think they do. Actually, their behavior is pretty selfish; it makes them feel good to feed these poor little animals who, without their human enablers, would have to fend for themselves. It is probably not coincidental that the two neighbors I mentioned who fed the squirrels, crows, and cats, lived alone with few friends. Sadly, by feeding the animals, they ensured that someone one (or something) depended on them.
But these human feeders are not doing the animals any favors. As the Humane Society of the United States (as well as many other organizations) point out, "the long-term consequences of [feeding wild life] are often disastrous." But the Humane Society doesn't oppose all feeding of animals. For example, they don't oppose placing bird feeders in your back yard, but they do offer some guidelines for feeding wild life.
For example, they state:
We used to have a neighbor who fed the local wild life. She would leave her screen door open while she was at work so the squirrels could come inside and eat from her cat's food bowl. Often, before she left for work, she would take a bowl of potato chips and pretzels and throw them out for the crows who, after a few days of this, would congregate and fly around her squawking and generally making a nuisance.
She apparently believed that she was doing these animals a favor.
Another neighbor used to take cat food across the street to feed wild cats. At one time, a neighbor of my mother's was feeding an entire herd of wild cats.
At the park where I used to run, people would go with peanuts just to feed the squirrels. In no time, these squirrels became as obese as their human feeders.
Now I'm sure that these human feeders have good intentions, or at least they think they do. Actually, their behavior is pretty selfish; it makes them feel good to feed these poor little animals who, without their human enablers, would have to fend for themselves. It is probably not coincidental that the two neighbors I mentioned who fed the squirrels, crows, and cats, lived alone with few friends. Sadly, by feeding the animals, they ensured that someone one (or something) depended on them.
But these human feeders are not doing the animals any favors. As the Humane Society of the United States (as well as many other organizations) point out, "the long-term consequences of [feeding wild life] are often disastrous." But the Humane Society doesn't oppose all feeding of animals. For example, they don't oppose placing bird feeders in your back yard, but they do offer some guidelines for feeding wild life.
For example, they state:
The HSUS opposes the feeding of wildlife when the reasonable assumption can be made that animals may come to harm. While feeding birds and squirrels in your backyard is generally not an activity that fits into this category, some conditions may warrant curtailing the provision of such food sources. For example, during the warmer months, when natural food sources are more readily available, it's usually best to reduce the amount of feed you put out each day or suspend feeding altogether.But the best advice: don't feed the wild life.
If you do provide feed for backyard wildlife—at any time of the year—remember that it's also important to maintain safe, clean feeding stations in order to prevent the spread of disease.
Terms of Abortion
President Obama's decision to revisit and possibly reverse the Bush policy on stem cell research has reignited the explosive debate about abortion in which the anti-abortion movement has literally dictated the terms of the debate. For example, anti-abortionists have succeeded in getting the emotionally charged, but incorrect, term, partial-birth abortion, accepted into the public discourse and the law. The correct term is intact dilation and extraction (ID&X), which is a medical procedure used only in rare instances where continued pregnancy would place the woman’s life at risk. The media, often unschooled in the correct scientific terminology, unwittingly adopt the language of anti-abortionists in their reporting. Unfortunately, that language is then adopted by the public, and, ironically, even by some scientists and pro-choice advocates.
Perhaps if we were more concerned with the accuracy of our terminology, the abortion debate might be rendered less emotionally laden and the public might actually become objectively informed about the complex issues involved.
For starters, the term abort is often used incorrectly as a synonym for to kill. Such connotations are reinforced by media descriptions of fetuses or babies being aborted. But the verb, to abort, means to terminate prematurely. Thus, it is not a fetus (or even an embryo) that is aborted but rather a pregnancy before the fetus is viable. It is incorrect to use the term abortion to mean anything other than ending a pregnancy.
Many people are unaware that two out of three fertilized eggs naturally don't make it through prenatal development to result in the birth of a baby and, thus, most pregnancies are aborted due to biological causes. At different stages, and for different reasons, including chromosomal abnormalities, the individual stops developing. When this happens after implantation, a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion occurs and the pregnancy ends. We don’t say that an embryo or a fetus is aborted, however.
With the recent debate over stem-cell research, it has become commonplace to refer to the cells as embryos. Although scientists themselves can’t even agree exactly how the term embryo should be used, it is clear that the developing individual is different before it becomes implanted on the uterine wall than after. Before implantation the pre-embryo (as embryologist Clifford Grobstein calls it), or zygote, moves down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Only when it becomes implanted in the uterus and the placenta and umbilical cord form is it proper to refer to it as an embryo. Thus, embryonic stem-cell research is misnamed, since the stem cells come not from already implanted embryos, but from unattached pre-embryos or, more correctly, blastocysts. The difference is not insignificant because the way the term embryo has recently been used, we are made to actually feel empathy for a small clump of cells.
It is egregiously incorrect to refer to either the pre-embryo or embryo as an unborn child, or baby or infant. A child is a young person between infancy and youth and most people distinguish between an infant or a baby and a child that is usually walking and talking. Thus, to refer to a group of cells as a child or infant or baby goes completely against common usage, and it is designed solely to elicit strong emotions as part of an irrational argument.
