Knowledge Summit

Sports Performance & Over-thinking

2012-01-26T04:24:00.000-08:00

Sports Performance & Over-thinking

Sometimes athletes over-think the situation while performing. Why does over-thinking in high level athletes often lead to decreased athletic performance? Dr. Adam Lawson, Cognitive Neuroscientist, offers the following explanation.

Much of the brain can be divided into conscious controlled and automatic systems, with conscious controlled systems being focused on handling new or unusual challenges while automatic systems are best able to quickly and efficiently act on well learned acts. Practice, whether a sport or an intellectual ability, allows for the transfer of tasks from conscious controlled to automatic systems. The advantage of utilizing these automatic systems is that they are very good at repeating an action over and over again. Sometimes, our conscious and automatic systems become a hindrance, however, because two systems trying to control one body does not work very well. In the case of intellectual tasks, our conscious awareness of two competing thoughts (one automatic and one conscious controlled) can lead to the indecisiveness we call over-thinking.

Choosing a Medical Malpractice Lawyer

2012-01-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

Recently someone suggested I look at a site called Medical Malpractice Lawyers. When I first heard about the site I wasn't really interested. However, once I looked at the site I was very impressed with the information and also with the reasons given for starting the site. I highly recommend this site, especially if you are thinking about hiring a Medical Malpractice lawyer. The site is also a great source for anyone interested in learning more about different types of medical malpractice cases.

Baby Brain Damage – Brain damage in infants is mostly caused by factors like a lack of oxygen to the brain, an unhealthy placenta, being prematurely separated from the placenta, a squashed umbilical cord, and too high or too low blood pressure in the infant. Brain damage can also be worse in infants that are born premature. Because of this damage, babies that have it are prone to several disabilities, including defective eye sight and neurological disorders such as cerebral palsy. Once they reach childhood, they may experience difficulty with speech and learning and could develop other problems such as attention deficit disorder.

Nursing Home Abuse – This term refers to any physical, sexual, psychological, verbal, or financial abuse inflicted upon residents of a nursing home facility. Such abuse continues to be a growing issue in our country; however, many cases go unreported because the victims involved are too scared or ashamed to come forward. Typically, nursing home abuse is experienced by the female residents of the facility, though some males have reportedly been victims, as well. To learn more about nursing home abuse and what you can do to help prevent it, visit Nursing Home Abuse.net.

The site lists 25 different types of cases. The site also features articles:
10 Questions to Ask an Attorney Before Retaining Their Services
The owners of the site do not accept advertising or recommend specific medical malpractice attorneys. They have purposely chosen to remain anonymous in order to eliminate the potential appearance of a conflict of interest wherein they would receive additional clients through this website.

Stats Made Ez: Stats and Public Understanding

2012-01-10T07:15:00.000-08:00

Recently I asked Dr. Jonathan Gore the following question- Why is a basic understanding of stats important for the public?

My answer to why stats is important is that pretty much everything operates based on probability. Even some of the "hard" sciences are starting to realize that phenomena that used to only require a basic equation are now having to factor in probability to account for all that they observe. To understand events that occur in our daily lives, including understanding other people’s behaviors, the economy, and health, we have to address probabilities rather than basic equations. When I talk with religious people about the importance of statistics, and they question its relevance, I say, "Statistics is the best tool for humans to understand how God’s creation works." We may never know the complete picture, but statistics give us the best possible estimate.

Pretty much everything, including science operates based on probability. One of the biggest roadblocks to the dissemination of science and stats is that people have a strong need for absolute certainty. Science is not about absolutes.

Stats Made Ez: Why We Need Statistics!

2011-12-19T07:15:00.000-08:00

This is the first in a series of short articles that will discuss basic stats. Learning about stats will help you think in terms of probabilities, and allow you to gain a better understanding of research data.

Statistic: 1 number that summarizes a property of a set of numbers (Osbaldiston, 2011)

One of the key reasons of why we need statistics is to be able to effectively conduct research. Without the use of statistics it would be very difficult to analyze the collected data and make decisions based on the data. Statistics give us an overview of the data and allow us to make sense of what is going on. Without statistics, in many cases, it would be extremely difficult to find meaning in the data. Statistics provides us with a tool to make an educated inference.

Most scientific and technical journals contain some form of statistics. Without an understanding of statistics, the statistical information contained in the journal will be meaningless. An understanding of basic statistics will provide you with the fundamental skills necessary to read and evaluate most results sections. The ability to extract meaning from journal articles, and the ability to evaluate research from a statistical perspective are basic skills that will increase your knowledge and understanding of the article of interest.

Gaining knowledge in the area of statistics will help you become a better-informed consumer. Of course, statistics can be used or misused. Some individuals do mislead with statistics. If you understand basic statistical concepts, you will be in a better position to evaluate the information you have been given.

In future articles will be discussing: mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation, t-tests, correlation coefficient, and many other statistical concepts.

"Person-Who" Statistics

2011-12-17T06:41:00.000-08:00

Results of scientific studies are stated in probabilistic terms. Science is not in the business of making claims of absolute certainty (refer to bead model of truth). When science describes, predicts or explains something, it is understood that the conclusion is tentative. This willingness to admit fallibility is probably one of science’s biggest strengths. In virtually every other area of knowledge acquisition, admitting fallibility is not a virtue, but a severe weakness.

Person-who statistics: situations in which well-established statistical trends are questioned because someone knows a “person who” went against the trend (Stanovich, 2007). For example, “Look at my grandpa, he is ninety years old, has been smoking since he was in thirteen, and is still healthy”, implying smoking is not bad for health. Learning to think probabilistically is an important trait that can increase one's ability to think more accurately. Person-who statistics is a ubiquitous phenomenon.

Research shows people have a difficult time thinking probabilistically. People like things stated in terms of absolute. However, many things cannot be explained in those terms, and in fact when referring to causation in everyday life we are often wrong. Determining what causes something is not as simple as we would like to think.

The conclusions drawn from scientific research are probabilistic- generalizations that are correct most of the time, but not every time. People often weight anecdotal evidence more heavily than probabilistic information. This is an error in thinking, and leads to bad decisions, and often, irrational thinking.

References

Stanovich, K. (2007). How To Think Straight About Psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson.

How I became Interested In Science

2011-12-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

Kevin Akers

It took a good deal of thinking to try and remember when and why I became interested in science. I think that it is hard to narrow it down to just one or two things. I was always a pretty good student in high school and college, and I would guess that some of my teachers probably instilled a basic interest of various science topics in me. I became interested in science primarily when I began reading on my own after I graduated instead of reading for a particular class. I found it frustrating when each week according to the news it seemed like the same food alternated between being horrible for you and being great for you. I was also frustrated when a reporter would spend thirty seconds or so attempting to describe a scientific discovery, but obviously had little idea what it meant or how it was discovered. Along with some other factors, I think I basically wanted to find out for myself how a variety of things worked and how scientists knew what they knew.

The first non-fiction books I read after college were history books. I was interested in ancient history, and in particular alternative theories about ancient history. Most of the books I read were essentially pseudoscience in historical form; they presented interesting questions that clashed with traditional history and on the surface seemed quite plausible, but in reality there was little evidence in support of their theories and a great deal against. A common idea was this: historians, archaeologists, and others refuse to consider any evidence that goes against any long-held theory simply because the theory has existed so long, and, after all, they would have to rewrite a lot of textbooks. This certainly can happen in science; every now and again an idea comes along that seems so outrageous and counter-intuitive that it is not even considered until a wealth of evidence supports it. I think I liked these kinds of books because they did sometimes raise good questions that sometimes 'serious' historians simply wouldn't consider, and it originally got me thinking of the question, how do they know what they know? It's important to not dismiss a claim automatically because it sounds outrageous, but it is equally important to not waste time fully investigating claims that have been refuted over and over again and bring no new evidence to the table. I stopped reading some of my favorite 'history' authors when I realized that their claims had been refuted by experts in the fields they were discussing, and instead of replying to the refutation the original author simply pretended that the experts had never replied.

After reading a lot of history I think the first science books I read were about astronomy. I was curious about how much ancient civilizations knew about the motion of the stars and how very little I knew. History books already had me thinking about how people knew what they knew, and I just applied the same thing to science. I think I read A Brief History of Time and then some introductory books on Einstein and relativity after that. I didn't grasp some of the concepts in them but I kept reading anyhow until I felt I got something out of them, and I think they were beneficial to my overall understanding of science topics. From there I read a lot of books on science topics that kept popping up in the news, and like I mentioned earlier, I always got the impression the reporters had very little idea what they were talking about. I read about the Big Bang Theory, stem cell research, psychology, space travel, extraterrestrial life, research methods, evolution, and other topics. Some of the topics I read about I had discussed in college, and some of them I discussed with people that were also science readers. As a part of reading a lot of different books I figured out the importance of finding authors that were knowledgeable about the subject matter and not just speculating. I think a lot of my interest in science stems from wanting to know more about something that is commonly discussed (in the news or our culture) but not really all that well-known by the majority.

Finally, I think I would be fooling myself if I didn't admit that it is simply exciting and entertaining to know something that most people don't know, or to find out that something that seems like common sense isn't true. I wouldn't say that I have an interest in science simply so I can go around correcting people all the time. The fact is, though, that people everywhere are constantly doing this exact thing only without any evidence to back them up. People are constantly telling their friends (and non-friends) that they heard this or that science related thing and the sad thing is the listener will often pass that information on, citing not evidence but their friend that heard it from a friend, etc. With a lot of topics now it is much easier for me to decide the merit of the ideas passed along to me by others. It was really exciting for me when I realized that knowing something about how scientific research is done really has a huge impact on my life. It is now much easier to tell which products at the store do absolutely nothing, which ones can be purchased for a much cheaper price that do the same thing, and what it means when I am told on the news that I am a certain percentage more likely to have this happen if I take this action. The interesting thing to me is, and I don't mean to brag too much here, that if the average person had an interest in science our legal and political systems would be a great deal improved. In our court system it seems to me that often the jurors are confused and argue about ideas that are not really controversial in the scientific community. Politicians on all sides seem to constantly find that correlation is always causation when it supports what they are saying. Wouldn't it be great if the average person could see through such nonsense? A lot of myths about a variety of topics were long ago dispelled by scientific research, and I think that the more I read about them, and about science topics in general, the more I am interested to find out what else I don't know.

Food Perception & RET

2011-11-20T12:13:00.000-08:00

Irving Kirsch’s (Harvard Medical School lecturer & Associate Director of Program Placebo Studies @ Harvard) Response Expectancy Theory is based on the idea that what people experience depends partly on what they expect to experience. This is the process that can at least partly explain what lies behind the placebo effect and hypnosis. The theory is supported by research showing that changing people’s expectancies can alter physiological responses. The theory has been applied to understanding pain, depression, anxiety disorders, asthma, addictions, psychogenic illnesses, and food hedonics.

Food perception and Response Expectancy Theory

How we perceive taste and flavor can be influenced by suggestions and expectations. Yeomans et al. (2008) looked at expectations about food flavor by using an unusual flavor of ice cream- smoked salmon ice. One group ate the ice cream from a dish labeled ice cream and another group ate the ice cream from a dish labeled frozen savory mousse. The experience of the food in the mouth generated strong dislike when labeled as ice-cream, but acceptance when labeled as frozen savory mousse. Labeling the food as ice-cream also resulted in stronger ratings of how salty and savory the food as compared to when it was labeled as a savory food. The individuals that ate the frozen savory mousse found the ice cream less salty and bitter, and found its overall flavor more pleasant. Thirty- nine patrons attending a prix–fixed dinner at a university–affiliated restaurant were given a glass of either North Dakota–labeled or California–labeled wine with their meal. The amount of leftover food and wine was measured. Those whose wine was labeled from California consumed 12% more of their entrée and consumed a greater weight of wine and entrée combined compared to those served North Dakota–labeled wine. The researchers concluded that not only does taste expectation influence one's taste ratings of accompanying foods, but that it also influences consumption of accompanying foods (Wansink et al., 2007).

At a cafeteria in Urbana Illinois 175 people were given a fee brownie dusted with powdered sugar (Wansink, 2006). They were told the brownie was a new dessert that may be added to the menu. They were asked how well they liked the flavor and how much they would pay for it. All of the brownies were the same size and had the same ingredients. However, the brownies were served on a china plate, on a paper plate or on a paper napkin. Those who received the brownie on a china plate said the brownie was excellent. The people eating the brownie from the paper plate rated the brownie as good. Those who were served the brownie on a napkin said it was okay but nothing special.

Individuals eating from the china plate said they would pay $1.27 for the brownie, while those eating from the paper plate said they would pay 76 cents, and those eating from the napkin said they would pay 53 cents. In a classic study conducted by Allison and Uhl (1964) college students who claimed to be “brand loyal” beer drinkers were asked to rate a number of unlabeled beers. Once the labels were removed and the beer was poured into a glass the “brand loyal” participants didn’t do very well picking out their favorite beer. Quite often we taste what we expect to taste, good or bad.

References available upon request

Testing Hypotheses

2011-10-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

When testing scientific hypotheses- predicted outcome of study involving potential relationships between at least two variables- scientists are not attempting to prove their hypotheses, but are attempting to falsify them. Offering proof for a hypothesis is logically impossible. There are too many alternative possibilities that could explain the outcome, and in order to prove something is true would mean saying it was true every time.

Scientists set up hypotheses that they attempt to falsify / disprove. Two mutually exclusive hypotheses are formed with the intent of falsifying one while gaining support for the other. The null hypothesis- no relationship, no difference- predicts when comparing different groups there will be no difference. The alternative hypothesis- there is a difference- predicts when groups are compared there will be a difference. An alternative hypothesis can be one tailed / directional- predicting the direction of the relationship or it can be two tailed- not predicting the direction of the relationship. With hypothesis testing- testing hypothesis in a research to study in order to determine whether we support or do not find support- we are attempting to falsify the null hypothesis. After forming the hypotheses and determining a significance level- criteria for rejecting null hypothesis- data is collected which supports or does not support the null hypothesis. The significance level or alpha level is usually set at .05. This means that we are highly confident that we are correct if we have determined that there is a less than 5% chance the null hypothesis is correct- we reject the null hypothesis. By default, when we reject the null hypothesis we infer that the alternative hypothesis is correct. The p-value can be defined as the probability that the null hypothesis is true, or the probability that the observed effects occurred due to chance. While the confidence level can be reflected as 1- p value. When the significance level is .05 we can say our confidence level is 95% that we have inferred the appropriate conclusion.

If the null hypothesis is rejected we can say there is evidence for a relationship. If we fail to reject the null hypothesis we can say there in no evidence of a relationship. It is important to be cognizant of the wording used when NHST. We use the words support and unsupport, rather than proof. Proof, as pointed out earlier is a logical impossibility. It is also important to point out if a hypothesis is unfalsifiable it is untestable and thus unscientific.

There is always a chance of our inferences being incorrect. When testing the null hypothesis there are four possible outcomes
Type 1 error- rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true
Correct- rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false
Type 2 error- failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false
Correct- failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is true

Improving Your Cognitive Toolbox

2011-06-18T09:13:00.000-07:00

The Edge Question 2011- Suggested by Steven Pinker- WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?

"The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world." Read Full entries

One hundred and sixty four individuals commented on the question. A few of my favorites:

From Richard Dawkins:
"If all schools taught their pupils how to do a double-blind control experiment, our cognitive toolkits would be improved in the following ways:

1. We would learn not to generalise from anecdotes.

2. We would learn how to assess the likelihood that an apparently important effect might have happened by chance alone.

3. We would learn how extremely difficult it is to eliminate subjective bias, and that subjective bias does not imply dishonesty or venality of any kind. This lesson goes deeper. It has the salutary effect of undermining respect for authority, and respect for personal opinion.

4. We would learn not to be seduced by homeopaths and other quacks and charlatans, who would consequently be put out of business.

5. We would learn critical and sceptical habits of thought more generally, which not only would improve our cognitive toolkit but might save the world." more

From Paul Bloom:

"Reason
We are powerfully influenced by irrational processes such as unconscious priming, conformity, groupthink, and self-serving biases. These affect the most trivial aspects of our lives, such as how quickly we walk down a city street, and the most important, such as who we choose to marry. The political and moral realms are particularly vulnerable to such influences. While many of us would like to think that our views on climate change or torture or foreign policy are the result of rational deliberation, we are more affected than we would like to admit by considerations that have nothing to do with reason." more

From PZ Meyers:

"I'm going to recommend the mediocrity principle. It's fundamental to science, and it's also one of the most contentious, difficult concepts for many people to grasp — and opposition to the mediocrity principle is one of the major linchpins of religion and creationism and jingoism and failed social policies. There are a lot of cognitive ills that would be neatly wrapped up and easily disposed of if only everyone understood this one simple idea.

The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn't privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn't the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion. Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws — laws that apply everywhere and to everything, with no special exemptions or amplifications for your benefit — given variety by the input of chance." more

From Sue Blackmore:

"Correlation is not a cause
The phrase "correlation is not a cause" (CINAC) may be familiar to every scientist but has not found its way into everyday language, even though critical thinking and scientific understanding would improve if more people had this simple reminder in their mental toolkit.

One reason for this lack is that CINAC can be surprisingly difficult to grasp. I learned just how difficult when teaching experimental design to nurses, physiotherapists and other assorted groups. They usually understood my favourite example: imagine you are watching at a railway station. More and more people arrive until the platform is crowded, and then — hey presto — along comes a train. Did the people cause the train to arrive (A causes B)? Did the train cause the people to arrive (B causes A)? No, they both depended on a railway timetable (C caused both A and B)." more

My answer to this question is- accepting the idea that all beliefs, claims, doctrines, and ideas should be subject to critical analysis. Why should some ideas be put under the analytical microscope while others shouldn't? Why should we espouse scientific inquiry in so many important areas of life, yet turn away when scientific evidence refutes our cherished beliefs? Faith based beliefs, dogma, they-say, over-reliance on experts, and other non-evidence based claims are dangerous, as they promote the dissemination of contaminated mindware. I recently wrote an article-Identifying and Avoiding Contaminated Mindware - that sheds light on contaminated mindware, and how it is spread and how it contributes to irrationality. Lose the idea that some beliefs have a special privilege- are immune to critical analysis- and you will radically improve your cognitive toolbox.

Let's Talk Psychology

2011-06-08T07:58:00.000-07:00

Interview with Psych Central Publisher John Grohol

Dr. Grohol currently publishes the 16-year-old Psych Central (www.psychcentral.com)
one of the leading mental health social networks online offering consumers professionally-reviewed mental health information, resources, news, various information related to health sciences, research briefs, the popular World of Psychology blog (and many other popular blogs), social networking tools, and dozens of safe, secure support communities.

Dr. Grohol regularly writes and blogs on Psych Central, reporting on the latest science in mental health psychology, dissecting bad research, and adding his personal thoughts on the world of psychology

Psych Central is not the typical pseudoscientific self-help psychology site. Psych Central promotes evidence-based information.

Let’s talk psychology with John Grohol.

Briefly, can you take me through a day in the life of John Grohol?

What is helpful to understand first about what I see as my professional role is as an important guide and filter to what's going on in the world of mental health and psychology. I do that through reading original research, filtered research (other people's news stories), writing, editing and publishing. So a lot of what my day consists of are those kinds of activities, often in no particular order or priority once I get through my morning.

Every day starts pretty much the same way, whether it's a weekday or weekend. After a quick morning check of email for any outstanding site issues, I walk through the articles needing review and publication first. Usually this includes the news, which was written in put into our system the night before, and edited overnight. My review includes reading every article we publish, checking grammar and editing the article for clarity and understanding. I may also change or tweak the headline.

After hitting the news, I go to our largest blog, World of Psychology, and publish an entry for the morning there. Then I'll check the news headlines and work on my blog entry for the day. Alternatively, I may look for another blog article to publish from one of our regular contributors if my day is going to be busy with other projects or what-not.

Those projects range from things like getting a new Psych Central Blog or quiz online, to working on a particularly lengthy or in-depth piece that requires doing a fair amount of PsycINFO research and reading. It may be surprising, but to get to the heart of an issue often means digesting and summarizing a great deal of research into something that can be written under 1,200 words. Less is more, and getting to that point sometimes takes a fair amount of work.

Being your own boss also means the day never really officially ends. I regularly check the news throughout the day to ensure we're covering breaking news and research findings too. I want to ensure our readers are always getting up-to-date information and that they can rely on us for that objective, independent reporting.

Psych Central publishes new articles daily. I have often tried to guess how many new articles you publish per day. Approximately, how many new articles are published daily at the site?

I can't give you a specific average, but including everything that gets published on the PsychCentral.com, you're probably looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 articles a day. Once you dive into our self-help support communities, however, you're looking at anywhere from 1,200 to 2,000 new posts/day.

Where do you see Psych Central in five years?

Right now, we've hit a milestone of over 2 million international unique visitors. In 5 years, I'd really like to see us breaking the 5 million mark, because that would mean we're reaching more people with our mental health information. And if we're reaching that many people, I've got to believe that stigma will also be reduced and treatment rates will increase.

You have to keep in mind, when I was the first person to publish the symptom criteria for the major mental disorders online on a single website in 1995, that information simply wasn't available to most consumers. This information was previously available largely only to professionals, and so I see this kind of transparency thing did a lot of help break down the barriers of stigma associated with mental health concerns.