Another mistake, which surprisingly many women make, is to assume that pregnancy occurs at conception. Pregnancy, however, is a physical state that only occurs when the fertilized egg becomes implanted on the uterine wall approximately two weeks after conception. A pregnancy test detects the hormones that are then released, which is why such tests will not yield a positive result before then. This also means that if the drug RU-486 is used as it was originally intended, as a morning-after (conception) pill (i.e., as a contragestive), it may prevent implantation; it does not cause an abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant.
In a dissent in the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision to uphold the ban on ID&X, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged the misuse of language by her colleagues when she said, “Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor.' A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby,' previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term,' and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as 'preferences' motivated by 'mere convenience.'”
Because of its enormous impact on the public debate, scientists and the media and, yes, even Supreme Court justices, regardless of their personal beliefs, have a responsibility to inject precision and facts into a discussion that too easily lends itself to subjectivity and emotion.
Perhaps if we were more concerned with the accuracy of our terminology, the abortion debate might be rendered less emotionally laden and the public might actually become objectively informed about the complex issues involved.
For starters, the term abort is often used incorrectly as a synonym for to kill. Such connotations are reinforced by media descriptions of fetuses or babies being aborted. But the verb, to abort, means to terminate prematurely. Thus, it is not a fetus (or even an embryo) that is aborted but rather a pregnancy before the fetus is viable. It is incorrect to use the term abortion to mean anything other than ending a pregnancy.
Many people are unaware that two out of three fertilized eggs naturally don't make it through prenatal development to result in the birth of a baby and, thus, most pregnancies are aborted due to biological causes. At different stages, and for different reasons, including chromosomal abnormalities, the individual stops developing. When this happens after implantation, a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion occurs and the pregnancy ends. We don’t say that an embryo or a fetus is aborted, however.
With the recent debate over stem-cell research, it has become commonplace to refer to the cells as embryos. Although scientists themselves can’t even agree exactly how the term embryo should be used, it is clear that the developing individual is different before it becomes implanted on the uterine wall than after. Before implantation the pre-embryo (as embryologist Clifford Grobstein calls it), or zygote, moves down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Only when it becomes implanted in the uterus and the placenta and umbilical cord form is it proper to refer to it as an embryo. Thus, embryonic stem-cell research is misnamed, since the stem cells come not from already implanted embryos, but from unattached pre-embryos or, more correctly, blastocysts. The difference is not insignificant because the way the term embryo has recently been used, we are made to actually feel empathy for a small clump of cells.
It is egregiously incorrect to refer to either the pre-embryo or embryo as an unborn child, or baby or infant. A child is a young person between infancy and youth and most people distinguish between an infant or a baby and a child that is usually walking and talking. Thus, to refer to a group of cells as a child or infant or baby goes completely against common usage, and it is designed solely to elicit strong emotions as part of an irrational argument.
Another mistake, which surprisingly many women make, is to assume that pregnancy occurs at conception. Pregnancy, however, is a physical state that only occurs when the fertilized egg becomes implanted on the uterine wall approximately two weeks after conception. A pregnancy test detects the hormones that are then released, which is why such tests will not yield a positive result before then. This also means that if the drug RU-486 is used as it was originally intended, as a morning-after (conception) pill (i.e., as a contragestive), it may prevent implantation; it does not cause an abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant.
In a dissent in the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision to uphold the ban on ID&X, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged the misuse of language by her colleagues when she said, “Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor.' A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby,' previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term,' and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as 'preferences' motivated by 'mere convenience.'”
Because of its enormous impact on the public debate, scientists and the media and, yes, even Supreme Court justices, regardless of their personal beliefs, have a responsibility to inject precision and facts into a discussion that too easily lends itself to subjectivity and emotion.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Know Your Primates
On February 17th a woman in Stamford Connecticut was seriously injured when the pet chimpanzee of a friend suddenly attacked her.The incident was another unfortunate one for all involved, including the chimp, Travis, who was killed by police, as are so many innocent animals who are acquired by humans and just behaving as they should.
Forget about the fact that people who own exotic animals such as chimps and tigers are not only stupid, but selfish; that's not what this post is about.
No, this post is about what we call these great apes.
More often than not, people call chimpanzees monkeys. But they are not monkeys, they are chimpanzees, just as we are not chimpanzees, we are homo sapiens.So why do some people confuse chimps for monkeys? Giving these people the benefit of the doubt, there are a few families of primates that include monkeys who resemble the great apes. For example, the family of monkeys called Cebidae, which includes species such as black howler (see middle photo) and squirrel monkeys (see bottom photo) bear a slight resemblance to chimps (see top photo) and gorillas. (Of course, most species of monkeys bear very little resemblance to chimpanzees.)
The other answer to the question as to why people call chimps monkeys is because they are stupid and really don't know the difference, although their stupidity is not their fault.To clarify, monkeys, chimps, gorillas, orang-utans, bonobos, and homo sapiens (us) are all part of the order called primates (All of the above except for monkeys make up the family of primates called Pongidae).
So, know your primates and don't call chimpanzees monkeys!
Pet Peeves: Part I: Restaurants
I have a lot of pet peeves.
This one is about restaurants.
I've been to restaurants in many countries in addition to the United States, but my favorites are in France and Italy, not only for the quality of the food but for the service or, depending on your perspective, the lack of service. But not many Americans probably agree with me.
Here's what I hate about most restaurants in this country.
The waiters and waitresses are always trying to sell you food and beverages. For example, when waiters (sorry I'm going to use male nouns and pronouns) ask you what you want to drink and you say "I'll only have water," they immediately ask, "Are you sure? We also have wine and beer." I know you have wine and beer. What do you think I'm a moron and forgot or couldn't read the menu? Or do you think I'm so stupid that I don't know what I want?
Of course, this happens with the entire meal. If I only order an entree, say the salmon, waiters are not satisfied with that so they have to ask "Don't you want an appetizer? We have some great fried calamari!"
I say, "No thanks," but what I'm saying to myself is, "Idiot, if I wanted to order the fried calamari I would have ordered it. What am I, a child, who needs to be prompted to order?"
Well, of course, many Americans are like children such that they allow waiters to talk them into ordering everything on the menu.
Then, and this never happens in France, the waiter has to interrupt my mediocre meal to ask "Is everything all right"? I say, "Yes, thanks," but what I say to myself is "It was all right until you came up for the fifth time to ask me if everything was all right."
Christ, they just won't leave you alone in American restaurants.
And then when you finally finish your meal and ask for the check, their last stand is to ask whether you want coffee and to see the desert menu. "No," I say to myself, "I just want to get out of here and go home where I can do what I thought I could do here -- relax."
I want a waiter who both waits on me and waits for me. If I need something, I'll call you and ask for it. Just take my order and bring me the damn food, and leave me alone.
Of course, waiters (and restaurants) push food and beverages because they want you to run up a bigger bill. And, frankly, many customers fall for these sales ploys, so why wouldn't they keep selling. Also, the waiter gets a bigger tip. Well here's a tip: leave me alone and be ready at my beck and call and I'll give you a big tip!
In France, you have to send up flares to get the waiter's attention, but I prefer that to an over eager waiter that, like a fly, keeps buzzing around me throughout the whole meal.
Just one of my pet peeves.
This one is about restaurants.
I've been to restaurants in many countries in addition to the United States, but my favorites are in France and Italy, not only for the quality of the food but for the service or, depending on your perspective, the lack of service. But not many Americans probably agree with me.
Here's what I hate about most restaurants in this country.
The waiters and waitresses are always trying to sell you food and beverages. For example, when waiters (sorry I'm going to use male nouns and pronouns) ask you what you want to drink and you say "I'll only have water," they immediately ask, "Are you sure? We also have wine and beer." I know you have wine and beer. What do you think I'm a moron and forgot or couldn't read the menu? Or do you think I'm so stupid that I don't know what I want?
Of course, this happens with the entire meal. If I only order an entree, say the salmon, waiters are not satisfied with that so they have to ask "Don't you want an appetizer? We have some great fried calamari!"
I say, "No thanks," but what I'm saying to myself is, "Idiot, if I wanted to order the fried calamari I would have ordered it. What am I, a child, who needs to be prompted to order?"
Well, of course, many Americans are like children such that they allow waiters to talk them into ordering everything on the menu.
Then, and this never happens in France, the waiter has to interrupt my mediocre meal to ask "Is everything all right"? I say, "Yes, thanks," but what I say to myself is "It was all right until you came up for the fifth time to ask me if everything was all right."
Christ, they just won't leave you alone in American restaurants.
And then when you finally finish your meal and ask for the check, their last stand is to ask whether you want coffee and to see the desert menu. "No," I say to myself, "I just want to get out of here and go home where I can do what I thought I could do here -- relax."
I want a waiter who both waits on me and waits for me. If I need something, I'll call you and ask for it. Just take my order and bring me the damn food, and leave me alone.
Of course, waiters (and restaurants) push food and beverages because they want you to run up a bigger bill. And, frankly, many customers fall for these sales ploys, so why wouldn't they keep selling. Also, the waiter gets a bigger tip. Well here's a tip: leave me alone and be ready at my beck and call and I'll give you a big tip!
In France, you have to send up flares to get the waiter's attention, but I prefer that to an over eager waiter that, like a fly, keeps buzzing around me throughout the whole meal.
Just one of my pet peeves.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Economists Are Experts on Human Behavior?
I've noticed a trend recently: economists are claiming to be experts on human behavior, a realm once restricted mainly to psychologists.
A recent article in the L.A. Times, titled, "UCLA researchers study social forces shaping human behavior during war" finally pushed me to write this.
When I saw this title, I naturally thought the "researchers" would be psychologists or even sociologists. But economists?