In 5 years, I hope we've made even more strides, so talking about your depression or bipolar disorder is as simple and easy as talking about your diabetes or other disease diagnosis. I see Psych Central doing that through reaching people wherever they are -- on their smartphone or iPad -- in whatever stage of treatment they're at.

Other than Psych Central, what are some of your other current projects?

As an entrepreneur, Psych Central is my primary love and project. Everything I do revolves around helping to build Psych Central, to ensure we're doing the best job possible, and to find ways to help get our information in the hands of more people.

So a couple of years ago, I devised the Sanity Score to help people understand mental health issues in a way that didn't invoke mental health and all the baggage of that term. People throw around the phrases, "You're crazy" or "You're insane," so I thought, "Hey, we can test for that." With all of the interactive quizzes we've designed over the years, it seemed natural to pull them all together and create a single, simple mental health-screening tool. So that's what we did, and it has helped get the word out to a different audience than Psych Central reaches.

I'm also very interested in online mental health interventions, like the Australian MoodGYM program (http://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome), as well as person-based mental health treatments online, such as e-therapy. People-based stuff doesn't scale very well when it's one-on-one with a trained mental health professional, so something needs to be done to address that problem if we have more and more people seeking mental health treatment.

Last, I want to do more for suicide interventions online. I believe there's a lot of good stuff being done online for people who are suicidal, including more suicide chat services, but the need is so great and so much more could and needs to be done.

Favorite book? Favorite writer?

I like to read, but I prefer fiction to psychology and similar nonfiction books. My reading tastes are, quite frankly, all over the map. I prefer older John Grisham and Stephen King, as well as more classical authors like Flannery O'Connor, Henry James, and Charles Bukowski. I just got done reading the Memory Palace by Mira Bartók, which was okay. I'm also working my way through Sherry Turkle's "Alone Together."

What is the most common psychology myth you encounter on a regular basis? I know it is hard to pick one, but, assuming you can name one, what would it be?

The myth that there's often a simple explanation or set of characteristics that explain someone's behavior. I look at things like the Myers-Briggs Indicator personality test that help popularize this myth -- that by putting people into one of 16 fairly arbitrary categories, we then better understand that person. It's such a simple but ultimately simplistic, hollow idea.

And that's true of so much of what passes for science today. Health news stories so often confuse a correlational finding with something that has some causal meaning. I find that infuriating, because rarely is it explained in the article and it contributes to the dumbing down of research. And rarely is a single research finding put into any kind of context about what the broader research shows in that area. It's lazy journalism and it's what passes for a lot of news writing today.

But it's a chicken and egg problem. We're becoming a society of lazy information consumers, looking for quick, easy-to-digest pieces of information that fit into our common wisdom schemas (which are often wrong). Which do you think would get more traffic, a news article with the headline, "Scientists Create a Computer with Schizophrenia" or "Schizophrenia simulated on a computer"? Of course computers can't have schizophrenia, but you miss that fact in the first headline, because it's sexier to suggest that a computer can be "given" schizophrenia. But it's just wrong.

When Experts are Wrong

2011-05-18T15:57:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale & Brooke Hale

We often consult with experts for advice. Their judgments and predictions are often accepted without question. After all, they are experts, shouldn’t we take their word?

Clinical vs. Statistical Methods

Experts rely one of two contrasting approaches to decision making- clinical vs. statistical (actuarial) methods. Research shows that the statistical method is superior (Dawes, R., et al., 1989). Clinical methods rely on personal experience and intuitions. When making predictions, those using clinical methods claim to be able to use their personal experience and go beyond group relationships found in research. Statistical methods rely on group (aggregate) trends derived from statistical records. “A simple actuarial prediction is one that predicts the same outcome for all individuals sharing a certain characteristic” (Stanovich, 2007, p.176). Predictions become more accurate when more group characteristics are taken into account. Actuarial predictions are common in various fields- economics, human resources, criminology, business, marketing, medical sciences, military, sociology, horse racing, psychology, and education.

It is important to note that clinical judgment does not equate to judgments made by only clinicians. Clinical judgment is used in various fields- basically any field where humans make decisions. It is also important to realize “[a] clinician in psychiatry or medicine may use the clinical or actuarial method. Conversely, the actuarial method should not be equated with automated decisions rules alone. For example, computers can automate clinical judgments. The computer can be programmed to yield the description “dependency traits” just as the clinical judge would, whenever a certain response appears on a psychological test. To be truly actuarial, interpretations must be both automatic (that is, prespecifiied or routinized) and based on empirically established relations” (Dawes, et al., 1989, p.1668).

Decades of research investigating clinical versus statistical prediction have shown consistent results- statistical prediction is more accurate than clinical prediction Dawes et al., 1989; Stanovich, 2007; Tetlock, 2005).

While investigating the ability of clinical and statistical variables to predict criminal behavior in 342 sexual offenders, Hall (1988) found that making use of statistical variables was significantly predictive of sexual re-offenses against adults and of nonsexual re-offending. Clinical judgment did not significantly predict re-offenses.

From Predicting Criminal Behavior (Hale, 2011):

Within the field of dangerousness risk assessment (as it applies to violent offenders), it has been recommended that clincial assessments be repalced by actuarial assessments. In a 1999 book from the American Psychological Association- Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk- (Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier)-the authors argued explicitly and strongly for the "complete replacement" of clinical assessments of dangerousness with actuarial methods. "What we are advising is not the addition of actuarial methods to existing practice, but rather the complete replacement of existing practice with actuarial methods" (p. 171).

When considering the accuracy of clinical vs. statistical behavior- In regards to predicting criminal repeat behavior- it is quite clear that statistical predictions / methods are superior to clinincal predictions / methods. "The studies show that judgments about who is more likely to repeat are much better on an actuarial basis than a clinical one", says Robyn Dawes (Dawes,1996).

In a statistical analysis of 136 studies Grove and Meehl (1996) found that only 8 of those studies favored clincial prediction over statistical prediction. However, none of those 8 studies were replicated (repeated) studies. In the realm of scientific research studies need to be successfully repeated before they are referred to as sufficient evidence.

In regards to the research showing that actuarial prediction is more accurate than clinical Paul Meehl (1986) stated “There is no controversy in social science which shows such a large body of qualitativley diverse studies coming out so uniformly in the same directions as this one” That is, when considering statistical versus clinical, statistical wins hands down. Yet, experts from various domains still claim their “special knowledge” or intuition overrides statistical data derived from research.

The supremacy of statistical prediction

Statistical data is knowledge consisting of cases drawn from research literature, which is often a larger and more representative sample than is available to any expert. Experts are subject to a host of biases when observing, interpreting, analyzing, storing and retrieving events and information. Professionals tend to give weight their personal experience heavily, while assigning less weight to the experience of other professionals or research findings. Consequently, statistical predictions usually weight new data more heavily than clinical predictions.

The human brain is at the disadvantage in computing and weighing in comparison to mechanical computing. Predictions based on statistics are perfectly consistent and reliable, while clinical predictions are not. Experts don’t always agree with each other, or even with themselves when they review the same case the second time around. Even as clinicians acquire experience, the shortcoming of human judgment can help explain why the accuracy of their prediction lacks improvement. (Lilienfield, Lynn, Ruscio, & Beyerstein, 2010).

When a clinician is given information about a client and asked to make a prediction, and the same information is quantified and processed by a statistical equation the statistical equation wins. Even when the clinician has more information in addition to the same information the statistical equation wins. The statistical equation accurately and consistently integrates information according to an optimal criterion. Optimality and consistency supersedes any informational advantage that the clinician gains through informal methods (Stanovich, 2007).

Another type of investigation mentioned in the clinical-actuarial prediction literature discusses giving the clinician predictions from the actuarial prediction, and then asking them to make any necessary changes based on their personal experience with clients. When the clinician makes changes to the actuarial judgments, the adjustments lead to a decrease in the accuracy of the predictions (Dawes, 1994).

A common criticism of the statistical prediction model is that statistics do not apply to single individuals. This line of thinking contradicts basic principles of probability. Consider the following example (Dawes, et al., 1989):

“An advocate of this anti-actuarial position would have to maintain, for the sake of logical consistency, that if one is forced to play Russian roulette a single time and is allowed to select a gun with one or five bullets in the chamber, the uniqueness of the event makes the choice arbitrary.” (p.1672)

The erroneous assumption statistics don’t apply to the single case is often held by compulsive gamblers (Wagenaar, 1988). This faulty sense of prediction often leads them to believe they can accurately predict the next outcome.

“Even as clinicians acquire experience, the shortcomings of human judgment help to explain why the accuracy of their predictions doesn’t improve much, if at all, beyond what they achieved during graduate school” (Stanovich, 2007; Dawes, 1994; Garb, 1999).

Application of statistical methods

Research demonstrating the general superiority of statistical approaches should be calibrated to recognition of its limitations and need for control. Albeit, surpassing clinical methods actuarial procedures are not infallible, often achieving only moderate results. A procedure that proves successful in one setting should be periodically reevaluated within that context and shouldn’t be applied to new settings mindlessly (Dawes, et al., 1989).

In Meehl’s classic book- Clinical versus statistical prediction(1996)- he thoroughly analyzed limitations of actuarial prediction. Paul illustrated a possible limitation by using what became known as the “broken-leg case.” Consider the following:

We have observed that Professor A quite regularly goes to the movies on Tuesday nights. Our actuarial data support the inference “If it’s a Tuesday night, then Pr {Professor A goes to movies} _ .9.” However, suppose we learn that Professor A broke his leg Tuesday morning; he’s in a hip cast that won’t fit in a theater seat. Any neurologically intact clinician will not say that Pr {goes to movies} _ .9; they’ll predict that he won’t go. This is a “special power of the clinician” that cannot, in principle, be completely duplicated by even the most sophisticated computer program. That’s because there are too many distinct, unanticipated factors affecting Professor A’s behavior; the researcher cannot gather good actuarial data on all of them so the program can take them into account (Grove, W.M., & Lloyd, M., 2006).

However, this example does not lend support to the idea that avoiding error in such cases will greatly increase clinicians accuracy as compared with statistical prediction. For a more detailed discussion on this matter refer to Grove, W.M., & Lloyd, M., 2006.

From Clinical versus actuarial judgment (Dawes, et al., 1989):

When actuarial methods prove more accurate than clinical judgment the benefits to individuals and society are apparent…Even when actuarial methods merely equal the accuracy of clinical methods, they may save considerable time and expense. For example, each year millions of dollars and many hours of clinicians’ valuable time are spent attempting to predict violent behavior. Actuarial prediction of violence is far less expensive and would free time for more productive activities, such as meeting unfulfilled therapeutic needs.

Actuarial methods are explicit, in contrast to clinical judgment, which rests on mental processes that are often difficult to specify. Explicit procedures facilitate informed criticism and are freely available to other members of the scientific community who might wish to replicate or extend research.

The use of clinical prediction relies on authority whose assessments-precisely because these judgments are claimed to be singular and idiosyncratic-are not subject to public criticism. Thus, clinical predictions cannot be scrutinized and evaluated at the same level as statistical predictions. (Stanovich, K., 2007)

Conclusion

The intent of this article is not to imply that experts are not important or do not have a role in predicting outcomes. Expert advice and information is useful in observation, gathering data and sometimes making predictions (when predictions are commensurate with available evidence). However, once relevant variables have been determined and we want to use them to make decisions, “measuring them and using a statistical equation to determine the predictions constitute the best procedure.” (Stanovich, 2007, p.181)

The problem is not so much in experts making decisions (that’s what they are supposed to do), but in experts making decisions that run counter to actuarial predictions.

Decades of research indicate statistical prediction is superior to clinical prediction. Statistical data should never be overlooked when making decisions (assuming there is statistical data in the area of interest- sometimes there is not).

I will leave you with these words (Meehl, 2003):

If a clinician says “This one is different” or “It’s not like the ones in your table,” “This time I’m surer,” the obvious question is, “Why should we care whether you think this one is different or whether you are surer?” Again, there is only one rational reply to such a question. We have now to study the success frequency of the clinician’s guesses when he asserts that he feels this way. If we have already done so, and found him still behind the hit frequency of the table, we would be well advised to ignore him. Always, we might as well face it, the shadow of the statistician hovers in the background; always the actuary will have the final word (p.138).

References

Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Science, New series, Vol. 243, 4899, 1668-1674.

Dawes, R. (1994). House of Cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.

Dawes, R. (1996). House of Cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. Simon and Schuster.

Garb, H.N. (1998). Studying the Clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washingotn, DC: American Psychological Association.

Grove, W.M., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparatvie efficiencey of informal and formal prediction procedures: The clinical-statisical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 293-323.

Grove, W.M., & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s Contribution to Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 2, 192–194.

Hale, B. (2011). Predicting Criminal Behavior. College term paper.

Hall, G.C. Nagayama. (1988). Criminal Behavior as a Function of Clinical and Actuarial Variables in a Sexual Offender. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v56 n5 (1988): 773-775.

Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B.L. (2010). Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptons about Human Behaivor. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Meehl, P.E. (1986). Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 370-375.

Meehl, P. E. (1996). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical
analysis and a review of the evidence. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. (Original work published 1954)

Meehl, P.E. (2003). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical
analysis and a review of the evidence. Copyright 2003 Leslie J. Yonce. (Copyright 1954 University of Minnesota)

Stanovich, K. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tetlock, P.E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Paradoxes of Gambling Behavior. Hove, England: Erlbaum.

Copyright 2011 Jamie Hale

Everyday Illusions

2011-05-04T10:06:00.000-07:00

I just got the word from Chris Chabris that the paperback edition of The Invisible Gorilla is scheduled for release on June 7th.

The Invisible Gorilla, refers to a wide variety of stories and counterintuitive scientific findings to reveal- Our minds don't work the way we think they do. We think we know our own minds, but this isn't so. Chabris and Simons combine the work of other researchers with their own findings on attention, perception, memory, and reasoning, to reveal how faulty intuitions often lead us astray.

Often, we think we experience and understand the world as it is, but our perceptions are sometimes, actually, often times nothing more than illusions.

The Invisible Gorilla, provides detailed explanations of why people experience these everyday illusions and what we can do to protect ourselves against their effects. The ultimate goal of the book is to help you notice the invisible gorillas in your own life.

Everday Illusions

A detailed discussion of six everday illusions are discussed
illusions of attention
............. memory
confidence
knowledge
cause
potential

These illusions are referred to as everyday illusions because they influence our lives on a daily basis.

The official website of The Invisible Gorrilla

Simons and Chabris videos

Coming soon! An interview with Simons and Chabris

How We Think and Do Not Think About Food: Behavioral & Cognitive Nutrition

2011-02-16T13:34:00.000-08:00

In an effort to understand the complexity of nutrition, eating behaviors and the role of food in society it is important to refer to information from various fields- exercise science, nutrition, biology, chemistry, psychology, marketing, economics, sociology, cognitive science and so on. In the past I have written extensively about nutrition, and most of my references have been to the fields of exercise science, nutrition, chemistry, and biology. In the new book I am co-authoring -How We Think and Do Not Think About Food: Behavioral and Cognitive Nutrition(tentative title)- in addition to referencing info from the fields of exercise science, nutrition, chemistry and biology, research from the fields mentioned in the opening sentence will be discussed.

How We Think and Do Not Think About Food- will provide very brief to no coverage of the following:

The calorie theory
Macronutrient composition
High Glycemic vs Low Glycemic Diets
Organic vs conventional foods (however this subject will be discussed as it relates to ideational motives)
Low carb diet myths
High carb myths
Meal frequency
and many many other myths that i have already addressed in Knowledge and Nonsense

Excerpts from How We Think and Do Not Think About Food

Suppositions that a change in genetics is responsible for the increase in obesity over the past three decades are unlikely due to the lack of evidence of mutations over this short period of time. However, what has changed drastically, is the environment in which we now live (Cohen, 2008).

Food advertising is not new, but greater sophistication in marketing—including the development of branding, expanded use of vending machines and other mechanisms for self-service, technologies like eye movement tracking, and the application of social psychology- are all widely used to increase impulse buying and sales of high calorie indulging foods. Eating behaviors are often made unconsciously.

Food variety, obtained by adding condiments can increase food intake in the short term. The mechanism by which food consumption is increased after the addition of condiments is at least partly related to the attenuation of sensory-satiety for a given food (Brondel et al., 2009). Sensory specific satiety- decrease in pleasure when consuming a specific food, and a consequent renewal in pleasure when consuming a different food or flavor. Senses become sated if continually exposed to the same stimulus. As you eat more of a specific food it becomes less pleasant. The more dissimilar the food's sensory characteristics (taste, flavor, color, texture, shape, temperature) the longer it will take to achieve sensory specific satiety.

Having a variety of foods presented in succession during a meal enhances intake, and the more different the foods are the greater the enhancement is likely to be (Rolls, 1981). However, if the sensory characteristics of a variety of foods presented in a meal are too similar increased consumption may not occur.

Food is often consumed when not hungry. When and how often we eat is determined by a myriad of factors.

Gustation- sense of taste

The four basic tastes are salty, sour, bitter and sweet (Wolfe et al., 2006). However, some sources list a fifth basic taste- Unami (Beauchamp & Mennella, 2009).

'components of flavor, detected by the olfactory system, are strongly influenced by early exposure and learning beginning in utero and continuing during early milk (breast milk or formula) feedings. These experiences set the stage for later food choices and are important in establishing life-long food habits', (Beauchamp & Mennella, 2009). The foods we like are shaped by learning and innate factors.

The pleasure or displeasure associated with tastes is seen in infants. With no experience, infants like sweet and dislike bitter and sour. Some of the most impressive work concerning hardwired taste preferences comes from Jacob Steiner (Steiner, 1973)

A chemist named A.L. Fox discovered we do not all experience taste in the same manner. While synthesizing the compound phenylthiocarbamide some of it spilled and flew into the air. One of Fox's colleagues noticed a bitter taste while Fox tasted nothing. With further testing some of Fox's other colleagues did not taste the compound, but most tasted it as bitter (Fox, 1931).

Flavor is a combination of true taste and smell. Flavor and taste are not synonymous.

Natural preferences for sweet-tasting compounds changes developmentally (infants and children have higher preferences than adults) and can be modified by experience (Cowart et al., 2004). Bitter tasting substances are innately disliked probably because most bitter compounds are toxic- plants evolved systems to protect themselves from being eaten and plant-eating organisms evolved sensory systems to avoid being poisoned (Glendinning, 1994 & Beauchamp, 2009).

Marketers have capitalized on the tendency of humans to be physical misers (put out minimal physical energy) by developing products that make eating quick and easy, including packaging that allows people to eat on the run, eat in their cars, eat fast, etc (Morrison, 2007)

Research has shown that images, sounds, smells, and lighting, affect eating behaviors.

Are fast food restaurants conspiring to make society obese? No. They are conspiring to sale food and make huge profits. If humans preferred eating fruits and vegetables to eating burgers and fries fast food restaurants will sale fruits and vegetables.

Environmental cues to aid in eating less

Use smaller plates and dishes. Use tall skinny glasses.

Eat at the table, and avoid eating in the TV room

Minimize eating from a package

Keep high calorie tempting food out of sight. Don't leave them on the counter in plain view

Avoid eating too many different foods in one meal. If you like to include variety in meals include a variety of nutrient dense, low cal foods that are similar in sensory characteristics

Those are just a few of the many topics that will be explored. Stay tuned for further updates. Any other suggestions for a book title are appreciated.

What Intelligence IS and IS NOT

2011-01-26T14:25:00.000-08:00

Intelligence (as defined by narrow theories)- those mental abilities measured by IQ tests and their proxies (SAT etc.) does not provide a comprehensive assessment of cognitive skills. These theories provide a scientific concept of intelligence generally symbolized as g, or "in some cases where the fluid / crystalized theory is adopted intelligence (Gf) and crystalized intelligence (Gc)" (Stanovich, 2009, p. 13). Fluid intelligence reflects reasoning abilities (and to a degree processing speed) across a variety of domains, particularly novel ones. Crystalized intelligence reflects declarative knowledge acquired by acculturated learning- general knowledge, vocabulary, and verbal comprehension, etc. Mental abilities assessed by intelligence tests are important, but a variety of important mental abilities are missed by intelligence tests.

It is important to point out that the research I have reviewed and the research I propose does not suggest there are multiple intelligences or that intelligence is unimportant. Critics of intelligence routinely point out the intelligence does not encompass many domains of important psychological functioning. “However, these standard critiques of intelligence tests often contain the unstated assumption that although intelligence tests miss certain key noncognitive areas, they encompass most of what is important cognitively” (Stanovich, 2009, p. 5). These popular assumptions have been thoroughly refuted, and in fact intelligence tests do not assess many important cognitive skills. Intelligence tests are radically incomplete measurements of good thinking. It is commonplace for critics, writers and the lay public to suggest that intelligence has nothing to do with real life- that it’s not important in real life. Decades of research have shown otherwise- intelligent tests do measure important cognitive skills. “[S]cientific evidence does converge on the conclusion that MAMB IT [mental abilities measured by intelligence tests] picks out a class of mental operations of considerable importance. The problem is just that folk psychology values those mental operations- and the tests used to measure them- too much” (Stanovich, 2009, p.54).