What do economists know about human behavior (He asked rhetorically)? Is there really an economist out there anywhere whose predictions about the economy or the economic behavior of human beings are better than chance? And what kind of"research" do these economists do? I can tell you that it's not experimental. In fact, it's based on complex statistical analyses from a variety of different sources that are used to predict the behavior of individuals during war. I'm not suggesting that their "research" doesn't have value, but if we want to understand the behavior of individuals, I submit that we have to study the behavior of individuals in controlled settings.
Christ, economists even get a Nobel prize! For what? Has any economic theory ever accurately predicted or explained human behavior? That is why economists, like social workers, have to go shopping for a discipline with a real research base that they can use to buttress their own theories.
And that discipline is usually psychology. Until recently, that is.
Economists, not having a substantial discipline of their own, have become polygamists, extending their marriage with psychology to include, you guessed it, neuroscience.
The union of these three disciplines is a new discipline called neuroeconomics. According to the website of The Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics at George Mason University, neuroeconomics is "dedicated to the experimental study of how emergent mental computations in the brain interact with the emergent computations of institutions to produce legal, political, and economic order."
What the hell does that mean? How does one study mental computations experimentally? (Are there really computations going on in the brain?) And, is there really a "legal, political and economic order"?
But the issue is much larger than whether economists know anything about human behavior.
The issue is who is in the best position to explain human behavior and by what methods? Nowadays, everyone, it seems, is an expert on human behavior, especially those who aren't experts (e.g., economists, people with MBAs, people with literature degrees, social workers, therapists, and journalists). If you have a Ph.D. in experimental or behavioral psychology beware; everyone knows as much as you do about your subject matter. While no one would ever question a physicist's explanation of, well, physical things, there are many out there who will debate with you your knowledge of and expertise on human behavior.
So, be prepared for more psychologizing from economists and others from business schools at universities, especially when they collaborate with brain imaging researchers.
Let me wrap up by saying emphatically that no amount of knowledge or understanding of the brain mechanisms involved when we are said to make decisions or choices will ultimately explain the decision-making or choice behaviors. That will come only from an understanding of the environmental contingencies that impact directly on the behaviors of interest and that will only come from experimental behavioral psychologists.
A recent article in the L.A. Times, titled, "UCLA researchers study social forces shaping human behavior during war" finally pushed me to write this.
When I saw this title, I naturally thought the "researchers" would be psychologists or even sociologists. But economists?
What do economists know about human behavior (He asked rhetorically)? Is there really an economist out there anywhere whose predictions about the economy or the economic behavior of human beings are better than chance? And what kind of"research" do these economists do? I can tell you that it's not experimental. In fact, it's based on complex statistical analyses from a variety of different sources that are used to predict the behavior of individuals during war. I'm not suggesting that their "research" doesn't have value, but if we want to understand the behavior of individuals, I submit that we have to study the behavior of individuals in controlled settings.
Christ, economists even get a Nobel prize! For what? Has any economic theory ever accurately predicted or explained human behavior? That is why economists, like social workers, have to go shopping for a discipline with a real research base that they can use to buttress their own theories.
And that discipline is usually psychology. Until recently, that is.
Economists, not having a substantial discipline of their own, have become polygamists, extending their marriage with psychology to include, you guessed it, neuroscience.
The union of these three disciplines is a new discipline called neuroeconomics. According to the website of The Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics at George Mason University, neuroeconomics is "dedicated to the experimental study of how emergent mental computations in the brain interact with the emergent computations of institutions to produce legal, political, and economic order."
What the hell does that mean? How does one study mental computations experimentally? (Are there really computations going on in the brain?) And, is there really a "legal, political and economic order"?
But the issue is much larger than whether economists know anything about human behavior.
The issue is who is in the best position to explain human behavior and by what methods? Nowadays, everyone, it seems, is an expert on human behavior, especially those who aren't experts (e.g., economists, people with MBAs, people with literature degrees, social workers, therapists, and journalists). If you have a Ph.D. in experimental or behavioral psychology beware; everyone knows as much as you do about your subject matter. While no one would ever question a physicist's explanation of, well, physical things, there are many out there who will debate with you your knowledge of and expertise on human behavior.
So, be prepared for more psychologizing from economists and others from business schools at universities, especially when they collaborate with brain imaging researchers.
Let me wrap up by saying emphatically that no amount of knowledge or understanding of the brain mechanisms involved when we are said to make decisions or choices will ultimately explain the decision-making or choice behaviors. That will come only from an understanding of the environmental contingencies that impact directly on the behaviors of interest and that will only come from experimental behavioral psychologists.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monkeys Are As Smart As College Students Because They Have Better Teachers
You can always tell when scientific meetings such as the AAAS meeting are going on because there are a lot of news stories about, well science.
One of the most recent, again from the National Geographic News, bore the title, "Monkeys Can Subtract, Study Finds."
This story, just as others like it, begs for skeptical thinking.
In the story, we are told that "Rhesus macaques placed in front of touch screens in a Duke University laboratory were able to subtract dots—not by counting them individually but by using a more instantaneous ability researchers call number sense."
The lead researcher, Duke University graduate student Jessica Cantlon, was quoted as saying that the results "suggest that these abilities are part of a primitive system for reasoning about numbers that has been passed down for millions of years of evolutionary time."
An "instantaneous ability" to subtract? A "number sense"? Like the sense of smell, taste, vision? A primitive system for reasoning?
Malarkey!
These ways of talking about the monkeys' behavior are completely circular: What is the evidence for the "number sense," or the "primitive system"? Only the monkeys' behavior. There is no independent evidence for any of these claims.
Not to take anything away from the monkeys, but what is left out of the sloppy and designed-for-PR ways of describing what the monkeys did was a throw-away line in the story about what happened after the monkey made a correct response: "Each correct answer was worth a serving of Kool-Aid." No mention was made of what happened if the monkeys made an incorrect response which they surely did at the beginning of training.
Some will recognize this as operant learning: correct responses produce consequences called "reinforcers," and incorrect responses likely produce either a brief time-out, when the monkey loses the opportunity to respond, or some other withholding of reinforcement (i.e., the Kool-Aid).
Why is it important to describe the training? Simple. Because without the training, the monkeys do not subtract. Why is this point important? Because only if monkeys engage in the kinds of behaviors WITHOUT training can they be said the have a "number sense," or a "primitive system for reasoning."
It is not the monkeys who have done anything worth writing about; it is the training! Thus, monkeys do not have a number sense or ability to "add" or "subtract." What they have, which is what we have, is the ability to learn.
But in the absence of a good learning environment, neither monkeys nor people, will learn. So, the fact that the college students used as controls in the study performed as well as the monkeys' means only that the monkeys had better teachers than the supposedly smarter college students.
One of the most recent, again from the National Geographic News, bore the title, "Monkeys Can Subtract, Study Finds."
This story, just as others like it, begs for skeptical thinking.
In the story, we are told that "Rhesus macaques placed in front of touch screens in a Duke University laboratory were able to subtract dots—not by counting them individually but by using a more instantaneous ability researchers call number sense."
The lead researcher, Duke University graduate student Jessica Cantlon, was quoted as saying that the results "suggest that these abilities are part of a primitive system for reasoning about numbers that has been passed down for millions of years of evolutionary time."
An "instantaneous ability" to subtract? A "number sense"? Like the sense of smell, taste, vision? A primitive system for reasoning?
Malarkey!
These ways of talking about the monkeys' behavior are completely circular: What is the evidence for the "number sense," or the "primitive system"? Only the monkeys' behavior. There is no independent evidence for any of these claims.
Not to take anything away from the monkeys, but what is left out of the sloppy and designed-for-PR ways of describing what the monkeys did was a throw-away line in the story about what happened after the monkey made a correct response: "Each correct answer was worth a serving of Kool-Aid." No mention was made of what happened if the monkeys made an incorrect response which they surely did at the beginning of training.
Some will recognize this as operant learning: correct responses produce consequences called "reinforcers," and incorrect responses likely produce either a brief time-out, when the monkey loses the opportunity to respond, or some other withholding of reinforcement (i.e., the Kool-Aid).
Why is it important to describe the training? Simple. Because without the training, the monkeys do not subtract. Why is this point important? Because only if monkeys engage in the kinds of behaviors WITHOUT training can they be said the have a "number sense," or a "primitive system for reasoning."
It is not the monkeys who have done anything worth writing about; it is the training! Thus, monkeys do not have a number sense or ability to "add" or "subtract." What they have, which is what we have, is the ability to learn.
But in the absence of a good learning environment, neither monkeys nor people, will learn. So, the fact that the college students used as controls in the study performed as well as the monkeys' means only that the monkeys had better teachers than the supposedly smarter college students.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
This Post (It) Should Be Read, And Other Grammatical Musings
From time to time, I will comment on grammatical errors that bug me. This post is about a couple of errors that have become so common that I find myself making at least one of them.
One problem is that almost everyone nowadays uses both a noun and a pronoun to perform the same function in a sentence, namely that of the subject, for example, saying "My sister she called me today" instead of the more correct, "My sister called me today." I hear this every day by people who should know better, such as news anchors (okay, so maybe they really don't know better), and actors in movies and on television who are reading scripts written by educated writers (okay, so maybe they aren't that educated).
The rule, which can be found as 30c n the book Rules for Writers (6th ed.) by Diana Hacker, Nancy Sommers, Tom Jehn, Jane Rosenzweig, Marcy Carbajal Van Horn, is "Do not use both a noun and a pronoun to perform the same grammatical function in a sentence" (p. 255).
Now that you're aware of it, try to listen for this mistake.
Another grammatical error that I notice is when people (again, news anchors are common grammatical criminals) screw up the subject verb agreement with singular and plural, for example, saying "There's a lot of cars" instead of "There are a lot of cars." Maybe people wouldn't make this mistake as much if they didn't make a contraction of "there" and "is," but then again, maybe they would. Or, maybe it's just easier to say "There's" than to say "There are."
Either way, we are slowly becoming a country of illiterates.