Cognitive abilities assessed on intelligence tests are not about:

- personal goals and their regulation
- tendency to change beliefs when faced with contrary evidence
- argument & evidence evaluation

Intelligence tests do not measure important thinking dispositions, such as: openness to experience, belief perseverance, level of confirmation bias, reliance on intuition, impulsiveness, myside bias, one-sided bias, need for cognition, need for closure, alternative hypothesis testing, thought flexibility, fully disjunctive reasoning etc.

In short, cognitive abilities assessed on intelligence tests are not measurements of rationality, but measurements of algorithmic- level cognitive capacity. Good thinking is more than just intelligence.

References

Stanovich, K. (2009). What Intelligence Tests Miss: the psychology of rational thought. Hartford, CT: Yale University Press.

Science @ Psych Central

2011-01-05T12:00:00.000-08:00

Psych Central provides readers with a wide array of content from various writers. The site is updated on a regular basis- numerous times daily- and produces informative, quality scientific information (emphasizing health sciences). The site is easy to navigate, well organized, and presents scientific information in a way that is relatively easy to comprehend for the layman. However, the site is also useful for individuals with moderate and advanced levels of scientific knowledge. Psych Central is different than many of the popular psych sites. Psych Central promotes REAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INFORMATION- PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

I am a regular contributor to the site. Some of my recent articles include:
Testimonials Aren’t Real Evidence

Does GRE measure anything related to Grad School?

Why Intelligent People Do Foolish things?

Here is a short list of some excellent articles featured at Psych Central:

Is Science Dead? In a Word: No

Why doctors oversell benefits undersell risks and side effects

2011: The Power of Positive Thinking

Five relationship benefits in knowing how your brain works

There are many, many other excellent articles at Psych Central.

Dysrationalia: Intelligent people behaving irrationally

2010-10-28T15:52:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

The following interview features the Stanovich, West, Toplak Research Lab.

Your research shows that intelligence does not imply rationality. Could you please briefly explain your general findings?

Those findings are easy to summarize briefly. They are simply that the correlations between measures of intelligence and various tasks from the cognitive psychology literature that measure aspects of rationality are surprisingly low. We use the term “surprisingly” here, because for many years it has been known that virtually all-cognitive ability tasks correlate with each other. Indeed many show quite high correlations. So, being psychologists, the surprise is in the context of this wide and vast cognitive ability literature, which has the technical name “Spearman’s positive manifold.” This positive manifold--that performance on cognitive tasks tends to correlate, and often quite highly--is more than 100 years old.

Thus, it was in this particular context, when we started observing fairly modest or low correlations between measures of intelligence and rational thought, that we thought this quite startling. Indeed, in restricted samples of educated adults this correlation can be virtually zero on certain tasks in the literature. Most often the correlation is positive, but, again, in light of 100 years of correlations between cognitive ability tasks, the correlations are often surprisingly low.

Of course one of the implications of this is that it will not be uncommon to find people whose intelligence and rationality are dissociated. That is, it will not be uncommon to find people with high levels of intelligence and low levels of rationality, and, to some extent, the converse. Or, another way to put it is that we should not necessarily expect the two mental characteristics to go together. The correlations are low enough--or moderate enough--that discrepancies between intelligence and rationality should not be uncommon. For one type of discrepancy, that is for people whose rationality is markedly below their intelligence, we have coined the term dysrationalia by analogy to many of the disabilities identified in the learning disability literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia

What is the definition of rationality?

Dictionary definitions of rationality tend to be of a weak sort—often seeming quite lame and unspecific. For example, a typical dictionary definition of rationality is: “the state or quality of being in accord with reason”. The meaning of rationality in modern cognitive science has a much stronger sense, it is much more specific and prescriptive than typical dictionary definitions. The weak definitions of rationality derive from a categorical notion of rationality tracing to Aristotle, who defined “man as the rational animal”. As de Sousa (2007) has pointed out, such a notion of rationality as “based on reason” has as its opposite not irrationality but arationality. Aristotle’s characterization is categorical—the behavior of entities is either based on thought or it is not. Animals are either rational or arational.

In its stronger sense, the sense employed in cognitive science and in this book by de Sousa (2007), rational thought is a normative notion. Its opposite is irrationality, and irrationality comes in degrees. Normative models of optimal judgment and decision making define perfect rationality in the noncategorical view employed in cognitive science. Rationality and irrationality come in degrees defined by the distance of the thought or behavior from the optimum defined by a normative model. This stronger sense is consistent with what recent cognitive science studies have been demonstrating about rational thought in humans.
We would also warn that some critics who wish to downplay the importance of rationality have been perpetuating a caricature of rationality that involves restricting its definition to the ability to do the syllogistic reasoning problems that are encountered in Philosophy 101. The meaning of rationality in modern cognitive science is, in contrast, much more robust and important. Syllogistic reasoning and logic problems are one small part of rational thinking.
Cognitive scientists recognize two types of rationality: instrumental and epistemic. The simplest definition of instrumental rationality, the one that is strongly grounded in the practical world, is: Behaving in the world so that you get exactly what you most want, given the resources (physical and mental) available to you. Somewhat more technically, we could characterize instrumental rationality as the optimization of the individual’s goal fulfillment.

The other aspect of rationality studied by cognitive scientists is termed epistemic rationality. This aspect of rationality concerns how well beliefs map onto the actual structure of the world. The two types of rationality are related. In order to take actions that fulfill our goals, we need to base those actions on beliefs that are properly calibrated to the world.

Although many people feel that they could do without the ability to solve textbook logic problems, virtually no person wishes to eschew epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, when properly defined. Virtually all people want their beliefs to be in some correspondence with reality, and they also want to act to maximize the achievement of their goals. Psychologist Ken Manktelow (2004) has emphasized the practicality of both types of rationality by noting that they concern two critical things: What is true and what to do.

Epistemic rationality is about what is true and instrumental rationality is about what to do. For our beliefs to be rational they must correspond to the way the world is—they must be true. For our actions to be rational they must be the best means toward our goals—they must be the best things to do.

De Sousa, R. (2007). Why think? Evolution and the rational mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Manktelow, K. I. (2004). Reasoning and rationality: The pure and the practical. In K. I. Manktelow & M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 157-177). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

What are some of the rational thinking skills that are positively associated with intelligence? How about rational thinking skills that are not associated with intelligence?

Various probabilistic reasoning tasks have moderate correlations with intelligence. However, myside bias (the tendency to view evidence from one’s own side) is pretty much independent of intelligence in university samples. There are many, many domains of rational thinking measures and they each have important characteristics that will impact whether they are associated with intelligence. Stanovich’s Yale book contains a theoretical explanation of why some rational thinking tasks correlate with intelligence and others do not:

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

In a TV interview you (Toplak) mentioned the need for RQ testing. Do you think we can expect to see RQ testing within the public domain, in the near future?

Yes, this would be a great thing, but it is not likely to happen in the near future. The development of such an instrument would be a logistically daunting task, partly because rational thinking is such a big construct with so many parts. We use the term “multifarious” to describe this, and a metaphor we use is that it is like going to your family doctor for a check-up: there is not one test that will tell you that your health is good, rather the doctor checks multiple things to make this assessment.

The purpose of our work, and many of our recent publications, has been to speed the development of an RQ test along. We have done this by showing that there is no impediment, theoretically, to designing such a measure. The tasks that would be on such a measure have been introduced into the recent literature. In several recent publications we have been working on bringing them together into a coherent structure. Of course there are many, many, more steps that are needed before one has an actual standardized test. Standardization samples would need to be run and items would need to be piloted. In terms of the corporations that produce mental tests, it’s an endeavor that, if one were to measure it in dollars, would be millions of dollars.

Again, the purpose of some of our recent work has been to sketch out what such an endeavor would look like, to show that there is no theoretical or empirical impediment to such a thing, and to recruit others into this endeavor of working on such an instrument. We would like to include others in this endeavor, because we believe that it is way beyond the capabilities of a single laboratory. Our hope is that such an instrument might someday stand in parallel to the intelligence tests. This has been one of the motivations in our recent books and chapters, such as the following:

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (in press). Intelligence and rationality. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (3rd Edition), Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

We need to emphasize, however, that there is no reason for this to be an all or nothing, rather than an incremental, process. There clearly would be immediate practical uses of less all-encompassing instruments that focused on important components of rational thinking (e.g., economic thinking, probabilistic thinking, scientific thinking, reduced myside biased thinking).

Is rationality more important than intelligence?

No, we would never make such a blanket statement. We would only say that the magnitude of its importance at least approaches that of intelligence. Differences in rational thought have real world consequences that cash out in terms of important outcomes in peoples lives. We don’t want to get into a contest of which is more important. We acknowledge that intelligence, as assessed by standardized tests, is one of the most important psychological constructs that has ever been discovered. But outlining the nature of rational thought, how to theoretically conceive it, and how to measure it empirically, is certainly up there with intelligence in terms of the most important five or six mental constructs that psychologists have investigated.

Can a person be highly rational, but rank low in intelligence?

Yes. This was addressed in our response to question number 1, that the whole point of our research showing that the correlation between the two is not excessively high is that you can have discrepancies, and that one can be high on one and low in the other.

Tell our readers how they can improve their rational thinking skills.

A good first start is education, which readers have already started here by reading this blog entry. Having an understanding of how cognitive scientists have expanded what is meant by rationality is important, namely that rationality is about two critical things: What is true and what to do.

There are numerous books that deal with rational thinking. Some of the chapters and books in our own research lab have contributed to this, and we will list them at the bottom of this entry.

Do you think a good starting point would be becoming educated on basic logic?

Basic logic would be part of a rational thinking skills curriculum, but not necessarily the first part. Again, rational thinking in cognitive science encompasses decision theory, epistemic rationality, and many areas beyond simply the study of basic logic in philosophy 101. It is very important to understand that rational thinking in cognitive science is rooted in good decision-making. Good decision making skills and good skills of knowledge acquisition do have logical thinking as one subcomponent. But there are many subskills that are even more important than logic. The subskills of scientific thinking, statistical thinking, and probabilistic reasoning, for example. Many of these are listed in the books that we will recommend here.

Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (Fourth Edition). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (a new 2010 edition is just out)

A recent chapter of ours contains a large number of citations to successful attempts to teach the skills of rational thought:

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Education for rational thought. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Is there a particular book that you recommend- for people interested in increasing their rationality- for the lay public?

Yes, some of the books that we have already mentioned. We will be so immodest as to recommend a small textbook of our own.

Stanovich, K. E. (2010). Decision making and rationality in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weblinks with bios and further information:

http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Home.html
http://www.yorku.ca/mtoplak/
http://web.me.com/westrf1/Site_2/Welcome.html
Video- Stanovich Grawemeyer Lecture- Third link from the top of the page
http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Audio_Visual.html

Good Thinking: More Than Just Intelligence

2010-10-22T11:15:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

Are intelligent people good thinkers? Some are, some are not. Society is replete with examples of intelligent people doing foolish things. There is a plethora of scientific data showing intelligence does not necessarily predict rationality. Intelligence shows a low to moderate association with some critical thinking / rational thinking skills, while showing little to no association with other rational thinking skills. A study published in 2008, in Thinking & Reasoning (Stanovich & West), investigated two key critical thinking skills- avoidance of myside bias and avoidance of one side bias.

THINKING & REASONING
2008, 14 (2), 129 – 167

On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases
Keith E. Stanovich
University of Toronto, Canada
Richard F. West
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

Two critical thinking skills—the tendency to avoid myside bias and to avoid one-sided thinking—were examined in three different experiments involving over 1200 participants and across two different paradigms. Robust indications of myside bias were observed in all three experiments. Participants gave higher evaluations to arguments that supported their opinions than those that refuted their prior positions. Likewise, substantial one-side bias was observed—participants were more likely to prefer a one-sided to a balanced argument. There was substantial variation in both types of bias, but we failed to find that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less myside bias or less oneside bias. Although cognitive ability failed to associate with the magnitude of the myside bias, the strength and content of the prior opinion did predict the degree of myside bias shown. Our results indicate that cognitive ability—as defined by traditional psychometric indicators—turns out to be surprisingly independent of two of the most important critical thinking tendencies discussed in the literature.

Key cognitive skills required for critical thinking are the ability to evaluate evidence in an objective manner, and the ability to consider multiple points of view when solving a problem, or coming to a conclusion. Most people fail to demonstrate these critical thinking tendencies. Myside bias is displayed when people evaluate evidence and come to conclusions that are biased towards their own beliefs and opinions. One side bias is demonstrated when people prefer one sided arguments over arguments presenting multiple perspectives. Intelligent people are just as likely as less intelligent people to demonstrate these thinking biases. Before going further, it is important to mention that intelligence in this context refers to cognitive abilities measured by popular intelligence tests and their proxies. These tests do a good job assessing computational power and certain types of declarative knowledge. But, they do not adequately assess critical thinking skills. Avoidance of myside bias and one side bias are not measured on intelligence tests. It seems that intelligence tests are missing an important element of good thinking- evaluating evidence in a unbiased manner, and considering a multitude of perspectives when problem solving. I don't think any sane person would argue that these skills are not important.

In a series of experiments Stanovich and West examined the association between cognitive ability and two cardinal critical thinking skills- avoidance of myside bias and avoidance of one side bias. In Experiment 1 natural myside bias was investigated in 15 different propositions. In Experiment 2 myside bias and one-sided bias was studied. In Experiment 3 associations between thinking dispositions- in addition to cognitive ability- and one-sided and myside bias were investigated.

In Experiment 1, the researchers concluded, there was "no evidence at all that myside bias effects are smaller for students of higher cognitive ability" (p.140). The main purpose of Experiment 2 was to investigate the association of cognitive abilities with myside and one side bias. "The results... were quite clear cut. SAT total scores displayed a nonsignificant 7.03 correlation with the degree of myside bias and a correlation of .09 with the degree of one-side bias (onebias1), which just missed significance on a twotailed test but in any case was in the unexpected direction" (p.147). It was also revealed that stronger beliefs usually imply heavier myside bias. In Experiment 3 "the degree of myside bias was uncorrelated with SAT scores", and "[t]he degree of one-side bias was uncorrelated with SAT scores" (p.156). Myside bias was weakly correlated with thinking dispositions. One side bias showed no correlation with thinking dispositions.

The final two sentences or the research report read: "Our results thus indicate that intelligence—as defined by traditional psychometric indicators—turns out to be surprisingly independent of critical thinking tendencies. Cognitive ability measures such as the SAT thus miss entirely an important quality of good thinking" (p.161). The good news is critical thinking abilities are malleable, and in fact, probably more malleable than intelligence

Reference
Stanovich, K. & West, R. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning, 14 (2), 129-167.

Additional Sources
What IQ Tests Miss- Dr. Toplak Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGka5bQIgS4

　
Stanovich, K. E. (2009, Nov/Dec). The thinking that IQ tests miss. Scientific American Mind, 20(6), 34-39. First Link at the top of this page -
http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Research%20on%20Reasoning.html

Next week I will be publishing an interview with the Stanovich, West, Toplak Research Lab.

How We Know What Isn't So: Interview w/ Thomas Gilovich

2010-09-08T05:11:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

Recently, I had a chance to conduct an interview with one of my favorite writers- Thomas Gilovich. Gilovich is the author of one of the most celebrated books- How We Know What Isn’t So- in the skeptic, critical thinking community. I first learned about the book when reading Shermer’s- Why People Believe Weird Things. In addition, Gilovich has co-authored three other books. He is also a prominent primary researcher and professor & chairperson at Cornell University.

If you have any interest in critical thinking, everyday judgments and beliefs you will love the following interview.

Does the "hot hand" or "streak shooting"- as defined by basketball enthusiasts, really exist? What are the origins of this idea? How prevalent is this idea among basketball enthusiasts?

Despite what everyone "knows" to be the case, basketball players do not shoot in streaks. That is, their streakiness does not exceed the level of streakiness one observes when, say, flipping coins. The widespread belief in streak shooting seems to stem from a common misconception about what chance outcomes look like. Statisticians refer to this as the clustering illusion. Purely randomly arranged stimuli "clump" together more than one would expect and so when we see instances of randomness, it doesn't look random to us. Applied to basketball, when we see a player make four, five, or six shots in a row, we think the player is hot. But careful statistical analyses reveal that the frequency of such sequences do not exceed what one would expect if the outcomes of prior shots had no influence on the outcomes of subsequent shots.

Does money buy happiness? Explain.

Money is associated with happiness. People in rich countries are happier, on average, than people in poor countries and, within a country, people with more money are happier, on average, than people with less. As you might imagine, it's not a huge effect, but it's there. Whether money "buys" happiness depends in part on how one spends it and a great deal of recent research in psychology and economics has been devoted to figuring out what type of expenditures yield the most happiness, and the most enduing happiness.

What do you think is the most common, or maybe a short list of a few of the most common errors in thinking that lead to bad decision-making?

At the top of the list, what my colleague Scott Lilienfeld refers to as "the mother of all biases," is what is known as the confirmation bias, or the tendency to examine whether an idea is true—to test a hypothesis—by looking disproportionately for evidence consistent with that idea. Someone testing whether professors tend to be pompous will search their memories (or the outside world) for pompous professors; someone testing whether professors tend to be modest will search their memories for modest Profs. Because there is SOME evidence for nearly any idea (there are many pompous profs and many modest ones), this bias leads to an excess of credulity.

What advice can you give people who are interested in increasing their critical thinking skills?

Take a course in statistics and in psychology (social psychology in particular)

What is your favorite book? Favorite website?

I'm not a big fan of favorites because there's so much great stuff at the top end of almost any category, and who wants to assign one member of the upper echelon to a lower rung (Is Citizen Kane really better than The Godfather, as the American Film Institute would have us believe?) But Guns, Germs, and Steel and The Omnivore's Dilemma are certainly favorites, as is the book I just finished, Nicholson Baker's fabulous The Anthologist. As for a favorite website, it's hard to beat The New York Times—and I can't resist a plug for my brother's website, www.surfline.com

Of the books you have written, which one is your favorite?

Again, I don't much like the idea of favorites but my first, How We Know What Isn't So, will always be special to me.

What are your current research interests?

I remain interested in trying to understand how people can become convinced of things that dispassionate analysis and careful inquiry indicate are not true. False beliefs, superstitions, faulty judgments in all walks of life—in politics and government, in economics and personal finance, in sports, and in personal relationships.

Recommended Sources

Gilovich faculty page

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/people/Faculty/tdg1.html

Gilovich Books
http://www.psych.cornell.edu/tdg1/Books.html

Sports Illustrated Jinx: Is it really a jinx?

2010-08-24T04:53:00.000-07:00

By Jamie Hale

There are many coaches, athletes, sports commentators and sports fans that believe being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated is not a good thing for an athlete. Supporters of the Sports Illustrated Jinx claim being featured on the cover leads to bad luck. SIJ proponents can cite numerous cases to support their belief.

Victims of the Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx (Wikipedia excerpts):

“May 26, 1958: Race car driver Pat O’Connor appears on the cover. He dies four days later on the first lap of the Indianapolis 500.

August 7, 1978: Pete Rose appears on the cover the same week that his 44-game hitting streak ended.

May 8, 1989: Jon Peters, of Brenham High School in Texas, sets the national high school record for games won by a pitcher, with a 51-0 record. The next game after the cover, he loses for the first (and only) time of his high school career.

In November 2007, Kerry Meier of the Kansas Jayhawks appeared on the cover, which stated "Dream Season (So Far)" after the Jayhawks were 11-0. In their next game they lost to their archrivals, the Missouri Tigers, 36-28, ending the Jayhawks perfect season.

November 9, 2009: Iowa's Derell Johnson Koulianos appears on the front cover with the words "Still Perfect." The Hawkeyes lost to Northwestern two days before the issue date, ending the longest winning streak in school history.”

Maybe the SIJ is a real phenomenon, or maybe, or almost certainly, it is an erroneous belief produced by the regression fallacy. Gilovich explains (1991) how the regression fallacy applies to the SIJ Myth:

It does not take much statistical sophistication to see how regression effects may be responsible for the belief in the Sports Illustrated jinx. Athletes performance at different times are imperfectly correlated. Thus, due to regression alone, we can expect an extraordinary good performance to be followed, on the the average, by a somewhat less extraordinary performance. Athletes appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated when they are newsworthy- i.e., when their performance is extraordinary. Thus, an athlete’s superior performance in the weeks preceding a cover story is very likely to be followed by somewhat poorer performance in the weeks after. Those who believe in the jinx, like those who believe in the hot hand, are mistaken, not in what they observe, but in how they interpret what they see. Many atheltes do suffer a deterioation in their performance after being pictured on the cover of Sports Illustrated, and the mistake lies in citing a jinx, rather than citing regression as the proper interpretation of this phenomenon.

I wonder what SJM supporters think of Michael Jordan's 57 appearances on the cover (Greenfield, 2010), or Vince Young who appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated twice during Texas's National Championship season (Zahn, 2002)?

References

Gilovich, T. How. (1991). How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason In Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.

Greenfield, J. (2010). Michael Jordan: The Sports Illustrated Covers. http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/sports/2010/01/michael-jordan-the-sports-illustrated-covers-1.html (accessed August 23, 2010)

Wikipeida. Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Illustrated_Cover_Jinx (accessed August 23, 2010)

Zahn, P. (2002). Is Their (sic) a “Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. CNN. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/25/ltm.01.html. (accessed August 23, 2010).

Common Sense Doesn't Matter

2010-08-09T05:18:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

“Albert Einstein said common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18. It is also a result of some pervasive and extremely stupid logical fallacies that have become embedded in the human brain over generations, for one reason or another. These malfunctioning thoughts--several of which you've had already today--are a major cause of everything that's wrong with the world” (Shakespeare, 2009).

Webster’s New World Dictionary (2003) defines common sense as: “good sense or practical judgement.” This is probably the most commonly accepted definition of the word.

Wikipedia says:

“Common sense, based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" as their common natural understanding.

Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common".

The most common meaning to the phrase is good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.”

A better definition of Common Sense is: commonly held belief, regardless of it’s truth value.

It doesn’t matter which definition you prefer to use when discussing Common Sense, referring to Common Sense as reason for a particular claim is fallacious, it makes an argument invalid. Yesterday’s Common Sense is often today’s Common Nonsense. Once upon a time it was common sense that the World was flat. History is replete with examples of Common Sense failure.

The list below was contributed by Frank Lovell, Kentucky Assocation of Science Educators and Skeptics Member.

Common Sense Counterfactuals

“The sun orbits Earth once a day. FALSE -- Earth rotates under the (relative to Earth, essentially) stationary sun once a day, and orbits the stationary sun once a year.

Velocities are simply additive (1mph+1mph=2mph, and 100,000mps+100,000mps=200,000mps). FALSE -- special relativity.

Time is absolute. FALSE -- Special Relativity.

Space is absolute. FALSE -- special relativity (what IS absolute is "space-time").

Earth's continents do not move. FALSE -- plate tectonics.

Everything that happens is rigorously mechanically determined. FALSE -- quantum mechanics.”

From Lilienfeld et al. (2010, p.6):

“…French writer Voltaire (1764) pointed out, ‘Common sense is not so common.’ Indeed, one of our primary goals in this book is to encourage you to mistrust your common sense when evaluating psychological claims. As a general rule, you should consult research evidence, not your intuitions, when deciding whether a scientific claim is correct.

As several science writers, including Lewis Wolpert (1992) and Alan Cromer (1993), have observed, science is uncommon sense. In other words, science requires us to put aside our common sense when evaluating evidence (Flagel & Gendreau, 2008; Gendreau et al., 2002).”

When engaging in argument avoid using the Common Sense fallacy, it gives and impression that you have no evidence to support your claim. It may perusade some people , but it will fail when arguing with someone who has a firm understanding of logic.

References

Lilienfeld, S. et al. (2010). 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Shakespeare, G. (2009). 5 Ways “Common Sense” lies to you Everyday. http://www.cracked.com/article_17142_5-ways-common-sense-lies-to-you-everyday.html. (Accessed August 8, 2010).

Webster’s New World Dictionary. (2004). Wiley Publishing Inc.

Wikipeida. Common sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense. (Accessed August 8, 2010).

Science Might be Wrong

2010-07-28T05:29:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

Recently, a friend and I were discussing my article Sham Psychology or Scientific Psychology when he asked, “Are there any definites in Psychology?” I answered by telling him there are no definites in psychology or any branch of science, or any other method of knowledge acquisition. Some people have the idea that science claims certainty, when in fact science knowledge is tentative. The tentative nature of science is one of its strong points. Science, unlike faith-based beliefs accepts the preponderance of evidence and changes it’s stance if the evidence warrants.

The scientist has the attitude that there are no absolute certainties. R.A Lyttleton suggests using the bead model of truth (Duncan R & Weston-Smith M 1977). This model depicts a bead on a horizontal wire that can move left or right. 0 appears on the far left end, and a 1 appears on the far right end. The 0 corresponds with total disbelief and the 1 corresponds with total belief (absolute certainty). Lyttleton suggests that the bead should never reach the far left or right end. The more that the evidence suggests the belief is true the closer the bead should be to 1. The more unlikely the belief is to be true the closer the bead should be to 0.

The non-scientist is ready to accept explanations that are based on insufficient evidence or sometimes no evidence. They heard it on CNN or their teacher said it so it must be true (logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority). They reject notions because they can’t understand them or because they don’t respect the person making the claim. The scientist investigates the claim and critically evaluates the evidence.

The scientific method is the best method we have for acquiring knowledge. Sometimes science is wrong, but science does not claim absolutism, nor does it claim to have all the answers. I have heard some people say, “science doesn’t matter, what matters is the real world”, news flash- the scientific method is the very best we have for understanding the real world. Of course, no one complains about science while watching TV, driving their car, or receiving their medications, all luxuries given to us by science.

References

Duncan R & Weston-Smith M. (1977) The Nature of Knowledge by RA Lyttleton. The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance. Pergamon Press.

Hale, J. (2009). Scientific and Nonscientific Approaches to Knowledge. http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?126
(Accessed July 28, 2010)

Correlational Studies & Science

2010-06-06T11:41:00.000-07:00

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, as you know, if you read scientific research. Two variables may be associated without having a causal relationship. However, just because a correlation has limited value as a causative inference, does not mean that correlation studies are not important to science.

Why are correlation studies important? Stanovich (2007) points out the following:

“First, many scientific hypotheses are stated in terms of correlation or lack of correlation, so that such studies are directly relevant to these hypotheses."

"Second, although correlation does not imply causation, causation does imply correlation. That is, although a correlational study cannot definitely prove a causal hypothesis, it may rule one out."

"Third, correlational studies are more useful than they may seem, because some of the recently developed complex correlational designs allow for some very limited causal inferences."

"…some variables simply cannot be manipulated for ethical reasons (for instance, human malnutrition or physical disabilities). Other variables, such as birth order, sex, and age are inherently correlational because they cannot be manipulated, and, therefore, the scientific knowledge concerning them must be based on correlation evidence.”

When practical, evidence from correlation studies can lead to testing that evidence under controlled experimental conditions.

In conclusion, it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, however causation does imply correlation. Correlational studies are a stepping-stone to the more powerful experimental method.

Notes:

There are two major problems when attempting to infer causation from a simple correlation- 1) directionality problem- before concluding that a correlation between variable 1 and 2 is due to changes in 1 causing changes in 2, it is important to realize the direction of causation may be the opposite, thus, from 2 to 1 -2) third-variable problem- the correlation in variables may occur because both variables are related to a third variable

Complex correlational statistics such as path analysis, multiple regression and partial correlation “allow the correlation between two variables to be recalculated after the influence of other variables is removed, or ‘factored out” or ‘partialed out” (Stanovich, 2007, p. 77)

Conditions Necessary to Infer Causation (Kenny, 1979):

Time precedence: For 1 to cause 2, 1 must precede 2. The cause must precede the effect.

Relationship: The variables must correlate. To determine the relationship of two variables, it must be determined if the relationship could occur due to chance. Lay observers are often not good judges of the presence of relationships, thus, statistical methods are used to measure and test the existence and strength of relationships.

Nonspuriousness (spuriousness- not genuine): “The third and final condition for a causal relationship is nonspuriousness (Suppes, 1970). For a relationship between X and Y to be nonspurious, there must not be a Z that causes both X and Y such that the relationship between X and Y vanishes once Z is controlled” (Kenny, 1979. pp. 4-5).

References

Kenny, D. (1979). Correlation and Causality.

Stanovich, K. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Venter's Synthetic Genome

2010-05-21T08:52:00.000-07:00

There is big news in the world of biology- researchers have created the first “Synthetic Cell”. The idea will surely excite many people, but at the same time, I suspect strong opposition from some groups.

Geneticist discusses synthetic life breakthrough (Craig Venter briefly discusses some implications of this remarkable breakthrough- video is a little over one minute)

excerpt:
"a bright line in the history of synthetic biology...also at the same time its a baby step'

'this cell is the first one on the planet that it's parent came from a computer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRGb_hKzVAM

The Journal Science Interviews J. Craig Venter About the first "Synthetic Cell" (posted yesterday- video is approximately 13 minutes)

excerpt:
"...well this is an important step...um we think both scientifically and philosophically it certainly changed my views on definitions of life and how life works'

'life is basically a result of an information process"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47rUrlzdK3k

Letter from Obama

excerpt:
"As you know, scientists have announced a milestone in the emerging field of cellular and genetic research known as synthetic biology. While scientists have used DNA to develop genetically modified cells for many years, for the first time, all of the natural genetic material in a bacterial cell has been replaced with a synthetic set of genes.

'Given the importance of this issue, I request that the Commission consult with a range of constituencies, including scientific and medical communities, faith communities, and business and nonprofit organizations."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Gutmann-Letter.pdf

My thoughts: Why is there a need to consult with faith communities? They should have zero input into matters concerning science. Scientific progress concerning this issue will probably be slowed if faith communities have any say in the matter.

Now ain't that special? The implications of creating the first synthetic bacteria

excerpt:
"For many, the wondrous nature of what permits something to be alive has been a mystery that science never, ever could penetrate. Life is sacred, special, ineffable and beyond human understanding. Except it isn’t.'

'... they created a living thing from man-made parts. Or, in more important words, they created a novel lifeform from man-made parts."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=now-aint-that-special-the-implicati-2010-05-20

Researchers start up cell with synthetic genome

excerpt:
"The success clears the way for developing and testing new variants of existing organisms.

'With this approach we now have the ability to start with a DNA sequence and design organisms exactly like we want,' says Gibson. 'We can get down to the very nucleotide level and make any changes we want to a genome." http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100519/full/news.2010.253.html

What do you think? Should religious groups have input on this scientific endeavor? Should their opinions influence scientific progress?

Popular Psychology: Fact or Fiction

2010-05-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

Interview with Scott Lilienfeld
by Jamie Hale

1- Congratulations on the success of your new book- 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. While conducting research for the book were you surprised by any of your findings?

Many thanks..... admittedly, we probably weren't surprised by too much given that we've been researching these myths for a number of years. But certainly, in the past some surprised us. For example, I once believed that the main influence on happiness was external events, but now think otherwise.

2- Can you give readers an example of a popular brain myth?

Sure, the belief that people use only 10% of their brain capacity.

What about a popular memory myth?

The belief that memory operates much like a video camera or tape recorder.

What about a popular myth associated with psychological treatment?

The belief that to get better, one must go on a psychological 'tour" of one's childhood experiences.

3- Who or what are the primary sources of psychological myths? How can the lay public defend themselves against shams?

The primary source is the huge, burgeoning pop psychology industry - self-help books, the internet, films, TV shows, magazines, and the like. But many of these myths also spring from the allure of our everyday experience: many of these myths seem persuasive because they accord with our commonsense intuitions. But these intuitions are often erroneous. The public can defend themselves against shams by becoming armed with accurate knowledge. Laypersons need to understand that not all pop psychology claims are correct, and that they need to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

4- What are you current research interests?

Personality disorders, psychiatric classification and diagnosis, evidence-based practice in psychology, scientific thinking as applied to psychological treatment, research, and education.

5- Who is your favorite science writer?

Carl Sagan.

6- Keith Stanovich's new book- What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought- reveals that intelligence tests do not measure rational thought? Are there any measurement procedures available for measuring rational thought?

Not many good ones. Actually, Stanovich is working on one from what he's told me..such measures are sorely needed, because I think Stanovich is right that standard IQ tests don't do a great job of measuring critical thinking capacity. Lots of smart people can't think clearly, as recent events in the U.S. economy demonstrate.

About Scott Lilienfeld
He is a professor of Psychology at at Emory University, Atlanta, and an author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior, co-written with Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio and the late great Barry Beyerstein.

I would like to thank Dr. Lilienfeld for taking the time to answer many of my questions regarding the diverse field of psychology. To learn more about Dr. Lilienfeld visit http://www.psychology.emory.edu/clinical/lilienfeld/index.html

Recommended Readings
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Review
http://www.basilandspice.com/mind-and-body/52010-50-great-myths-of-popular-psychology.html

Real Self-Help
http://skepbitch.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/scott-lilienfeld-real-self-help/

The Broken Prison System

2010-05-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

interview with Matthew DeMichelle

For or against death penalty?- that is one of the tough questions I asked Dr. DeMichelle, in a recent interview concerning the prison system.

Briefly, could you explain what is meant by "Supermax prisons" and how do they differ from maximum security? In general, what does the research data indicate about the rehab capabilities of Supermax prisons compared to max security?

Good question Jamie, but the reality is that supermax prisons are not meant to have any rehabilitative effects. These institutions are designed to keep individuals locked-up for nearly the entire day. I believe typically folks in such institutions are locked down for 23 or 24 hours a day, and when they do get out, they are segregated to small fenced in areas. The point to these facilities is security and incapacitation of offenders, not post-release success. I don’t believe there is any real research on success of individuals released from supermax vs. other prisons. Supermax prisons are warehouses or storage facilities for offenders deemed too dangerous to be housed with others. Interestingly, these distinctions are not made solely based upon convicted offense, but rather on institutional behavior. That is, if an inmate attacks a guard or other offender, they might get moved up in security level. To a certain extent, supermax prisons is the correctional system throwing up its hands and giving up on reintegration of offenders, and saying let’s just lock these folks up away from everyone. This is problematic, however, when we start to realize that many of these people will be released back into communities. So, while the prison system may give up, the community is left to deal with these folks again. With all this said, though, the US correctional system gave up on the notion of rehabilitation a long time ago. In fact, there is a well-known piece of research by Robert Martinson (1974) in which he argued that ‘nothing works in correctional rehabilitation.’ Martinson analyzed more than 100 research articles on correctional rehabilitation with juveniles and adults, and he argued that offenders going through these interventions did not perform significantly better than similar offenders not exposed to the interventions. This research was used as fodder to support conservative policy designs to remove any attempts at resocialization from penal institutions. Instead, it was argued that if rehabilitative mechanisms do not work—then, why bother? Why not just lock people up and throw away the key? Well, unfortunately, Martinson did not intend for his research to be applied in this way; instead, he was saying that better reintegrative mechanisms were needed, not fewer. But, we should realize that the late 1970s and early 1980s were a time of increasingly neo-liberalizing economics and political arrangements that fostered a punitive turn in social policies. At any rate, we’ve experienced a nearly seven-fold increase in incarcerated populations since the early 1970s---with incarceration rates per 100,000 population moving from around 100 to more than 700. This is amazing and it significantly outpaces our Western counterparts. In fact, the only other nations with such levels of incarceration are found in places such as Soviet Russia and South Africa. I say all these things because it is important to understand that incarceration and crime policy in general are not so much rational responses to public threats as much as they are shaped by larger contextual realities (e.g., economy, politics). At any rate, supermax prisons were part of this punitive turn, and they serve to house offenders that, essentially, had problems in other facilities and/or they were repeat violent offenders. But, researching their success upon release is not something that I aware has much research—probably because we know how these folks will do upon release, don’t we?

Does the death penalty aid in lessening crime? How is the death penalty used differently in the USA compared to other countries?

For or against death penalty?

Which country executes the most people?

Boy, oh boy, Jamie, couldn’t you give me some easy questions? Now you throw these three or four on the death penalty. First, the data on the death penalty reducing crime is a difficult question to unpack. I mean how could we measure crimes that folks might have committed if it had not been for the death penalty. These counterfactuals are nearly impossible to measure. I mean let’s assume that someone comes home to find their spouse in bed with someone else. Now, the news will tell us about the times when an individual goes to their closet and gets out their pistol and shoots someone—probably without every rationally calculating their actions, but we do not know, nor can we measure, the times when someone processes the potential consequences of shooting and killing someone in such a scenario. Simply, the deterrent effects of crime policies are difficult to measure accurately. Some research, however, suggests that crimes increase in areas following the commission of a death penalty, and if we look at states within the US that use the death penalty the most, we see elevated violent crime rates.

Second, the only western (or at least quasi-western law country) that uses the death penalty is Japan. The others got rid of the death penalty sometime ago, which is not to say that the public is not in favor of the death penalty in these other places. We should remember that most of Europe has a different memory of WWII than the US, and they may have a heightened sense of fear of the government’s ability to kill people legally. With that said, however, criminal justice policies and practitioners are protected from politics in that these are not elected positions in many other countries. Consider how the multiple elections of prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, and other criminal justice professionals shape crime policy and rhetoric. During election times, we all see the commercials in which someone claims that he or she is much harsher with criminals than their counterpart, or how another person is soft on crime. There is a famous case in which George Bush was running against Michael Dukakis for president, and Bush used the situation of a work furlough program that operated in Massachusetts when Dukakis was governor in which an offender was out and committed a brutal rape and murder of an elderly woman. While this crime was horrible, Bush did not mention that the furlough program had a small recidivism rate and was considered successful overall. Now, do not misunderstand me, no one is in favor of brutal offenders being released, but we cannot create rational policies to prevent the irrational from occurring. I mean does anyone think that we can eliminate crime? Policies cannot make all crimes go away. Crimes and violent forms of predation are much bigger social and psychological issues that can be addressed through policies, but we should not expect to get rid of crime. This would be like expecting medical doctors to eliminate death.

Third, am I for or against the death penalty? I am not in favor of how the US operates the death penalty. This is not to say that I do not see individuals that I believe should be executed. We see these sensational and horrific cases in which a young child is kidnapped and abused for decades, or someone kills and rapes someone, or some other horrible act, and I believe many people are in favor of using execution to handle these folks. But, unfortunately, in a large modern society it is not possible to conduct executions that way. Instead, we have a constitution that provides specific forms of protections to all of us, and these are a good thing—many of these rights are what separates this country from others, and it is what makes the US a special form of democracy. We should admit why we would want to use the death. That is, we do not use the death penalty to deter so much as to get retribution and revenge, which I am not saying is a wrong thing necessarily, but we should not expect to get anything else from it. Also, we know that hundreds of people on death row have been released due to prosecutorial misconduct, lack of adequate legal protection, and DNA evidence suggesting that someone else committed the crime. I mean does anyone believe that O.J. didn’t murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend? And, was acquitted, not because people believed he was innocent but because “the glove didn’t fit.” So, we see that money for a fancy legal defense is important, and we know that most of the individuals on death row had a public defender, not a hired attorney. This does not seem right to me. We also know that there are situations in which prosecutors fudge evidence to get conviction—to make sure they have a high prosecution rate and get reelected. And, DNA evidence has proven that many people on death row did not do the crime in the first place. Eyewitness testimony is weak at best. I suppose I’d be in favor of the death penalty if I were able to pick on a case-by-case basis who was to be executed, but until that time comes, it seems to be a flawed policy due to understandable human errors.

Fourth, I really don’t know which country executes the most people. As I mentioned above, the US and Japan are the only western law countries to execute, and it is really hard to compare the non-western countries with us. Not to mention in many other countries there are very shady sorts of things that happens due to a lack of due process and civil liberties.

Why solitary confinement? According to scientific data it doesn't look promising.

Solitary confinement is used as a punishment for offenders that do not get along once they are incarcerated. We know that historically this was used as a way to soften prisoners up. Now, it is what happens when administrators do not know what to do with prisoner. Maybe they are too violent or are problematic in other ways. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be used, but let’s be honest about why we use it. I mean it is simply a way to punish folks it has not interest in making people better. With that said, however, the correctional system gets something of unfair mandate because they are to correct folks that should be somewhere else. That is, after deinstitutionalizing the mental health system in the US, we simply just put these folks on the criminal justice system to deal with them. The reality is that mental illnesses are serious psychological problems that need specialized care and treatment, not simply locking them. Also, we have to realize that correctional administrators have a real challenge of trying to control and house so many individuals in such a small space, and with the long sentences that many offenders receive there is a growing sense in prisons that they have little to lose. This creates a dangerous place to work, so I’d say that solitary confinement is used as an administrative way to gain control over inmates that do not want to abide by the rules.

If you were told you were responsible for designing a new plan for running the US prison system, what would a brief outline look like?

Hmm…this is a difficult question. I’m so used to critiquing policies, but I’m rarely asked what a good prison would look like. First, it is important to ask what causes crime. I mean we don’t really think that crime is the outcome of “bad people” necessarily, which is not to say that people don’t do bad things. But rather, I believe that we must look at macro effects on human behavior, and recognize that human decision-making needs to be understood as multilevel (incorporating both psychology and sociology). We know that social disorganization, strain due to relative deprivation, limited legitimate education and employment opportunities, and other forces breeding hopelessness and frustration are related to anti-social behavior. This is not to say that we need to “hug-a-thug” but to simply recognize what research has shown since the 1920s-1930s. A holistic approach would be needed to combat these forms of street predation. Which brings me to one of my pet peeves when talking of crime policy, that we focus nearly exclusively on street level crimes when we know that white collar and corporate crimes and malfeasance are more dangerous and costly. Think if we spent half as much effort in investigating the latter as we do the former. This would create a fundamentally different criminal justice system.

Second, we should look to other similar countries and see what they are doing with offenders. Some of my recent research focuses on Scandinavian countries that identify the negative effects of capitalist hierarchies through welfare and mental health systems set up to catch folks before they enter the CJ system. Then, once an individual is incarcerated the central point to incarceration is not to dehumanize them in horrible conditions. One historian, James Q. Whitman, wrote an interesting book a few years ago in which he talked about the degrading nature of US punishment and how this differs from the fundamental purposes of European models that seek to normalize prisoners life with that which they will meet once released. Instead, we seek to make prisons as austere as possible, to degrade prisons, to stigmatize them upon their release. It is almost as though we do not want people to be successful.