One problem is that almost everyone nowadays uses both a noun and a pronoun to perform the same function in a sentence, namely that of the subject, for example, saying "My sister she called me today" instead of the more correct, "My sister called me today." I hear this every day by people who should know better, such as news anchors (okay, so maybe they really don't know better), and actors in movies and on television who are reading scripts written by educated writers (okay, so maybe they aren't that educated).
The rule, which can be found as 30c n the book Rules for Writers (6th ed.) by Diana Hacker, Nancy Sommers, Tom Jehn, Jane Rosenzweig, Marcy Carbajal Van Horn, is "Do not use both a noun and a pronoun to perform the same grammatical function in a sentence" (p. 255).
Now that you're aware of it, try to listen for this mistake.
Another grammatical error that I notice is when people (again, news anchors are common grammatical criminals) screw up the subject verb agreement with singular and plural, for example, saying "There's a lot of cars" instead of "There are a lot of cars." Maybe people wouldn't make this mistake as much if they didn't make a contraction of "there" and "is," but then again, maybe they would. Or, maybe it's just easier to say "There's" than to say "There are."
Either way, we are slowly becoming a country of illiterates.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
More Stupid Psychology
Unfortunately, the science magazines (e.g., Scientific American, National Geographic), like the rest of the culture, have been bamboozled by psychology into taking psychological research seriously.
Take the most recent ridiculousness, an article in the National Geographic News titled, "Bikinis Make Men See Women as Objects, Scans Confirm," which reported on a study by psychologists at prestigious Princeton University and presented at the equally prestigious annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In the study the researchers performed brain scans of men while they saw pictures of scantily clad women. Apparently the region of the brain associated with tool use lit up confirming for the researchers the stereotype that we men view women as objects. And a really "shocking" finding was the activation of brain regions associated with inferring another person's intentions, suggesting to the lead researcher, Susan Fiske, that "This means that these men see women "as sexually inviting, but they are not thinking about their minds," Fiske said."
Is she kidding? Okay men, be honest, which of you looks at skimpily clad women and thinks, "I wonder what college she went to"?
Did these "researchers" look at other parts of the brain, such as the part of the hypothalamus that mediates sexual arousal, or perhaps measure sympathetic nervous system activation? Oh, and did I mention that, at least according to the article, the photographs of the scantily clad women were headless? Assuming any validity to the findings (a big assumption), aren't we more likely to view a headless person more as an object?
And the ridiculousness doesn't end there, because apparently some of Dr. Fiske's male colleagues at prestigious Princeton suggested performing a similar study with women because according to a reverse stereotype, women look for men who have wealth and power. Aha, so women see us men as objects too!
Of course, this analysis smacks of evolutionary psychology, which, if you need to be reminded, is just a rehash of sociobiology in a slightly more appealing package. But if they want to play the evolutionary psychology game, then, yeah, I look at sexy women as objects with whom I want to have sex. What healthy male doesn't? If we didn't, and were only interested in their minds, then perhaps we wouldn't have succeeded much as a species.
So, let women look for men to mate with who have power, and let us men look for sexually attractive females, and maybe we'll all be happy and successful.
By the way, this study is just one example of why psychology has contributed very little to either our understanding of human behavior or to our ability to change it.
Take the most recent ridiculousness, an article in the National Geographic News titled, "Bikinis Make Men See Women as Objects, Scans Confirm," which reported on a study by psychologists at prestigious Princeton University and presented at the equally prestigious annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In the study the researchers performed brain scans of men while they saw pictures of scantily clad women. Apparently the region of the brain associated with tool use lit up confirming for the researchers the stereotype that we men view women as objects. And a really "shocking" finding was the activation of brain regions associated with inferring another person's intentions, suggesting to the lead researcher, Susan Fiske, that "This means that these men see women "as sexually inviting, but they are not thinking about their minds," Fiske said."
Is she kidding? Okay men, be honest, which of you looks at skimpily clad women and thinks, "I wonder what college she went to"?
Did these "researchers" look at other parts of the brain, such as the part of the hypothalamus that mediates sexual arousal, or perhaps measure sympathetic nervous system activation? Oh, and did I mention that, at least according to the article, the photographs of the scantily clad women were headless? Assuming any validity to the findings (a big assumption), aren't we more likely to view a headless person more as an object?
And the ridiculousness doesn't end there, because apparently some of Dr. Fiske's male colleagues at prestigious Princeton suggested performing a similar study with women because according to a reverse stereotype, women look for men who have wealth and power. Aha, so women see us men as objects too!
Of course, this analysis smacks of evolutionary psychology, which, if you need to be reminded, is just a rehash of sociobiology in a slightly more appealing package. But if they want to play the evolutionary psychology game, then, yeah, I look at sexy women as objects with whom I want to have sex. What healthy male doesn't? If we didn't, and were only interested in their minds, then perhaps we wouldn't have succeeded much as a species.
So, let women look for men to mate with who have power, and let us men look for sexually attractive females, and maybe we'll all be happy and successful.