Third, we need to return to some of the earlier policies that existed in the US, namely indeterminate sentencing. That is, while mandatory minimums and determinate sentencing sounds good on its face, these policies strip criminal justice officials of having any carrots to shape inmate behaviors. Indeterminate sentencing allows for apply punishment ranges to offenders, so if they do certain good things they can get out earlier, but if they do not do good things they won’t. Instead, determinate sentencing tells inmates that it doesn’t matter what they do while they are locked-up because they are serving their entire time no matter what they—this seems silly to me because we know through much research in conditioning that positive reinforcers work to shape behavior (and are probably more effective than negatives or punishments). At any rate, some sort graded system of release would be in order—depending on individual needs—in which offenders would receive additional freedoms—that includes family visits, conjugal visits, and work release opportunities—as they meet various requirements. And, no doubt, we must encourage educational and employment trainings opportunities to inmates. As it currently operates, prisons simply force inmates to sell and use drugs, join gangs, and live in hyper-violent state, in which most of us would relegate to the most basic human impulses of survival. The prison system is broken. Does anyone really think that folks leave prisons in a better condition than when they went in? I’d say not.
According to your research how does religiosity correlate with crime rate?

I really don’t know how crime rates and religiosity relate. We do see that in states that have larger conservative Christian followings that they punish more harshly, which is not to say that they have higher crime rates or not. It has always seemed ironic to me that the most Christian are typically the most punitive. I suppose this has something to with the emphasis on Old Testament readings, as opposed to New Testament, which focused on Christ and the idea of forgiveness.

About the Author

Matthew DeMichele, PhD is a Senior Research Associate at the American Probation and Parole Association. He is working on several projects related to the community corrections field, with his recent work focusing on reentry, DWI risk assessment, gang member supervision, and agency workload issues. Dr. DeMichele has several publications related to technological issues in the community corrections field, most notably Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 2nd edition (2009), as well as articles addressing unintended consequences and strategies for fostering and maintain law enforcement and community corrections collaborations when working with technology in the field. In addition, Dr. DeMichele is working on several projects using comparative-historical approaches to explain cross-national and temporal changes in crime control policies and naturalization strategies. His most recent publications appear in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Federal Probation, the Prison Journal, and Corrections Today. He also is an adjunct professor at the University of Kentucky (Department of Sociology) and Eastern Kentucky University (Department of Criminal Justice).

Sham Psychology or Scientific Psychology

2010-03-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

The news media, television shows, movies, and the internet are saturated with psychological topics- mental illness, brain imaging,forensic psychology, psychics, recovered memories, polygraph testing, parenting, heinous crimes, psychotherapy, intelligence tests, child sexual abuse, hypnosis and so on (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio & Beyerstein, 2010). Bookstores generally have hundreds of books on psychology. Self-help and motivational books, which are generally stocked in the psychology department, are often best sellers. These books often provide information that contradicts scientific evidence. Other best sellers associated with psychology include books on ESP and other psychic abilities, even though psychology has probably done more than any other field to refute psychic claims. Psychology’s association with the self-help industry, the supernatural, and a variety of other nonscientific claims have lead some people to believe psychology is not a science.

Before determining whether psychology is a science, it is important to understand the central tenets of science and psychology. After acquiring a basic understanding of science and its methods you will be able to determine psychology’s scientific status.

What is Science?

Science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims. Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology, p.9) says, “Science is … a way of thinking about and observing the universe that leads to a deep understanding of its workings.” Contrary to popular belief, science is not about a specific subject matter, but is applicable to various aspects of the observable universe. Science is not defined by test tubes, electronic equipment, or the researcher’s white lab coat (Stanovich, 2007). Claims that are considered scientific must meet the falsifiability criterion; that is, they must be stated in a way that their predictions can be tested and potentially falsified.

What sets science apart from other modes of knowledge acquisition is the use of what is commonly known as the scientific method. Giving a precise definition of the scientific method is difficult as there is little consensus in the scientific community as to what that definition is. Although the scientific community has been slow to agree upon a clear definition, the scientific method is rooted in observation, experimentation, and knowledge acquisition through a process of objective reasoning and logic (Hale, 2009). If you asked a panel of scientists to define the scientific method you would receive a large array of answers. This is what Michael Shermer had to say about the scientific method (Why People Believe Weird Things 1997, p. 19). “A sizeable literature exists on the scientific method, but there is little consensus among authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. However, scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:

Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction: Making specific predictions based on hypotheses.

Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look in nature.

Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.”

When using the scientific method one of the primary goals is objectivity. Proper use of the scientific method leads us to rationalism (basing conclusion on intellect, logic and evidence). Relying on science also helps us avoid dogmatism (adherence to doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry, or basing conclusion on authority rather than evidence).

Scientific Theory

In science the word theory is used differently than it is in everyday language (Johnson, 2000). To a scientist, the word theory represents that of which he or she is most certain; a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that has been proven successful time and time again (Shermer, 2002). Scientific theories are provisional. The provisional nature of science is one of its most important and distinctive characteristics. The willingness to modify theories promotes scientific progress.

In everyday language the word theory implies a guess (not sure). This often causes confusion for those unfamiliar with science. This confusion leads to the common statement “It’s only a theory.”

What is Psychology?

Webster’s New World Dictionary (2003, p.520) gives two definitions for psychology:
“1. the science dealing with the mind and with mental and emotional processes. 2- the science of animal and human behavior.” L, Sdorow (Psychology 1990, Glossary G-11) defines psychology as “the science of behavior and mental processes”. Another commonly cited definition of psychology is the science of human behavior. Even though definitions vary, most people in the psychology field will probably agree that psychology involves the study of behavior and to a degree the cognitive processes that influence behavior and thinking. Modern psychology is composed of an enormously diverse set of investigations (Stanovich, 2007), which has led to many branches within the discipline.

Within the different branches come different areas of research and study. Some of these branches are rooted in science while others are not. For example, Freudian psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria to be called science, while cognitive psychology and experimental psychology are scientific endeavors. When determining whether a specific branch is scientific it is generally more important to address the methods used than the research topic.

Psychology’s Superstar

When most people think of psychology they think about Sigmund Freud. “The notoriety of Freud has greatly affected the general public’s conceptions about the field of psychology and has contributed to many misunderstandings”, says Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology 2007, p.1). Sigmund Freud, Austrian physician and physiologist, is the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud believed human beings were primarily motivated by unconscious, and often sexual motives (Sdorow 1990). In addition he believed that early childhood experiences were the main factors in the development of personality. A 1981 survey of chairpersons of graduate psychology found that the respondents considered Freud the most influential figure in the history of psychology (Davis, Thomas, & Weaver, 1982). Times have changed. According to Keith Stanovich (How to Think Straight About Psychology 2007, p.1), “[I]f all the members of the American Psychological Association (APA) who were concerned with Freudian psychoanalysis were collected, they would make up less the 10 percent of the membership. In another major psychological association, the Association for Psychological Science, they would make up considerably less than 5 percent.”

Modern psychology pays little attention to the ideas of Freud. Freud’s methods of data collection are different than those used by modern psychologists. Freud based his theories on case studies, not controlled experimentation. His theories lack scientific support and rely on a database of unreliable, unreplicable behavioral relationships (Stanovich, 2007). Psychology is not synonymous with Freud.

Media Psychology and Hearsay

In addition to the Freud problem the media’s promotion of psychology has distorted the layperson’s image of the field. A common misconception is that psychology deals only with mental illness and therapy. When I was attending college, as a psychology major, my family and friends often asked what type of mental facility I planned on working in when I graduated college. Contrary to popular belief, psychology encompasses more than the study of mental illness; not all psychologists are shrinks or therapists.

Psychologists featured on radio and television shows often offer common-sense advice about personal problems. These types of programs contribute to the idea that psychology is only concerned with personal problems and that psychology is merely common sense. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. To reiterate, psychology investigates a wide variety of topics not only mental disorders and personal problems. Furthermore, psychological science is not synonymous with common sense (Flagel & Gendreau, 2008; Cacioppo, 2004). Common sense is often common nonsense. To illustrate the point consider the common-sense idea that children who read a lot or excel academically are socially or physically under developed (Stanovich, 2007). This idea is often perpetuated by society, although contradictory to scientific evidence (Gage & Berliner, 1984, pp.18-19; Zill & Winglee, 1990). The idea of common sense is a fallacy found in various fields, not only psychology.

Bookstores often place paranormal books in the psychology department. This leads the layperson to believe psychologists’ agree with the reality of paranormal claims (e.g. telepathy, remote viewing, psychic surgery, psychokineis etc.). In reality, psychologists’ second only to professional magicians “have clearly done the most to expose the fraudlent nature of most purported demonstrations of paranormal abilities” (Stanovich 2007, p.186).

Shelving the self-help literature in the psychology section has furthered blurred the general perception of psychology. The quality and diversity of the self-help literature is enormous, containing good and bad information. Even if the book contains accurate information, will reading it have a positive impact on people’s lives? Will their lives get better (PSYBLOG, 2010)?

Most of the self-help literature found in bookstores provides advice on eating disorders, relationship mal-functions, sexual disorders and so on. This leaves an impression that psychologists only deal with abnormal behaviors (Stanovich, 2007). Another problem arises when psychology’s research methods are confused with those promoted by the self-help literature. The self-help database is derived from testimonials and case studies, while the database for scientific psychology is based on a rigorous scientific process. Bookstores or popular book publishers are rarely concerned with accurate representations of science, but more with book sales, which often means selling books that have little scientific value.

Modern Scientific Psychology

Psychologists often contribute to other fields of science yet receive no credit. Psychologists have made contributions to the fields of evolution, exercise science, biology, computer science, neuroscience, engineering, business, ethology, nutrition science, and so on. The involvement of psychologists in a variety of scientific endeavors is testament to psychology’s wide diversity. One of psychology’s top researchers, Daniel Kahneman, received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics (Stanovich, 2007).

In a recent interview (www.knowledgesummit.net Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology), I asked Keith Stanovich- What branches of Psychology or rooted in science? Which ones are not? He said, “Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice.”

Conclusion

Is psychology a science or a sham? If you associate the entire field of psychology with media psychologists, self-help gurus, or anyone whom wears the title psychologist then you may be able to say psychology is not a science, however this would be a logical fallacy- Hasty over generalization. The fallacy of judging the entire industry based on a few bad apples happens in all scientific endeavors. What if you were to base the scientific status of exercise science on popular exercise literature or base the scientific validity of nutrition science on claims made supplement companies and popular diet plans? What if you were to base physiology’s scientific status on assertions made by physiologist Sigmund Freud? Modern psychology takes a scientific approach to knowledge acquisition. Psychologists whom gather data else wise should not be seen as representatives of modern psychology.

References

Cacioppo, J.T. (2004). Common sense, intuition, and theory in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 114-122.

Davis, S.F., Thomas, R.L., & Weaver, M.S. (1982). Psychology’s contemporary and all-time notables: Student, faculty, and chairperson viewpoints. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 3-6.

Flagel, D.C. & Gendreau, P. (2008). Sense, common sense, and nonsense, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1354-1361.

Gage, N.L., & Berliner, D. (1984). Educational Psychology(3rd ed). San Francisco: Freeman.

Hale, J. (2009). Scientific and Nonscientific approaches to Knowledge. MaxCondition.com. http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?126
(accessed Jauary 27, 2010)

Hale, J. (2010). Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology. KnowledgeSummit.net. www.knowledgesummit.net (accessed January 29, 2010)

Johnson, G.B. (2000) The Living World. USA: McGraw Hill.

Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Ruscio, J, & Beyerstein, B.L. (2010). 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.

PSYBLOG. Is Modern Self-Help Just a Massive Money-Making Scam? PSYBLOG. http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/01/is-modern-self-help-just-massive-money.php
(accessed Mar 2, 2010)

Sdorow, L. (1990). Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown Publishers.

Shermer, M. (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Owl Books.

Stanovich, K. (2007). How To Think Straight About Psychology. Boston MA: Pearson: Allyn and Bacon.

Webster’s New World Dictionary: Fourth Edition (2003). Pocket Books. New York: New York.

Zill, N., & Winglee, M. (1990). Who Reads Literature? Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.

Psychic & Fitness Expert in Hott Water!

2010-02-22T05:15:00.000-08:00

by Jamie Hale

Psychic busted again

The following quote is from Consumer Health Digest #10-07
February 18, 2010 (Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., with help from William M. London, Ed.D)

”A detailed three-year study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne's predictions about missing persons and murder cases has found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct, ‘Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case.’ The study's authors collected Browne's televised statements about 115 cases and compared them with newspaper reports that are believed to be factual. They found that in 25 cases where the actual outcome is known, she was dead wrong in every one; and in the rest, where the final outcome is unknown, her predictions could not be substantiated. The study indicates that the media outlets that repeatedly promote Browne's work have no visible concern about whether she is untrustworthy or harms people.”
[Shafer R, Jadwiszczok A. Psychic defective: Sylvia Browne's history of failure. Skeptical Inquirer 34(2):38-42, 2010]

Sylvia Browne is the so-called psychic that has made numerous appearances on the Montel Williams show. The following quote is from the Stop Sylvia Browne website, “On February 6 2007, Lt. Colonel Hal Bidlack (Ret) mailed a letter to Montel Williams, asking him some serious questions regarding Williams' continued support of Sylvia Browne.” http://stopsylvia.com/articles/montelresponsetoopenletter.shtml

Sylvia’s predictions have proven highly unreliable, but she still charges $850 for a phone reading. However, she is Sylvia Browne- a real psychic- and “Unlike some pseudo-psychics who tell people that their problems are caused by curses, evil entities, demons, or karmic retribution neither Sylvia nor Chris will blame the negative occurrences on your life on these things, and each of them feel it is important to advise their clients to not believe in such things. They do not exist.” http://readings.sylviabrowne.com/#promos

Seriously, pseudo-psychics?

If I could ask Sylvia (the real psychic) one question, it would be- why haven’t you collected the one million dollars James Randi has been offering you for years? If you really believe in your psychic ability why not make an easy million?

In 2001, Sylvia said she would take Randi up on his one million dollar challenge- a challenge that states if you can demonstrate supernatural abilities in a controlled scientific study you will receive one million dollars. At this time, Browne has still not taken the challenge. She has made various excuses for why she hasn’t participated in the challenge. To entice Browne, Randi even changed the rules of the challenge when he offered to put the money in an escrow account and make Montel Williams and Larry King, both Browne supporters, the escrow agents

Check out Robert S. Lancaster’s website
Stop Sylvia Browne
www.stopsylvia.com

Fitness expert in the hott seat!

So-called fitness expert from NBC-TV’s reality show, “The Biggest Loser” is being sued for falsely advertising that her “Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control” will provide “automatic” weight loss if taken before meals. “Christie Christensen of Lake Elsinore, California has filed a class-action lawsuit against Jillian Michaels and two companies [Thincare International and Basic Research, LL] that market her products”
http://www.dietscam.org/reports/michaels.shtml

False advertising by weight loss, or supplement companies is nothing new. It may actually be the norm. This doesn’t make it right, but, in my opinion it means many other celebs and companies should also be sued.

Let me make it clear, I am not defending Michaels or her false assertions. I think Michaels should be fined and barred from the fitness industry, along with others participating in false ad campaigns.

Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology

2010-01-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

After reading Stanovich's highly recommended book- HOW TO THINK STRAIGHT ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY- I decided I had to get an interview with the brilliant scientist.

In How To Think Straight About Psychology you dedicate an entire chapter to the ‘Freud Problem”. Can you give readers a brief explanation of “The Freud Problem”?

The notoriety of Freud has greatly affected the general public’s conceptions about the field of psychology and has contributed to many misunderstandings. Many people think Freud is central to modern psychology and are shocked to learn that he is not. One popular introductory psychology textbook (Wade & Tavris, 2008) is over 700 pages long, yet contains only 15 pages on which either Freud or psychoanalysis is mentioned—and these 15 pages often contain criticism (“most Freudian concepts were, and still are, rejected by most empirically oriented psychologists,” p. 19).

In short, modern psychology is not obsessed with the ideas of Sigmund Freud (as are the media and some humanities disciplines), nor is it largely defined by them. Freud’s work is an extremely small part of the varied set of issues, data, and theories that are the concern of modern psychologists.

It is bad enough that Freud’s importance to modern psychology is vastly exaggerated. What makes the situation worse is that Freud’s methods of investigation are completely unrepresentative of how modern psychologists conduct their research. In fact, the study of Freud’s methods gives an utterly misleading impression of psychological research. For example, Freud did not use controlled experimentation, which, is the most potent weapon in the modern psychologist’s arsenal of methods. Freud thought that case studies could establish the truth or falsity of theories. Of course, this idea is mistaken. Finally, a critical problem with Freud’s work concerns the connection between theory and behavioral data. For a theory to be considered scientific, the link between the theory and behavioral data must meet some minimal requirements. Freud’s theories do not meet these criteria. To make a long story short, Freud built an elaborate theory on a database (case studies and introspection) that was not substantial enough to support it. Freud concentrated on building complicated theoretical structures, but he did not, as modern psychologists do, ensure that they would rest on a database of reliable, replicable behavioral relationships. In short, Freud’s style of work can be a significant impediment to the understanding of modern psychology.

What is your definition of science? What branches of Psychology or rooted in science? Which ones are not?

In my book How To Think Straight About Psychology, I define science as having three essential features: (1) the use of systematic empiricism; (2) the production of public knowledge; and (3) the examination of solvable problems.

Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice.

How has the field of Psychology changed over the past 20 years?

The field has evolved steadily. It has not undergone any revolutions. Psychology is a very evolutionary, cumulative science.

What impact has Brain Imaging had in the field of psychology?

Brain imaging is one converging technique among many. It has not revolutionized anything. In one of my research fields—the psychology of reading—it has merely served to confirm what we have known about reading (for example, the importance of phonological awareness in early reading) for decades. Newspapers and magazines love the pictures of many-colored brains, but this type of publicity over-emphasizes the contribution of these techniques.

Who is your favorite writer? Favorite book?

Contemporary writers I like are David Lodge and Ian McEwan. Of classic writers in the canon, it’s George Orwell. Favorite books would be Lodge’s Thinks (a novel about cognitive science). McEwan’s Enduring Love and Saturday (both of which are flavored by science). Orwell’s essays are worth reading (“Shooting an Elephant”) in addition to the famous novels.

What are your current research interests?

Investigating the differences between rational thought and intelligence.

Do you have any current projects you are working on?

Same as the previous.

Of the books you have written which one is your favorite?

The last two: What Intelligence Tests Miss and The Robot’s Rebellion.

Click on the following links for more information on Keith Stanovich
http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Home.html

Psyconoclasm: A scientific Approach To Psychology
http://psyconoclasm.com/2009/04/22/episode-1-the-scientific-approach-to-psychology-with-keith-stanovich-phd.aspx

Homeopathy: Under Investigation

2009-11-24T07:38:00.000-08:00

by Jamie Hale

Claim: Homeopathy is an effective treatment procedure for various health problems

Investigation: Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, developed homeopathy in the late 18th century. He developed homeopathy in response to his dissatisfaction with the conventional medicine of his time. Hahnemann’s homeopathy suggested two key principles. First, he asserted that "like cures like". In other words, a substance that produces certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure similar symptoms in a sick person. Second, he claimed that smaller and smaller doses of the remedy would be even more effective. Hahnemann diluted the remedies in a process he named "potentization". Hahnemann would take an original natural substance and often dilute it numerous times. Between each dilution, the remedy was shaken. Shaking, supposedly released the healing energy of the remedy (1).
After investigating 107 controlled trials on homeopathy Kleijnen and and colleagues concluded (2)“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.” Hill & Doyon investigated 40 randomized trials involving homeopathy (3). The researchers concluded, that in their opinions the evidence did not show homeopathy to be effective. In 1994 the National Council Against Health Fraud advised consumers not to buy homeopathic products or to patronize homeopathic practitioners (4). In addition they suggested, “basic scientists are urged to be proactive in opposing the marketing of homeopathic remedies because of conflicts with known physical laws. Those who study homeopathic remedies are warned to beware of deceptive practices in addition to applying sound research methodologies.” Shang and colleagues analyzed 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 conventional medicine trials (5). The researchers concluded “ there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.”

Conclusion: A few studies implicating the positive benefits of homeopathy have appeared in major medical journals. But, the majority of positive studies have appeared in nonscientific journals, have been subject to bias, or poor research design. The overwhelmingly majority of data appearing in scientific journals shows that homeopathy is an ineffective treatment for any clinical condition. There is no good reason to use homeopathic products.

References

1-Wagner M. Is Homeopathy “New Science” or “New Age”? [online] September 18, 2009 http://www.homeowatch.org/articles/wagner.html
2-Kleijnen J, et. al. Clinical Trials of Homeopathy. BMJ 302(6772):316-23 1991
3-Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 38(2):139-47 1990.
4-NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. [online] September 18th, 2009 http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html
5-Shang A, et. al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32 2005.

Brain & Belief

2009-10-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

After reading Brain & Belief (Mcgraw 2004) for the second time I decided I would e-mail the author and see if he would be interested in answering some questions. To my delight he agreed.

I know of no other single volume which covers such a wide range of topics and still retains a depth of analysis…this book is an important addition to the pantheon of popular science books that should be read not only by general readers, but by professional scientists, philosophers, and scholars of all stripes. And it’s a good read to boot! –Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine; author of How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God.

I just finished reading Brain & Belief for the second time. In addition I have referenced the book too many times to count. Needless to say I really enjoyed the book. What inspired it?

What inspired Brain & Belief? Life. My life. I can’t look back to a time in my life when some question or another that ended up central to Brain & Belief wasn’t there. As I recounted at the beginning of the book, I had a great-grandfather and great-grandmother (husband and wife) who were both senile; he lived in a hospital, she in her condominium. My great-grandfather was never verbal in any interactions with me but his owlish, staring eyes always spooked me out when I was a little kid. I just didn’t get it. We visited my great-grandmother more routinely and I remember answering the same questions from her over and over again, half-amused and half-frightened; a strange combination for sure. Their uncanny disabilities left me ill-at-ease with the diseased brain and informed me, from a young age, that human personality relies on a healthy, working brain.

One of my favorite activities as a small child was sitting on my dad’s lap, sucking my thumb and enjoying his quiet warmth as he read the newspaper. Occasionally he would stop to point something out or pose a question to me. I would innocently answer and he always took my answers with patience and encouragement. How can one not fall in love with questions, big and small, with a background like that? Most kids, in my experience, love to wonder about great things and ask why endlessly but they are usually stifled and their curiosity squashed. I was especially fortunate never to have to go through all of that. With an incredibly patient father and a handful of inspirational teachers, I kept on track thinking about and discussing ridiculously irrelevant philosophical quandaries. At the end you find a need to express the pent up pressure of all those questions and sketch out a few answers that have begun to satisfy.

Now, more proximally, there’s no doubt that Brain & Belief is a record of my undergraduate studies at Stanford. I remember looking over the course catalogs as an undergraduate with nerdy enthusiasm. I tried to take as many classes as I could and found that the patterns worked out so that I could major in psychology as well as do an interdepartmental major in philosophy and religious studies. If you look at Brain & Belief closely you’ll see that the structure of the book and its arguments are pretty evenly broken down by those fields/approaches.

Since the publication of Brain & Belief, in 2004, have your thoughts changed on any of the content?

To be honest, I’m still pretty content with the book though I think I could do a better job with it now than when I wrote it. There are sections that seem a bit rushed to me. I would prefer to have fleshed out those bare bones some more.

And journal articles! When I wrote Brain & Belief I didn’t have access to any online journals or databases so virtually all the content I included was either from the books I owned or those I read at the UCSD library. Occasionally, I would track down an old journal article and find a bound copy to look over. My Ph.D. program has made me a far more capable researcher so I think I can enrich the content of the book in any future editions.

I find the language of Brain & Belief a bit hyperbolic now. As a doctoral student I’ve had to proceed in a much more measured tone. But screw it…I like tossing around big ideas with the tone and language they deserve. Moreover, I think it’s easier to draw in a popular audience when you write for them rather than for a hypercritical set of scholars who are probably too sober for their own good.
As an anthropologist I’ve developed a greater patience with religions and religious movements. Around the time I wrote Brain & Belief, I was feeling a lot of frustration with the religions that had shaped me. But even that frustration was muted; I’m no Sam Harris. Now, as time has passed and I’ve studied even more about religion I see it as inextricable from the human condition. Is it irrational? Often. Is it dangerous? Sometimes. But such are people. Even when we put forward our best face we might be clutching a knife behind our back. You aren’t going to make humanity better by amputating that arm. What to do? I’m not sure. Clearly we need more science education and a more thorough training in the use of reason. This includes the use of reason as a means to philosophically approach psychological struggles. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, that descendant of Hellenistic philosophies, really does help people. And everyone ought to learn some of those practices as children or adolescents in order to rationally contend with the insanities we torment ourselves with as young people. Scientific pursuits and experiences in nature (camping, hiking, boating…) are just as rich in developing a sense of awe vìs-a-vìs the universe as sitting in some clammy stone building singing hymns with elderly neighbors. But there still are plenty of religious practices and beliefs that are exquisite in their elicitation of feelings of joy, forgiveness, understanding, and peace. As always, we need to find a golden mean here between obnoxious sanctimony and heartfelt human experience.

When can we expect another book?

Soon, I hope. I have a “Big Idea” that’s been simmering for years now. I have a hundred pages of starter material but I’ve just been too distracted by all my other commitments to consistently work on the book. But I’m always marking another quote or skimming another book in support of the project. If I got really motivated and had 8 months I could probably get a draft completed. So, realistically, we’re probably looking at 2-3 years. But it will definitely be better than Brain & Belief; it will take what I see as the most essential arguments of that book and rigorously develop them and extend them to account for a bunch of human behavior. Here, as in Brain & Belief, I’ve gained much from Ernest Becker. Like him, I feel that contemporary scholars need more chutzpah: we ought to work on grand synthetic models that pull together findings from the various fields of psychology and inform them with a philosophical and anthropological sensitivity. In short, we need modern myths. But these won’t be tales of Gorgons and unicorns, they will be explanatory frameworks that help us understand who we are and why we are given our ecology, physiology, psychology, and culture. Like the ancient myths, these modern myths will enable us to face our universe and all the natural phenomena that have mystified us and take it in. We will look at our limitations, we will look at the fearsome and awesome things all around us, and in us, and be able to weave them together with a comprehensive affirmation. We will take things as they seem to be and yet we will find these things emotionally, cognitively, and philosophically satisfying, if not indulgent. That’s the idea at least.

How do people respond when you tell them almost all current religions can find their roots in shamanism?

In a few of the reader reviews that I’ve seen people have responded well to the idea. It’s not an original idea of mine, of course, and it remains a highly debatable/speculative one at that. But to the extent that we can piece together prehistory and discern its influence on later times, I think this is a very reasonable argument.

Shamanism, as a concept, has been debated over the years. Some scholars feel that it is merely an academic construct. Whatever similarities “shamanistic” groups display are far outweighed by the numerous differences they have idiosyncratically developed, so some scholars have argued. To me this criticism has something of a Pyrrhonian flavor to it. At the end of the day, all generalizations are false. But if we want to proceed in this endeavor called “knowledge,” we need to employ skepticism in measures, not wholesale. Generalizations are useful if there is ample data to support them and they lead to other ideas/hypotheses.

In my own fieldwork, in Guatemala, I was able to work with specialists who employed rituals and techniques that I had read about in the context of Siberian shamanism. Wow! If this is not just coincidence (and that’s always an underappreciated possibility in my opinion) then it would suggest that groups of indigenous Asians and contemporary Mesoamericans continue to share cultural traits in spite of thousands of years of divergence. This seemed to confirm exactly what Weston LaBarre had argued in “Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucination, Hallucinogens, and the Shamanic Origins of Religions.” So, yes, I continue to support the idea that much of the things we see in contemporary religions, the world over, had their roots in “paleo-shamanic” rituals, practices, and ideologies.

After reading the section in Brain & Belief discussing Zoroastrianism I did further research. Very interesting. Could you give readers a brief tutorial on Zoroastrianism and how it influenced present day monotheistic religions?

Sure. Zoroastrianism is an ancient religion that was started by the prophet, Zarathushtra, around 1000 BCE. The ancient Greeks translated Zarathushtra into Zoroaster and thus we have the current name of the religion although it also goes by the title, Mazdaism, after its god, Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism believes in a supremely good god, Ahura Mazda, and a diabolical one, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman. The universe is a constant battle between the forces of good and those of evil/chaos. Humanity itself is caught up in this conflict and has an essential role to play in the prophesied triumph of good over evil at the end of days. In this final time, a savior will emerge, evil will be vanquished, and the dead will be resurrected to live in bliss with Ahura Mazda forevermore.

Sound familiar?

If you know your Old Testament you’ll remember that the Jews were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century before the common era. Nebuchadnezzar forcibly relocated the Jews to his kingdom in the east. This stage, which lasted for two or three generations, is called the Babylonian captivity. What was the primary religion in this area at the time? Zoroastrianism. After the Babylonian captivity Jews began to write about and discuss a few things that weren’t much in evidence beforehand, namely, angels, the resurrection of the dead, the centrality of scripture and its priestly interpretation, the battle between good and evil, a forthcoming savior, and the power of Satan as God’s nemesis. Hmm…sounds a bit fishy, doesn’t it? The transitional prophet of this time (supposedly) was Daniel, who lived in Babylon, spoke to angels, and made one of the first references in the Judeo-Christian canon to the idea of resurrection as the future glory of humankind. Unlike most Jewish prophets before, Daniel was obsessed with the future, rather than the present, and wrote about the apocalypse and a savior he called the “Son of Man”. Though the historical picture is decidedly more complicated than this, it’s hard not to conclude that Zoroastrianism had a major influence on later Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As an additionally suggestive sidenote, remember that Jesus was first heralded as the messiah by the three wise men from the east who brought him gifts as a baby. The name of these wise men? Magi, the title of priests in the religion of Zoroastrianism.

The whole good/evil distinction that is so central to Western cosmologies and systems of ethics seems to have come directly from this ancient source.

Visit www.johnjmcgraw.com

Skepticism

2009-10-04T04:18:00.000-07:00

By Karen Stollznow

Are Skeptics closed-minded, nay-saying curmudgeons?

If you agree with this assessment, you've mistaken skepticism for cynicism. These labels are often confused, but they're not interchangeable at all. Skepticism is a positive outlook of enquiry, open-mindedness, curiosity and wonder, not a negative, narrow-mindedness based in pessimism and misanthropy. Dictionaries and thesauruses often claim that skeptic and cynic are synonymous, but as a Linguist, I can assure you that these sources aren't always accurate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Joe Nickell, the modern ‘Sherlock Holmes’ of the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (was CSICOP, now known as CSI). I told Joe that I've been an “investigator of the paranormal and pseudoscientific” for the past 10 years, at which he interjected, “I like that...you called yourself an ‘investigator’, rather than a ‘debunker’. That sounds much more positive”.

‘Debunk’ is a word I've never used to describe what I do, or a useful word to explain what skepticism is all about. Admittedly, it's not a commonly used word in Australian English. Furthermore, ‘debunk’ implies that the ‘debunker’ has already made a negative judgment, prior to any investigation. Skepticism is about questioning, not doubting.

We all have the ability to question, so we should all be natural skeptics. Kids make great skeptics! They exhibit curiosity and a keenness to understand the world around them. Remember though, that children will believe that they are always being told the truth by the 'wise', 'knowledgeable' adult.

What can undermine our questioning skills is the blind acceptance of what we're told. Often, we need to question the answer.

Skepticism isn't only for scientists.

A healthy dose of skepticism is important for all of us, to avoid being the victims of abuse, exploitation, fear, manipulation, and most of all, to be true to ourselves. Ironically, I once received a fortune cookie that proclaimed: Skepticism is the first step toward truth.

For those who don't regularly administer this 'healthy dose' to themselves, there are real life dangers. There are many documented cases of people who have lost money, time or even their lives, through exposure to cults and dogma, or the negligence of pseudoscientific practitioners. These are only the extreme cases we hear about. When you apply skepticism in your thinking, you can trust your own judgment.

Here are a few quick tips to apply some useful skepticism to your own life:
think, rather than believe or feel
question, rather than simply accept
keep an open mind, rather than a closed-mind

If you're not a skeptic...are you the closed-minded one?

Read more of Stollznow’s articles at www.bad-language.com

Tropical Classroom

2009-09-18T17:09:00.000-07:00

By Jamie Hale

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to sleep in the jungle or whitewater raft through the jungle? Adventure guide, Chris Begley knows and he’s here to tell us. National Geographic Traveler recently named one of Begley’s expeditions among 50Tours of a Lifetime!

What are Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation?

Tropical Classroom Expeditions and The Exploration Foundation are the two companies I founded to create the type of trip I thought was missing from the market. Tropical Classroom Expeditions focuses on creating international travel experiences for academic groups, from a travel course in a university to an alternative spring break trip. Most of these trips involve a service or volunteering component, and all of these courses get the travelers in close contact with the local communities. I’ve taken groups to Honduras, Costa Rica, and Iceland, and have upcoming trips to Peru, Jordan, and Suriname.

National Geographic Traveler recently named one of your expeditions among the 50 Tours of a Lifetime! Must be an exciting trip could you briefly describe?

The trip they named one of their ’50 Tours of a Lifetime’ is a 14-day trip down a jungle river in Honduras on whitewater rafts, from the headwaters to the ocean. We pass through the Rio Platano Biosphere reserve, the largest area of tropical rain forest in the Western Hemisphere outside of the Amazon. We also visit indigenous communities as we emerge from the jungle. The trip is spectacular – the river has Class III and IV rapids, so it is exciting from that point of view. We see lots of animals, including two or three types monkeys, macaws, toucans, tapirs, and occasionally a big cat like a jaguar or puma. Most people can’t believe that this type of place, and this type of trip, still exists.

Where is your favorite place to travel?

My favorite place is probably the jungles of eastern Honduras, where I did my dissertation research in archaeology and where I take some of the groups I guide. It is truly a wild place, in all the good and bad ways. It’s challenging and difficult, but that makes it rewarding.

Have you ever felt seriously endangered while on an expedition?

Yes, several times. A couple of times because of illness (I’ve had malaria once, dengue fever various times, among other things), a couple of times because of animals (usually close encounters with poisonous snakes such as the fer-de-lance, once in a river with crocodiles), but the most serious problems involve people. I was with a group of local guys with whom I worked often, in a very isolated area that had taken 5 days to walk to, when we ran into a group of heavily-armed bandits, one of which was a known killer who threatened us and clearly had bad intentions. We managed to escape in the night while he went to get his compatriots, but it was a close call. We ended up hiking 20 hours in a 24-hour period. I thought we might not make it out of that situation.

How do you balance your work as a University professor with your exotic travel? Would you rather be in a classroom or in the wild?

I am able to balance the two since I usually travel in the summer, and some of my trips are research, and other can sometimes be combined with research. For instance, next summer I’m working with a group of English students who will be helping me with an archaeological project in Honduras. Organizing the trips during the academic year really doesn’t take too much time. What I miss is any time off during the summer – it seems like the semester ends, I’m off on my trips, and I return just before the next semester. There is little time to unwind.

As to which I prefer, that’s hard to say. I think the balance is about right. By the time the academic year is ending, I’m reading to get out in the jungle. By the time my trips wind up, I’m ready to get back to something more stable, comfortable, and safe. Also, the interaction with students during the academic year is very energizing to me.

What is a typical day in the life of an adventure guide? What about the typical day of a college professor?

There is probably not a typical day in the life of an adventure guide. When I’m actually on a trip, I’m up early, checking everything for the upcoming day. I might be going through our gear checking to see if we have enough food for the next stage of a trip, enough paddles, water purifying drops, or if the zippers on the tents are in good shape. If we are back in town, I’ll be on the phone a lot, checking hotel and transportation arrangements, etc. Last summer I had a group in Honduras when the coup happened. We were just heading out into the jungle, so I spent a lot of time on the satellite phone getting information about the situation, letting people know we were alright, and assessing whether or not it was safe to return to the city. So, I spend a lot of time double-checking arrangements. Sometimes the day involves showing people certain techniques, like how to cross a deep river, how to choose a course through a rapid while rafting, or jungle survival techniques. I really like this aspect of being a guide.

Finally, of course, I end up doing a lot of things for the group – starting the campfire, preparing food, helping clear campsites, or checking to see what kind of insect bit somebody and assuring that they’ll be alright (they always are).
A typical day in the life of a university professor is a little more stable. I usually teach three days a week, and the rest of the time is spent preparing for classes, doing other university-related work, such as serving on committees, and doing research, writing, etc. I have a lot of flexibility, except for my actual classes, and that helps since I have three young children (ages 7, 6, and 2) and can work around their activities, school, etc.

Are you currently working on any new projects? Future expeditions?

I have a few trips upcoming. I’m taking a group from California to Jordan in January with Tropical Classroom Expeditions, looking at social justice issues such as the Palestinian refugee situation there. In May, I’m taking a group from Transylvania University to Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, looking at issues of race and ethnicity. Then, with The Exploration Foundation, I have a mountaineering trip to Peru in June, and then a rafting trip through the jungle in Honduras at the end of June. In July and August, I’ll be working with the Scientific Exploration Society from London, doing a trip through the jungle and about two weeks of archaeological work there.

Chris Begley’s sites
Tropical Classroom Expeditions @ www.tropicalclassroom.com
And The Exploration Foundation @ www.explorationfoundation.org

How We Know: A Guide To Reason

2009-09-04T15:41:00.000-07:00

By Jamie Hale

How We Know: A Guide To Reason- this is the title of the new book Brian Jones (Author, University of Louisville Professor) and I are currently working on. I approached Jones with the idea of writing a book that goes a little further into analyzing information than the typical book on logic, knowledge acquisition, skepticism etc. There are tons of these books that do a good job explaining the philosophy of science, various methods of knowledge acquisition, logic and the importance of critical thinking. But there is a shortage of books that also explains scientific research methodology. Skeptics want to see evidence but often they lack the ability to adequately analyze the evidence. When referring to scientific data it’s important to distinguish between experimental and non-experimental research, causative vs. correlative etc. Scientific ideas, claims or ideas promoted by scientists should be analyzed and subjected to skeptical inquiry. You may be thinking “of course” this is part of the skeptic’s creed. It is supposed to be but I have spoken with many skeptics who commit the Appeal to Authority Fallacy (or Hero Fallacy) on a regular basis. Some skeptics also commit the Nonappeal to Non-authority Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when claims made by people not recognized as authorities are dismissed on the grounds of Non-authority. Each claim should stand on it’s own merit.

The book will be divided into two units 1- Science Matters 2- Understanding Scientific Research. What to expect:

What is Science
Science vs. Non-science
Scientific vs. Nonscientific Approaches to Knowledge
Skeptic vs. Cynic
Practical Skepticism
Are you a scientist?
Limitations of science
Fallacies associated with scientific terminology
Science of reason
Formal, symbolic and modern logic
Logical fallacies
How to Argue
Experimental vs. Non-experimental research
True and Quasi experiments
Internal and External Validity
Why science is the best method we have for acquiring knowledge
And more………………

There is mass confusion associated with defining science, what science does and how science works. Research results are often misconstrued and taken out of context. How many times have you heard a news reporter say “New research says” so and so. The type of research, the funding source, conflicting research, who conducted the research, the validity of the research etc are never considered. Most media sources are not concerned with truth or critical analysis. How We Know A Guide To Reason is concerned with truth and critical analysis. How do you know what you know? After reading How We Know A Guide To Reason you will be more confident in how you know.

Science Matters

2009-08-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

The information below was originally published at University of Louisville's Sciboard. It has be reprinted with permission from Univ of Louisville Professor Thomas Cleaver.

General Science

Q. What is a Scientist

Ans. Although a person with an advanced degree might claim to be a scientist, the true test of the scientist is how one thinks. A good scientist:
· Excepts nothing in science absolutely.
· Is willing to change his opinions based on new data.
· Does not rely on Authority.
· Thinks critically.
· Knows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
· Has an open mind.
· Relies on logic and reason.
· Knows how to form hypotheses and test them.
· Respects the scientific method.
· Examines all the data, not just the data that support his or her view.
· Builds on the work of others, giving them appropriate credit.
· Documents his or her experiments so they can be duplicated by others.
· Knows that if a claim is made, the claimant must provide the proof. (It is not up to others to disprove it.)
· Is intellectually honest.

Q. What is a Science?

Ans. Many people think science is a collection of facts: Hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. The speed of light is 299 800 000 meters/second. Man evolved from ape-like ancestors. These facts are the products of science but they themselves are not science.

Science is a method, a technique, for looking at the physical world and finding out the facts. It is a search for truth -- the kind of truth that can be verified and quantified.

The basic tool of science in its search for truth is called "the scientific method." This consists of making a "hypothesis" and conducting an experiment. A hypothesis is a theory or assumption that must be tested.

As an example, suppose a scientist forms the following hypothesis: "Light stunts the growth of mushrooms." She then tests the hypothesis with an experiment using 2 sets of mushrooms. One set (the control group) is put in a dark basement. The other (the test group) is put in a sun-lit yard. After a week, she measures the height of all the mushrooms in each group.

She finds that the test mushrooms raised in sunlight grew an average of 0.8 centimeters. The control group mushrooms raised in the dark grew an average of 1.5 centimeters. She then concludes that her hypotheis was correct: Light DOES stunt the growth of mushrooms.

No "fact" of science is ever proven beyond doubt. All conclusions of science are always open to question as discoveries and new understandings occur. A scientist must always stand ready to cast aside his fondly held beliefs as new evidence is discovered.

Returning to the mushroom example, suppose the scientist's conclusions were challenged. Someone says, "Dry soil stunts the growth of mushrooms. Your outdoor mushrooms were in dryer soil than your basement mushrooms." To prove her results are valid, the scientist may have to repeat her experiment while making sure that the moisture for both groups of mushrooms is the same.

An experiment that demonstrates a hypothesis must be "repeatable". This means that anyone who performs the experiment correctly should get the same results. In the above example, the scientist should be able to explain her methods carefully enough that her mushroom experiment succeeds when anyone does it. If the experiment is not "repeatable", no one should be expected to believe her results.

Good science is painstaking, slow, and full of disappointments. But its record of success is unsurpassed for determining the truth of how the world works.