By the way, this study is just one example of why psychology has contributed very little to either our understanding of human behavior or to our ability to change it.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Doctors Aren't the Only Doctors, And Other Ruminations on Using Names
I have a Ph.D., but when I go to my physician's office, everyone, from the receptionist to the nurse to the physician himself calls me by my first name. Okay, so they don't know that I'm also called "doctor." But what really riles me is that when I introduce myself as "Doctor . . . ," or when I call and identify myself as "Doctor . . . ," they still call me by my first name.
Another thing that gets my goat is how every one in the physican's office calls all patients by their first name, even patients who are in the 70s or 80s. Now, I'm probably old fashioned in this regard, but I believe that everyone older than about 20 or so should be called "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Ms.," or "Dr." (if that person has any kind of doctorate degree).
And the same goes for my bank, credit card company, local newspaper, etc., or anyone who calls me and isnt' a friend of mind. Show some respect.
The only exceptions are when someone tells you that you can call them by their first name.
But back to you medical doctors out there. My degree says the same thing yours does: Doctor. Just because we generically call physicians "doctor," doesn't mean you are the only doctors. So, get over your ego trip. I went to school for as many years as you did and as a university professor, I think I do as much good, maybe even saving some lives (metaphorically), as you do.
So, unless you want me to call you by your first name, call me "Doctor" okay?
Another thing that gets my goat is how every one in the physican's office calls all patients by their first name, even patients who are in the 70s or 80s. Now, I'm probably old fashioned in this regard, but I believe that everyone older than about 20 or so should be called "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Ms.," or "Dr." (if that person has any kind of doctorate degree).
And the same goes for my bank, credit card company, local newspaper, etc., or anyone who calls me and isnt' a friend of mind. Show some respect.
The only exceptions are when someone tells you that you can call them by their first name.
But back to you medical doctors out there. My degree says the same thing yours does: Doctor. Just because we generically call physicians "doctor," doesn't mean you are the only doctors. So, get over your ego trip. I went to school for as many years as you did and as a university professor, I think I do as much good, maybe even saving some lives (metaphorically), as you do.
So, unless you want me to call you by your first name, call me "Doctor" okay?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Fourteen is Thirteen Too Many
Almost everyone else in country has weighed in on Nadya Suleman, the Whittier California woman with six children who recently gave birth to eight more after in vitro fertilization, so why not The Sheriff?
But I cannot equal Tim Rutten's recent column in the L.A. Times on February 11, "The excesses of Nadya Suleman," in which Rutten refers to "the grotesque story of Nadya Suleman, the sad and disturbing serial mom whose apparent addiction to childbirth recently resulted in the delivery of octuplets."
But my two cents are that not only should we require any one who wants to have a child to apply for a license that the state only issues when the parents-to-be have taken prenatal care and child rearing classes and demonstrated mastery of the knowledge, BUT we should definitely regulate the fertility industry and require strict oversight not only of the parents-to-be, but of the physicians as well.
The medical board should strip the physician who oversaw Suleman's fertilization of his privileges to practice medicine. And we should consider adopting a version of China's law that would limit people like Nadya Suleman to only one child, if any.
But I cannot equal Tim Rutten's recent column in the L.A. Times on February 11, "The excesses of Nadya Suleman," in which Rutten refers to "the grotesque story of Nadya Suleman, the sad and disturbing serial mom whose apparent addiction to childbirth recently resulted in the delivery of octuplets."
But my two cents are that not only should we require any one who wants to have a child to apply for a license that the state only issues when the parents-to-be have taken prenatal care and child rearing classes and demonstrated mastery of the knowledge, BUT we should definitely regulate the fertility industry and require strict oversight not only of the parents-to-be, but of the physicians as well.
The medical board should strip the physician who oversaw Suleman's fertilization of his privileges to practice medicine. And we should consider adopting a version of China's law that would limit people like Nadya Suleman to only one child, if any.
I'm Sorry
Have you noticed how celebrities fuck up big time and then think they can erase the damage they've done by saying "I'm sorry"? Remember Mel Gibson's apology to the Jewish community after his drunken anti-semitic tirade? Hey, Mel, you're probably an anti-semite and have a substance-abuse problem. Or how about Ted Haggard apologizing twice for having sex with another man. Hey, Ted, you're Gay and maybe have a substance-abuse problem. Just admit it and stop saying you're sorry. Or Don Imus apologizing for his racial slur about the Rutger's University women's basketball team. Or Michael Richards hurling racial epithets at a Hollywood comedy club and then claiming he's not a racist. (See a list of the top ten according to Time Magazine.) You're both racists; we all are; but most of us keep it under wraps.
The two latest are Christian Bale and Michael Phelps.
In the case of Christian Bale, he went off on a profanity-laced rant last year against an assistant director on the set of Terminator: Salvation, who apparently entered Bale's line of sight while checking a light.
Now, I'm not judging Bale's behavior, but he apparently thinks he can make it all right by simply saying, "I'm sorry."
The case of Michael Phelps pisses me off more. Phelps was photographed smoking dope from a bong at a party. When the photo surfaced and he was chastised by the media and was threatened with the loss of some high-paying sponsors, he apologized. But why?