Q. What is the Scientific Method?

Ans. The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for telling the difference between truth and lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory to explain what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiment.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to Step 3.

Usually, you can trust other scientists to follow the scientific method. So when a scientist claims to have done a certain experiment and obtained a certain result, you can usually believe it. This allows scientists to build on the work of others.

Q. What is Theory?

Ans. In scientific terms, a "fact" is an observation, such as "the sun rose today". This fact is explained by the "theory" that the earth is round and spins on its axis.

Many times, theories are so widely accepted that they are treated as fact. The "theory of gravity" and the "theory of evolution" are accepted as fact by virtually all scientists.

A theory that has not yet been tested is called a "hypothesis".

Some "theories" are untestable, and are therefore unscientific. You assert, for example, that you are the only person in existence, and that all reality is but a product of your imagination. This is the theory of solipsism. There is no way that anyone can prove that your theory is false. Therefore it is unscientific.

The solipsist theory may be true, but it falls into the realm of philosophy, not science.

Q. Can Science Prove Anything?

Ans. Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".

Suppose you have a theory that when you throw something into the air, it will fall back down. You test your theory by throwing many objects into the air, and they all fall down.

Have you proven your theory beyond doubt? No. The next object you throw might hover, or go off into orbit. But the theory is "proved" for most practical purposes.

Theories and facts (even everyday ones, not scientific ones), can be thought of on a scale of certainty. Your theory that things fall down is near the top. Down near the bottom is "the Earth is flat". Near the middle might be "I will live to be 80."

On this scale, no scientific theory can ever get all the way to the top (or the bottom), but reasonable people accept those that are near the top.

Q. What is Occam's Razor?

Ans. This is the scientific principle that says we should look for the easy explanations first.

If you have 2 theories that both explain the facts, take the simplest one. You won't always be right, but that's where the smart money is.

Example:

Your friend calls you and says he's in Miami. Moments later, he knocks on your door.

Theory 1: You're friend teleported from Miami.
Theory 2: You're friend was lieing about being in Miami.

Occam's razor says to select Theory 2. It doesn't require belief in an unproven mode of travel (teleportation).

Visit University of Louisville Sciboard @
http://sciboard.louisville.edu/

Interview with John Horgan

2009-08-21T06:51:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

JOHN HORGAN is a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. He’s a former senior writer at Scientific American, author of several books and columnist for BBC’s Knowledge Magazine. He is not a big fan of Superstring Theory in fact he says…………

How many books have you written? Could you give readers a brief summary of each?

The End of Science: All the big discoveries have been made. We're down to details and applications now. The Undiscovered Mind. If there are any big discoveries to come, they'll emerge from the study of the brain and mind. But based on science's lousy track record so far, don't hold your breath for big breakthroughs. Rational Mysticism: There is only one common insight from science and mysticism: You are really, really lucky to be alive.

The title of one of your books is Where Was God on September 11th. It seems that the title would appear a little controversial to some. Did it cause much of an uproar? How much hate mail did you get?

Some hard-core Christians got mad at me, but they god even madder at my co-author, Frank, an Episcopal priest.

Do you have any suggestions for enhancing the general publics knowledge of popular science?

Yeah, buy my books.

Who is your favorite writer?

Jorge Luis Borges, the metaphysical fabulist.

Favorite book? Favorite Magazine?

Labyrinths, by Borges. New Yorker still kicks ass.

On what terms can religion and science live in harmony?

See above. And that isn’t enough for most folks. I'm hoping religion will just fade gracefully away.

You have a $1000 bet with Michio Kaku that Superstring Theory won't pan out by 2020. Why do you feel so strongly about this?

Because string theory is pseudo-science.

Do you any projects you are currently working on?

I'm writing a lot about how science can solve the problem of war.

If you had to rate the top three scientists off all times who would they be?

The greatest I've met personally are Francis Crick, Hans Bethe and John Wheeler. Great scientists, great characters. I profile them all in my first book, The End of Science.

Visit John Horgan’s website @ http://johnhorgan.org/

Interview with Carl Zimmer

2009-08-11T10:34:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

The following interview was conducted with Carl Zimmer science writer, Yale University Lecturer and author of The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.”

I have completed about 1/2 of your book Soul Made Flesh and I must compliment you on your writing style. Great job. What influenced you to write the book?

CZ: I like to write books about subjects I want to get more familiar with. In this case, I thought I wanted to learn more about the brain. But I didn't want to write yet another book about new developments in neuroscience. It's not that there aren't some great books on that particular subject, but there are so many that I didn't want to get lost in the crowd. It occurred to me that there hasn't been much written about the history of neuroscience. While there is a growing body of scholarship, few authors have written about that research for the public. So I started to nose around and discovered a period of history, in the mid-1600s, that was just incredible in its revolutionary discoveries and also in its political and religious turbulence. This was when the science of neurology was launched, when people came to recognize the brain as we see it today, as the center of our existence. Once I realized this, I knew I had to write the book.

How many books have you written? Do you have a favorite? Which one was the hardest to write?

CZ: I've written seven books now. I suppose my favorite is my first, At the Water's Edge, simply because it gave me the first experience of seeing my name on a book. That's a marvelous feeling.

Commenting on your soon to be released book (The Tangled Bank: An Introduction To Evolution) E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.” What do you think makes the book so great?

CZ: You'd have to ask Wilson or the other scientists who gave such wonderful endorsements why they like it so much. All I'd say is that it was a huge amount of fun to write, because there are so many fantastic lines of research in evolution these days to choose from. Making the experience even better was the opportunity to work with illustrators and photo editors to make the book as handsome as possible, and to use pictures to explain the science in ways words can't.

Do you think there will come a time in America where the majority of the population will believe in evolution?

CZ: I'm fairly optimistic, in the long term. For now I don't expect tremendous changes, though.

If Darwin were alive today and he were to modify his theory of evolution what would he change?

CZ: I think Darwin would be fascinated by the genome. Genomes are shaped by evolution in all sorts of complex ways. There are even virus-like stretches of DNA that make copies of themselves over time and gradually swamp their host genome. Most of our DNA comes from these genomic parasites. There's also plenty of evidence now that genes have moved many times from one species to another. So genomes are not just sculpted by mutations, drift, and selection from one generation to the next. They're also mosaics, made up of bits of genetic material from many different sources.

What does a typical day in the life of Carl Zimmer look like?

CZ: Breakfast with the family, then trundling off to my home office, where I interview, research, and write till dinner. I punctuate that sedentary work with the occasional trip to visit a scientist in his or her medium--a lab, a bog, a hospital, or wherever they may do their work.

Do you have a favorite writer? Favorite book?

CZ: I do love Melville--both the novels and the stories. The Loom's name is from one of my favorite passages from Moby Dick, where Melville describes how Pip, a cabin boy, was altered by a plunge into the sea:

"...among the joyous, heartless, ever-juvenile eternities, Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters, heaved the colossal orbs. He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad."

About the Author

Carl Zimmer bio http://carlzimmer.com/bio.html

Knowledge Roundup 2

2009-08-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

Brain Facts
A Primer on the Brain and Nervous System

Brain Facts is a 74-page primer on the brain and nervous system, published by SfN. Designed for a lay audience as an introduction to neuroscience, Brain Facts is a valuable educational resource
Free Ebook http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainFacts§ion=publications

Mirror Neurons
You see a stranger stub her toe and you immediately flinch in sympathy. You watch a baseball outfielder run to catch a long fly ball and feel your heart racing and your leg muscles pumping along with him. You notice a friend wrinkle up his face in disgust while tasting some food and suddenly your own stomach recoils at the thought of eating. This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers alike. Recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons. Read More http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_MirrorNeurons

The Science of Gossip: Why We Can’t Stop Ourselves

In the past few years I have heard more people than ever before puzzling over the 24/7 coverage of people such as Paris Hilton who are “celebrities” for no apparent reason other than we know who they are. And yet we can’t look away. The press about these individuals’ lives continues because people are obviously tuning in. Although many social critics have bemoaned this explosion of popular culture as if it reflects some kind of collective character flaw, it is in fact nothing more than the inevitable outcome of the collision between 21st-century media and Stone Age minds.

When you cut away its many layers, our fixation on popular culture reflects an intense interest in the doings of other people; this preoccupation with the lives of others is a by-product of the psychology that evolved in prehistoric times to make our ancestors socially successful. Thus, it appears that we are hardwired to be fascinated by gossip. Read more http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-gossip

I want to Believe

In a 1997 episode of The Simpsons entitled “The Springfield Files” — a parody of X-Files in which Homer has an alien encounter in the woods (after imbibing 10 bottles of Red Tick Beer) — Leonard Nimoy voices the intro as he once did for his post-Spock run on the television mystery series In Search of…: “The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth? The answer is no.”
Read more http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/07/i-want-to-believe/

Darwin Myths

Darwin coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” (Herbert Spencer actually coined the phrase)

Darwin was an atheist (no he was agnostic)

Darwin was always an evolutionist which was passed down to him from his grandfather (Darwin was a creationist before and during the voyage of the Beagle and didn’t become an evolutionist until approximately a year after his return. Darwin did not devise his theory while in Galpagos)

The Story of Science

2009-07-18T05:05:00.000-07:00

The Story of Science
By Jamie Hale

One night while watching TV I stumbled across a program that featured Joy Hakim.
Hakim is an award winning writer who has written a series of book on US History and Science. After a couple of months of email exchanges I decided it was time to do an interview with Joy Hakim.

What does a day in the life of Joy Hakim look like?

When I'm writing (which is most of the time) I read the NYTimes with breakfast and then get to my desk (usually about 8:30 a.m.). I work until noon, trying to remember to get up every hour and stretch. Then lunch and--this is where my schedule varies--sometimes I do errands, or swim, or go to a yoga class, or go back to work. Sometimes I write into the evening, sometimes I play.

Of the books you have written do you have a favorite?

The book I'm currently working on is always my favorite. But I'm perhaps most proud of "Einstein Adds A New Dimension." It stretched my head and gave me a chance to get to know a wonderful MIT author/physicist, Edwin Taylor.

Was it harder to write the US History books or the science books?

The science books were harder to write because I had little background in the subject. I was trained as a journalist, so no subject intimidates me, still, quantum theory and relativity were tough. I'd like teachers to feel they can tackle any subject by being willing to learn along with their students. The old model of teacher as ultimate expert is out-of-date. Knowledge is increasing at exponential rates, no one can keep up. Teaching students how to find information and process it needs to become the ultimate school goal. If we can create real learning communities in our classrooms we can handle the abundance of information that is now available to all of us everywhere.

Did you have a team of researchers working with you on the history and science series?

I don't have any researchers helping me, I do contact lots of experts and have them read copy and answer questions. It's wonderful, when you are writing for young readers the best people are willing to help

What can we do to improve America’s History and Science programs in our schools?

We need to stop thinking of history and science as isolated stand-alone subjects. History is a great mother discipline. Everything that happens today will be history tomorrow. So history can tie all subjects together. It should be central to curricula. As to science, we live in the greatest scientific era ever. The scientific discoveries of recent times underlie and guide our society. And yet we keep today's most exciting science as an elite subject for a small percentage of our population. No wonder school seems irrelevant to many kids. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy are all out there ready to entice young minds. For heavens sake, why aren't we teaching physics and genetics to all our children? Teachers aren't trained in those subjects? Then they can learn with their students and tie the subject to history and literature too

Why is there such a huge lack of critical thinking courses offered in most school systems?

I don't think much of critical thinking courses. You learn to think critically by researching and writing. I have some experience in those disciplines. I promise--demand more research-based writing and critical thinking scores will soar.

What is your favorite book? Who is your favorite author?

I'm an eclectic reader and love to mix the ancients with 19th century fiction, but mostly I read current books for information, so it is in nonfiction that I spend much of my reading time. We have a group of science writers today who are astonishingly eloquent--they include Hans Christian von Baeyer, Alan Lightman, Richard Feynman, Marcia Bartusiak, and Brian Greene--for starters. Stephen Hawking and his daughter have written adventure books for young readers on space exploration, and they are page-turners. Among historians, David McCullough and Joseph Ellis are favorites. Christopher Buckley's recent book about his parents is a writer's gem. I just finished Jenny Uglow's wonderful book The Lunar Society, about a group of outrageous and amazing 18th century thinkers and doers.

Are you currently working on any new projects?

Yes, right now I am working on two books that are complementary approaches to biology and its process of change. I'm learning a lot.

Visit Joy Hakim's site at www.joyhakim.com

Quotes that Matter

2009-07-05T10:40:00.000-07:00

A few of my favorite quotes

Carl Sagan

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.

From Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Aristotle

A friend to all is a friend to none.

Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.

Karl Popper

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality

Socrates

If a man is proud of his wealth, he should not be praised until it is known how he employs it.

Plato

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty

Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men

The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light

Thomas Edison

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration

Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure

There is no substitute for hard work

To have a great idea, have a lot of them

We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything

Your worth consists in what you are and not in what you have

Noam Chomsky

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune

The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.

Galileo

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

Ben Franklin

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else

It is the eye of other people that ruin us. If I were blind I would want, neither fine clothes, fine houses or fine furniture

Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

Albert Einstein

Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts

I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters

George Washington

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one

Rene Descartes

It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.

Jean Pigaet

Scientific knowledge is in perpetual evolution; it finds itself changed from one day to the next. Scientific thought, then, is not momentary; it is not a static instance; it is a process

George Carlin

Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man – living in the sky – who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if yu do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time. . . But He loves you

Moral Life In a Random World

2009-06-25T08:46:00.000-07:00

by Dr. Jeff Schweitzer

The very foundation of our moral code is fundamentally flawed. The current code of ethics predominant in modern societies, shaped largely by divine command theory, is based on false promises of eternal salvation or threats of damnation, not on a morality inherent to the human condition. As a result, a moral vacuum has developed, creating a society with deeply-rooted destructive behavioral maladaptations. War, overpopulation, unrelenting poverty, destruction of the environment, indifference to the needs and rights of other life forms and intolerance of our fellow humans all result, to an important extent, from an obsolete religious moral code.

Human beings are not inevitable, and our brief existence is not preordained to be extended into the distant future. If Homo sapiens is to have a continued presence on earth, humankind will reevaluate its sense of place in the world and modify its strong species-centric stewardship of the planet. Our collective concepts of morality and ethics have a direct impact on our species’ ultimate fate.

That religious morality has failed is made clear by humanity’s current fate, and the sad state of the planet. Religion has had 2000 years to prove itself worthy as a guiding moral force. Yet the result of that 2000-year experiment is war, poverty, hunger and suffering across the globe as humanity consumes itself; in addition, after two millennia, we see over-population, depletion of non-renewable resources, and accelerated degradation of the environment because our current moral foundation is not suited to guide us away from that destruction.

Our inner life, our own thoughts, our acts of kindness, and our responsibility and honesty are immune to the random events in the world around us, blind to the inherent purposelessness of the universe. The world can be seen with amazing clarity upon realizing that life is not manipulated by some unseen force, but instead is guided by an individual's power to make decisions and a personal choice to be moral. There is tremendous joy in understanding that the purpose and meaning of life are self-derived.

Many of humanity’s problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves at the center of the universe, separate from and better than other animals. But human beings are neither special nor inevitable. As a minor branch on a vast evolutionary bush, modern humans have been roaming the earth for no more than a few hundred thousand years of the earth’s 4.5 billion year history. If the earth’s lifespan were one year, humans would come on the scene only during the last 50 minutes of the year. Ours has been a truly brief presence, barely a cameo on the stage of life, with too little time to demonstrate if the evolution of large brains is a successful strategy for long-term survival of the species.

When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he exposed the world to a momentous discovery every bit as significant and disorienting as when Copernicus discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. For the first time in history, human beings were seen not as creatures of divine origin, but instead as a natural product of evolution, an animal like every other on the planet. Imagine yourself back in that amazing year. The day before Darwin’s book was published, you woke up thinking yourself the image of God; the next morning you realize you have the face of a monkey. Not everybody immediately embraced this rude demotion. Resistance to the idea was inevitable. But have absolutely no doubt: evolution is one of the most extraordinary, successful, thoroughly documented scientific discoveries in human history. Evolution through natural selection is an indisputable fact, just as we now know that the earth revolves around the sun.

Thanks to Darwin, natural selection allows us to understand the development of nature's diversity and complexity without resorting to divine intervention. Through Darwin’s insights, we can understand that life on earth began as a natural event, and that evolution is a random process with no direction or drive. The male peacock would probably agree that any rational design would have relieved him of the burden of a ridiculously large tail, which leaves him vulnerable to predation. But because natural selection is uncaring, the poor bird now has a tail just big enough to attract painfully picky females (something to think about the next time you are pumping iron at the gym), and just small enough to make the competing male next door a greater temptation as somebody’s lunch.

Perhaps unwittingly referring to bacteria, Mathew 5:5 says that “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth,” and indeed they shall. For regardless of the fate of humanity, bacteria will survive. Bacteria can easily live without us, but we would die quickly without them. If we were able to kill every bacterium in our body, we would be dead within a month. It is the height of folly to claim that evolution was driven toward humans anymore than toward any other living being. Humans are nothing but a short-lived biological aberration, with no claim to superiority. If evolution had a pinnacle, bacteria would rest on top. When the human species is a distant memory, bacteria will be dividing merrily away, oblivious to the odd bipedal mammal that once roamed the earth for such a brief moment in time. Our claims to superiority and our self-promotion to the image of god are simply embarrassing in the face of the biological reality on the ground. There is a loss of credibility when you choose yourself for an award.

The human brain is extraordinarily adept at posing questions, but simply abhors the concept of leaving any unanswered. We are unable to accept “I don’t know” because we cannot turn off our instinct to see patterns and to discern effect from cause. We demand that there be a pattern, that there be cause and effect, even when none exit. So we make up answers when we don’t know. We develop elaborate creation myths, sun gods, rain gods, war gods, and gods of the ocean. We believe we can communicate with our gods and influence their behavior, because by doing so, we gain some control, impose some order, on the chaotic mysteries of the world. By making up answers to dull the sting of ignorance, we fool ourselves into thinking we explain the world. Religion was our first attempt at physics and astronomy.

The idea of powerful gods controlling each important aspect of our lives would not by itself be satisfying. We want to put a face to the power; we want to be familiar with the deities that control our fate; we want to know them so that we can communicate with them and solicit their interventions. We are all Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, seeking to reveal the nature of god, hoping to strike up a conversation with whoever is in charge. By no coincidence then do our gods take on human form, usually idealized. Male gods are typically buff, in great shape, with washboard abs and thick biceps, while their female counterparts conform to the ideas of beauty at the time, usually in all cases sporting large breasts.

Advances in science, which explain the mysteries of nature’s wrath, remove the need for multiple gods of rain, sun and harvest. If we know the sun is a star sustained by thermonuclear reactions, we need not invoke a sun god. If we know that rain is caused by evaporation and condensation, we can discard our rain god. We understand that thunder is caused by lightning as a consequence of atmospheric ionization, relegating Thor to the pantheon of gods now myth. As gods are the child of ignorance, knowledge is a lethal potion strong enough to kill the most powerful force.

We will show that morals are not derived from religion, nor god’s grant of free will, but instead arise from inherent characteristics embedded in human nature as a consequence of our sociality. What we view as moral behaviors – kindness, reciprocity, honesty, respect for others – are social norms that evolved in the context of a highly social animal living in large groups. The evolution of these social norms enabled a feeble creature to overcome physical limitations through effective cooperation. Morality is a biological necessity and a consequence of human development. Religion, however, has masked and corrupted these natural characteristics with a false morality that converts intrinsic human benevolence and generosity into cheap commodities to be purchased with coupons for heaven. Good behavior is not encouraged as a means of advancing our humanity, but instead is enforced with threats of eternal damnation.

About Jeff Schweitzer

He is the Author of the upcoming book Beyond Cosmic Dice – Moral Life In A Random A World. Dr. Schweitzer served at the White House for the Clinton Administration
Working under President Clinton, Dr. Schweitzer was assigned to provide scientific and technological policy advice and analysis for the President of the United States, Vice President Al Gore and the Director of the OSTP, and to coordinate the U.S. government's international science and technology cooperation (working with the president's cabinet and 22 technical agencies) in countries throughout the world. Visit his website @ www.jeffschweitzer.com

Introduction to Skeptical Thinking

2009-06-16T08:30:00.000-07:00

By Jamie Hale

I recently presented at the Annual JP Fitness Summit in Kansas City. The Summit features some of the top minds in the fitness industry. Topics include any and everything fitness and nutrition related. My presentation addressed a topic that was foreign to the summit. My topic was Fitness Skepticism. How to apply skepticism to the fitness industry? Some of the participants seemed to have a hard time with this line of thought. Skepticism is rarely if ever mentioned in the popular fitness literature. Learning to question and look for evidence could save fitness enthusiasts a great deal of time, money, and embarrassment. When someone like Alan Aragon (nutritionist & author of Girth Control) comes along and destroys your fiction based nutrition protocol you may be a little embarrassed. Especially if you have been working in the industry for a decade.

Before attending the summit I sent my keynotes to a colleague to see if he had any further suggestions on what I should present. He was impressed and told me this information would be excellent to present as an introduction to skepticism to any group not just fitness professionals. Below are my keynotes I used for the presentation.