Phelps is a 23-year-old (kid) who smokes pot. Well, here's a news flash: A lot of 23-year-olds smoke pot. Get over it. But some are saying that Phelps is a role model. For what? And who conferred that status on him? Okay, so he won a record eight gold medals at the Olympics. If that makes him a role model, it should only be for working hard.
So I say to Michael, "Don't apologize. Tell everyone to mind their own business and to get a life and start worrying about the decline of Western Civilization and the human species instead of whether you smoke pot."
The two latest are Christian Bale and Michael Phelps.
In the case of Christian Bale, he went off on a profanity-laced rant last year against an assistant director on the set of Terminator: Salvation, who apparently entered Bale's line of sight while checking a light.
Now, I'm not judging Bale's behavior, but he apparently thinks he can make it all right by simply saying, "I'm sorry."
The case of Michael Phelps pisses me off more. Phelps was photographed smoking dope from a bong at a party. When the photo surfaced and he was chastised by the media and was threatened with the loss of some high-paying sponsors, he apologized. But why?
Phelps is a 23-year-old (kid) who smokes pot. Well, here's a news flash: A lot of 23-year-olds smoke pot. Get over it. But some are saying that Phelps is a role model. For what? And who conferred that status on him? Okay, so he won a record eight gold medals at the Olympics. If that makes him a role model, it should only be for working hard.
So I say to Michael, "Don't apologize. Tell everyone to mind their own business and to get a life and start worrying about the decline of Western Civilization and the human species instead of whether you smoke pot."
It is, I think, fitting that I inaugurate my blog with a tribute to Charles Darwin on this the anniversary of his 200th birthday.
First, I reprint an editorial from the L.A. Times on Thursday, February 12th.
Evolution survives
Opposition to evolution has taken various forms over the years, but each attack has been unreasonable. Schools must continue to fight attempts to undermine it.
February 12, 2009
Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, an occasion that ought to be cause for universal celebration. Not only was Darwin's theory of evolution a scientific epiphany, millions of people owe their lives and their health to research that is predicated on Darwin's insight that human beings share a common ancestor with other species. But there is a malodorous skunk at this garden party: a movement rooted in American-style biblical fundamentalism that seeks to discredit Darwinism and undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Like species in the Darwinian account, the opposition to evolution has mutated over the years. The initial strategy was to ban the teaching of evolution outright, as Tennessee did in 1925 (provoking the Scopes "monkey trial") and Arkansas did in 1928. It wasn't until 40 years later that the Supreme Court invalidated Arkansas' law. That should have been the last word, but opponents of evolution have ingeniously recast their crusade, from "creationism," with explicit invocation of the Book of Genesis, to "creation science" to "intelligent design." For good measure, they have couched their arguments in terms of academic freedom.
Fortunately, the courts have seen through these subterfuges. But the fact that they had to intervene at all is a reminder that opposition to evolution persists in the face of overwhelming evidence. In a debate during the 2008 Republican presidential primary, three of the 10 candidates raised their hands when the moderator asked who didn't believe in evolution. Two-thirds of the respondents in a 2007 USA Today/Gallup poll said that it is definitely or probably true that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Explanations for this attitude abound: biblical literalism, uneasiness with Darwin's theory of natural selection, the mistaken belief that a scientific "theory" is just a guess, and a failure to distinguish between minor revisions of Darwin's theory and fundamental objections to it. The overriding reality may be that many Christians don't realize many of their coreligionists see no conflict between evolution and belief in God. In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Francis Collins, who retired last year after 15 years as head of the Human Genome Project, an enterprise that presumes the truth of evolution, is a Christian.
However ingenious the arguments, opposition to evolution is literally unreasonable. Schools must stand firm against attempts to introduce theology into science classrooms -- not out of veneration for Charles Darwin, but because students deserve to be told the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to comment on a recent Gallup Poll that shows that "only 39% of Americans say they 'believe in the theory of evolution,' while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity."
So, we Americans are getting stupider than we were, which is no small accomplishment. But I don't blame the stupid people who don't believe in evolution (not that it's something one chooses to believe in, like Santa Claus), or even know what the hell it is, much less the primary mechanism by which it has proceeded -- natural selection. No, I blame an educational system that fails to teach our children not only the basic facts of science, but is unable to even teach them to read and write.
So, although as the L. A. Times noted, we should be universally celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin. Instead, it is being celebrated only by scientists and a relative handful of others. We are our own worst enemies.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Darwin's 200th Birthday
It is, I think, fitting that I inaugurate my blog with a tribute to Charles Darwin on this the anniversary of his 200th birthday. Unfortunately, I have to comment on a recent Gallup Poll that shows that "only 39% of Americans say they 'believe in the theory of evolution,' while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity."
So, we Americans are getting stupider than we were, which is no small accomplishment. But I don't blame the stupid people who don't believe in evolution, or even know what the hell it is, much less the primary mechanism by which it has proceeded -- natural selection. No, I blame an educational system that rather than
So, we Americans are getting stupider than we were, which is no small accomplishment. But I don't blame the stupid people who don't believe in evolution, or even know what the hell it is, much less the primary mechanism by which it has proceeded -- natural selection. No, I blame an educational system that rather than
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