Seminar Fitness Skepticism: Key Notes

The Fitness Skeptic (Skeptic is derived from the Greek skeptikos, which means "inquiring" or "to look around) applies reason to any and all ideas promoted by the fitness industry or ideas promoted by anyone making fitness claims. Requires evidence before accepting claims. Explain difference between skeptic and cynic.

What is a cynic? Cynics are distrustful of any advice or information that they do not agree with themselves. Cynics do not accept any claim that challenges their belief system. While skeptics are open-minded and try to eliminate personal biases. Cynics Negative views and are not open to evidence that refutes their beliefs. This can lead to dogmatism.

Dogmatism: authoritarian approach to ideas which emphasizes strict adherence to doctrine over rational inquiry. Opposes independent thinking and reason.

The word dogma is derived from a Greek phrase meaning “that which seems to one, opinion or belief”

Skepticism is a key part of science. Science way of thinking, basically way of analyzing information with idea of testing claims. Ideas on science…………
Make use of scientific method

No precise definition for scientific method but in general most agree with the following:
The following is an excerpt from Why People Believe Weird Things (Shermer 1997). “Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.”

Important regarding certainty
NO absolute certainty. Humans are fallible.

R.A Lyttleton (Theoretical Astronomy Pro) suggests bead model of truth
This model depicts a bead on a horizontal wire that can move left or right. A 0 appears on the far left end 1 appears on the far right end.

The 0 corresponds with total disbelief and the 1 corresponds with total belief (absolute certainty).

Bead should never reach the far left or right end. The more that the evidence suggests the belief is true the closer the bead should be to 1. The more unlikely the belief is to be true the closer the bead should be to 0.

Important regarding Theory
To a scientist, the word theory represents that of which he or she is most certain; in everyday language the word implies a guess (not sure).

This often causes confusion for those unfamiliar with science. This confusion leads to the common statement “It’s only a theory.”

Regarding scientist vs. non-scientist
Scientist: One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research (Primary Research), or make use of the results of the research of others (termed Secondary Research.

Scientific degree does not necessarily mean scientist

Thinking gone wrong
Why do we accept so much nonsense in absence of evidence? Define faith

Anecdotes are not science
Scientific Jargon does not make a science
Bold Statements and Bold testimonials
Rumors everywhere
Correlation and causation
Emotive words

How to apply logic
Define logic: Concise English Oxford dictionary: science of reasoning, proof, thinking or inference
Structure of logical argument: 1 or more premises (facts) that argument states to lead to conclusion.
Conclusion to be valid all premises must be true
Conclusion could be true even though is it was invalid
Possible to use incorrect logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true
Need to identify logical fallacies
Structure of argument
Prm 1: if A=B
Prm 2: and B=C
Logical connection: Then we apply (principle of equivalence)
Conclusion: A=C

Common logical fallacies
Ad hominen
Appeal to authority
Argumentum ad antiquitatem / Appeal to tradition (tradition)
Argumentum ad novitatem / Appeal to Novelty (newer is better)
Shifting the burden of proof (claimant insists you disprove)
Argument from personal incredulity (I can’t explain so it can’t be true)
Inconsistency (sometime scientist sometimes not depends on convenience)
Post-hoc ergo propter (A preceded B, therefore A caused B)
Straw man (arguing against position you created, position ez to argue against)
Cherry picking

Ultimate goal for the skeptic is to see evidence and then evaluate the evidence that supports claim. Evidence stands on it’s own merits.

Considerations when look at evidence refer Alan’s book

Ideological immune system
“In day-to-day life, as in science, we all resist fundamental paradigm change” Jay Snelson (social scientist) calls this resistance an ideological immune system. According to Snelson, the more knowledge individuals have accumulated, and the more well-founded their theories have become the greater the confidence in their ideologies.

Consequence we build up and “immunity” against new ideas that do not corroborate previous ones.

Sometimes if we have so much vested interest it is hard to change our stance on a subject

Bser or Liar
Harry G Frankfurt (Moral philosopher) distinguishes in book On Bullshit
Fitness industry questions more Bsers or Liars??

Practical skepticism
Can’t be skeptical all the time
Sometimes better to not be vocally skeptical
Refer to Riniolo’s article The Myth of Consistent skepticism

Practicing skeptical thinking
Take something you have always believed and try to look at it from other side. Gather all available data. Try to counterpoint your own belief. If faith based no need

Inconsistent Rationalist???
Rational people normally but touch touch topic rationality gone. Completely irrational with specific topics such as religion, abortion, death penalty, children etc.

One of the key points I wanted to emphasize was it’s alright to be skeptical. I pointed out the difference between a skeptic and a cynic. I also emphasized that the people that like to villanize skeptics are generally the real villains (quackos, charlatans, Type 1 supplement salesman, etc.) I was cut a little short on time (enough sitting it was time to go outside and jump into the Total Hale Workout) so I didn’t get to finish my presentation. I think the discussion proved beneficial for some while others found it useless. I received some positive feedback while also receiving negative feedback.

Practical implications for the skilled skeptic

Realize that the need to believe, and serve others, are basic human needs

In general our expectations pretty much determine what we see and don’t see (magicians take full advantage of this expectation)

Humans lie and they BS (almost always with a vested interest)

Under specific conditions hallucinations may occur in healthy people

For many people that don’t understand specific phenomena they would rather believe something than say they don’t know

Apply skepticism in a very cautious manner to particular subjects e.g. religion, abortion, death penalty etc.

Realize you can’t be skeptical 100% of the time as there are not enough hours in the day

The skilled skeptic must learn when to keep their questions to themselves if not you will have many enemies (be a Practical Skeptic)

The majority of society does not understand science nor are they interested (they want to know what to think not how to think)

Skilled skeptics understand the rules of logic, the principles of experimentation, experimental design and what constitutes scientific evidence

Human beings are fallible and have a need sometimes have a need to be right

Human beings have a strong need for certainty, security and stability

Human beings have strong social needs (although not all human beings)

Human beings have a strong need for simplicity, easily understandable answers to complex questions

Human beings like to feel important

Skilled skeptics do not make judgments based on insufficient evidence

Skilled skeptics realizes there are varying degrees of certainty but no absolute certainty

Skilled skeptics listen to other people’s ideas with an open mind

Skill skeptics understand all knowledge is tentative

Skilled skeptics are aware of their own personal bias, and aware when their skepticism turns to cynicism

Skilled skeptics habitually question their own beliefs and methods that were used to come to those beliefs

Skilled skeptics are educated on research methodology (this means at an advanced level)

Skilled skeptics avoid Hero Worship (e.g. James Randi says or Michael Shermer says, also referred to as Appeal to Authority Fallacy)

Skilled skeptics realize science does not explain everything nor does it claim to

Skilled skeptics do not fall prey to the Translation Fallacy (this fallacy occurs when the subject being discussed cannot be defined. If you can define the word or topic forget about stating your opinion.)

Biochemistry 101

2009-06-07T10:53:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise

Appendix 1: Biochemistry and Genetics

I decided to include this section for all of the biochemistry fans. Many of the terms mentioned in this section are often discussed in scientific texts and research studies. If you read much research, you may occasionally stumble across a word or phrase that you might not understand. I put together this section to help you understand some of those words and phrases. The terms are not presented in any particular order.

Element
These are the fundamental substances that make up the matter of the universe. An element is any substance that can’t be subdivided further by chemical means. Another way of saying this is that an element is composed of only one kind of atom. Examples of elements include oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, carbon,and calcium.

Atom
This is the smallest part of an element that still retains the chemical and physical properties of that element. Atoms are composed of three types of subatomic particles.
1. Protons: These are positively charged particles found in the center or nucleus of the atom.
2. Neutrons: These are also found in the nucleus but bear no electrical charge (neutral).
3. Electrons: These particles move around the nucleus in orbits. They have a negative electrical charge. Electrons are arranged in shells around the nucleus. Each shell can contain only a finite number of electrons before a new shell must be formed. The first shell is filled when it has two electrons. The second and each
succeeding shell are filled with eight electrons.

Molecule
A molecule is the chemical combination of two or more atoms. Atoms chemically combine by interactions with their respective electron shells. Such interactions are termed bonds, and these bonds are what hold the atoms together. One of the most
important chemical bonds is the covalent bond, which is where two or more atoms share their electrons with one another. This can effectively fill all of the outer shells of the participant atoms,thereby making them extremely stable. A good example is water.

Macromolecules
Macromolecules are large molecules. Many organic molecules are characteristically large and are thus called macro. These macromolecules are usually formed from smaller repeating subunits. Macromolecules are often termed polymers, and the
subunits which compose them are termed monomers. Monomers are assembled into polymers by a special kind of covalent bond forming reaction termed dehydration synthesis or condensation. The name is due to the fact that water is always one of the products.

Hydrogen bonds
These are weak electrical attractions that occur between the hydrogen atoms in a molecule and the oxygen or nitrogen atoms in the same molecules or in separate molecules. Hydrogen bonds are important because they give macromolecules a threedimensional shape, which is critical to their proper functioning.

Basic organic compounds
Organic compounds are those which contain carbon. There are four major classes of organic compounds that are significant to organisms (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids).

Enzymes
Enzymes are protein bio-catalysts that speed up reactions but are
not altered by those reactions. Coenzymes are small organic molecules, frequently vitamins. The enormous diversity of proteins ensures that there will be adequate kinds of enzymes for each and every reaction. Each enzyme is specific for one
particular reaction. This means that each of the hundreds of reactions that occur within the cell must have its own enzyme. The types of reactions a cell can execute are dependent upon the kinds of enzymes present. There are six major classes of enzymes.
1. Oxireductases: Catalyze oxidation reduction reactions.
2. Transferases: Catalyze the movement of functional
groups between molecules.
3. Hydrolases: Catalyze the breakdown of polymers by the
addition of water.
4. Lyases: Catalyze the breakdown of molecules but not by
the addition of water.
5. Isomerases: Catalyze internal rearrangements of
molecules.
6. Ligases and synthetases: Catalyze the linkage of
molecules together.

Biological oxidations
Oxidation is a type of chemical reaction in which electrons are removed from an atom or molecule. Reduction is a type of chemical reaction in which an atom or molecule gains electrons. Oxidation and reduction always go together. It is not possible to
have electrons floating freely about. Whenever one molecule is oxidized another must be simultaneously reduced. In other words, the electron removed from one molecule must be transferred to another molecule.

Metabolism
Metabolism by definition is the sum total of all chemical reactions that occur within the cell or organism. It can be generally categorized into two subsections—catabolism and anabolism. Catabolic reactions are breakdown reactions in which
large complex molecules are reduced to smaller fragments (macromolecules are turned into micromolecules). Anabolic reactions are synthesis reactions whereby smaller molecules are joined to form larger or more energetic ones. Catabolic reactions
are exergonic (energy yielding) while anabolic reactions are endergonic (energy consuming). In the cell, catabolic reactions provide the energy necessary to drive the anabolic reactions.

Kreb’s cycle (tricarboxylic acid cycle, citric acid cycle)
Krebs cycle is a series of catabolic reactions occurring in the mitochondrial matrix. The main purpose of these reactions is the transfer of energy carried in the bonds of acetyl-CoA to electron carrier molecules. The molecules receiving the hydrogens and electrons are the coenzymes NAD+ and FAD, which transfer the hydrogens and electrons to the respiratory chain for the phosphorylation of ADP to ATP. Refer to The Biochemistry of Human Nutrition by Sareen Gropper for a detailed description of what happens in the Krebs cycle.

Thermic effect of food
The thermic effect of food (diet-induced thermogenesis) is an increase in the metabolic rate that occurs following the ingestion of food. It is thought to account for an increase in the basal metabolic rate of between 5 percent and 15 percent. The increase in metabolism is a result of increased oxidation associated with the digestion of food, absorption, transport, metabolism, and storage of energy following eating. Protein has the highest thermic effect of the three macronutrients. Carbohydrates have the next highest and fats the least thermic effect.

Nucleic acids
There are two types of nucleic acid—DNA and RNA. DNA is the largest molecule and it has two essential functions. It is the hereditary molecule containing the genetic blueprint that it transmits from generation to generation, and it regulates the
activity of the cell by controlling protein synthesis. All RNA is synthesized off of the DNA molecule. Part of the DNA unwinds and ribose, containing nucleotides, are locked into position in place of the deoxyribose nucleotides. Therefore, all RNA
represents a copy of some of the information contained in the DNA molecule.

Dangerous Ideas

2009-05-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

What is Your Dangerous Idea (Brockman 2007) takes a look at some of the world’s leading thinkers and their most dangerous ideas. Some of the ideas in the book include:

Keith Devlin’s idea we are entirely alone

Devlin suggests there is no higher being and no higher purpose to our lives. Devlin does not see this as a bad thing. He believes the opposite. “The fact that our existence has no purpose outside that existence is completely irrelevant to the way we live our lives, since we are inside our existence. The fact that our existence has no purpose for the universe- whatever that means- in no way means that it has no purpose for us.” I have heard the argument many times if there is nothing else what purpose do we have none. My purpose is to have a happy life and enjoy time with my loved ones. Whether my mark on the universe is significant makes no difference as far as my personal happiness is concerned. I think spending too much time trying to figure out if there is something more de-values the time you have on earth. What is wrong with living your life for you?

Marc D. Hauser’s idea it appears that a wide variety of moral judgments are immune to cultural and demographic variation, including religious background.

Hauser further expands on his idea by saying “Controlling for age, people with only a high school education are no different from people with advanced degrees when it comes to judging the permissibility of harming another person in certain contexts. People with religious backgrounds are no different in this regard from atheists and agnostics.” There are religious people that have high moral standards and there are non-religious people who have high moral standards (depending on how you define moral standards). Classifying people’s morality based on non-religious or religious belief is a logical fallacy (Hasty Generalization). Moral standards are based on the teachings in the bible is common fallacy. Basing moral standards by cherry-picking passages from the bible may give us some moral guidance but the bible as a whole is full of horrible acts.

Bertrand Russell’s idea that it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

This seems so obvious why should it have to be said. There are many people that believe things with absolutely no valid reason to believe. How many times have you heard just have faith in other words just believe? The essence of faith is believing something in the absence of evidence.

Jordan Pollack’s idea it is a very dangerous idea to consider science as just another religion

Pollack makes it clear this is not his idea but and idea held by some. This is a completely ridiculous statement often perpetuated by religious fanatics. Yet, the differences between religion and science are astounding. I have addressed this numerous times in past articles but to summarize science is evidence based and can actually be tested while religion is faith based and cannot be tested (religion is not science or similar to science in any way shape or form).

Judith Harris’s idea parents have no power at all to shape their child’s personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home?

Harris says there is no solid evidence that indicates parents shape their children. She doesn’t see this as a bad thing. She says if people accepted these things it would get easier for children and parents. Parents would stop worrying so much about if they are doing the right thing when it comes to raising kids. Kids would appreciate praise more if it weren’t handed out in abundance. I think some kids are influenced by their parents while others seem to be affected very little. I can think of a few instances where parents provided their kids with bundles of attention and love but the kid grew up to be a menace to society. I am also aware of a couple of cases where the parents done a horrible job (in accordance to general standards) parenting but the kids turned out ok.

Matt Ridley’s idea the more we limit growth of government, the better of we will all be.
Ridley says, “In every age and at every time, there have been people who say wee need more regulation, more government. Sometimes they say we need it to protect exchange from corruption, to set the standards and police the rules – in which case they have a point, though often they exaggerate it.” I think in most cases the people that insist more government is needed have a vested interest. Ridely is not suggesting we abolish government but limiting its growth would be a good idea.

Roger Schank’s idea is school is bad for kids

I found Schank’s idea to be the most interesting in the book. I have held this idea for many years. I worked at a junior high school briefly and seen firsthand how disgusted and bored most kids were at school. I think most of them felt the same way I did when I was in school (bored, frustrated, and sleepy). Almost every kid I talk to hates school. Does that make it bad? That’s only part of what makes it bad. Other problems include the curriculum, the methods of testing, over emphasis on rote learning (memorization), unilateral paths of knowledge, under-emphasis on skepticism, grade inflation, compulsory attendance, social pressures, favoritism etc. Schank says, “ Schools should simply cease to exist as we know them. The government needs to get out of the education business and stop thinking that it knows what children should know and then test them constantly to see if they regurgitate whatever they have just been spoon-fed. The government is an always has been the problem in education.” Schank promotes the idea that learning should be guided by passion. Schank’s idea should be a wake up call to you if you are not aware of the state of formal education. Another thing to keep in mind is the common misuse of the word education. Formal Education is often nothing more than a business and it should not be mistakenly considered the only type of education. I would bet that almost anyone that has a wealth of knowledge in their respected field gained most of that knowledge on their own. In fact, even while in school you generally don’t learn in the classroom (if you learn). You simply take directions on what you need to learn out of the classroom (learn studying at home, library etc.). Ralph Waldo Emerson put it like this “We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a belly full of words and do not know a thing.”

Leo Chalupa’s idea what’s needed to attain optimal brain performance- with or without brain exercise- is a twenty-four-hour period of absolute solitude.

This means no writing, reading, phone, watching TV, music or any verbal interactions of any with another human. I tried this but I didn’t make it. I kept thinking about things I needed to write. At around the 16th hour I started writing.

You can check out ideas of some of the World’s leading thinkers at www.edge.org

When Good Thinking Goes Bad (Interview)

2009-05-12T09:01:00.000-07:00

by Jamie Hale

The following interview was conducted with Todd Riniolo the author of When Good Thinking Goes Bad. Be sure to check out the podcast mentioned at the end of the interview. Good stuff.

Let’s talk about your book When Good Thinking Goes Bad. According to Michael Shermer it’s the perfect primer on critical thinking. What makes it the perfect primer on critical thinking?

I believe it’s a good primer for several reasons. First, the book emphasizes some of the hallmarks of critically evaluating claims in a reader friendly format that should be particularly useful for those who are being exposed to the process of skepticism for the first time. Second, the book also demonstrates how all of us, even when we know how to think critically, will in some instances abandon our skepticism making us more likely to accept foolish beliefs. Lastly, the book was written with students in mind. In fact, I use the book as one of several when teaching a course on skeptical thinking as it relates to paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Why is critical thinking so demphasized in our society?

Perhaps because critical thinking takes work. It is much easier in some instances to simply accept information for a variety of reasons. For example, we often do not have the time or motivation to question many claims; especially those that we already believe are true.

Do you feel that formal education programs generally do a good job of teaching critical thinking?

The best teachers are those that teach students the process of critical evaluation, which then allows the student to make up their own mind. Unfortunately, in many instances students are simply told what they should think. Critical thinking is a process, and often times this important element is overlooked.

What is the typical systematic progression in evaluating a claim? Let’s say we want to investigate the global warning crisis. At least some would have us believe crisis.

For any claim, whether it is global warming or psychic claims, the hallmarks of skepticism should be followed. Thus, we must demand evidence and rigorously evaluate the provided evidence. We must seek out expert opinion and employ the proper research methods when appropriate (i.e., double-blind procedures). We must interpret findings with the law of parsimony, and be wary of second hand sources, and so forth. Unfortunately, all of us do not apply the standards of skepticism consistently across claims (we are much more likely to apply the methods of skepticism to claims that we do not believe, while not giving those things we already believe a “free pass”). I point this out in my book by attempting to make a comparison between psychic claims and claims for global warming. This chapter seems to have upset some readers, but the intent was to demonstrate that we are all inconsistent with our skepticism.

Do you think critical thinking comes more naturally to some than others? Or is critical thinking more influenced by nurture?

The old nature versus nurture debate is one in which I can only offer my opinion, so take it for what it is worth. I assume that both nature and nurture play a role. Think about Tiger Woods for a moment. He was born with a predisposition towards a specific skill (i.e., golf). Yet, in order to maximize his potential, he needed to practice, practice, practice. It likely is the same with thinking skills. You have genetic range, which is then influenced by the environmental input.

I heard an interview with you on Point of Inquiry and you pointed out that Santa Claus was a good subject to use when exploring the critical thinking process. Please explain?

Many skeptics over the years have made a variation of the following argument: It’s no wonder that so many people are gullible since we teach our kids about Santa. I find this argument, linking Santa to widespread noncritical thinking in our society problematic on many levels (you’ll have to read the book for more details). Perhaps most disappointing from the skeptics who make this argument is that they provide no evidence (i.e., a peer-reviewed article) and appear to be misinformed about magical thinking in children (yes, there is a literature on this topic!). However, back to the specific question. Many skeptics, such as Carl Sagan, have recommended applied exercises to teach critical thinking. Allowing children to skeptically evaluate the Santa claim on their own, which most eventually do accomplishes that goal. Thus, a long-standing, highly cherished belief (as a kid, who doesn’t want Santa to be real?) starts to become questioned. In fact, most children start to ask critical questions, gather evidence, and develop alternative hypotheses prior to discovering the truth. Isn’t that what critical thinking is all about? I believe that Santa is a useful event for children to practice critical thinking on a widespread, culturally perpetuated myth, in a user-friendly format. For those that disagree, that’s ok. However, there still exists no evidence that Santa is linked with widespread noncritical thinking…

Who will benefit from reading When Good Thinking Goes Bad?

I think two groups. First, the novice, who is looking for an introduction to skeptical thinking. Second, the elite critical thinker. I attempt to demonstrate that even the best critical thinkers are prone to believe in some nonsense. This likely occurs because of the biases that humans possess, which likely provided us with an evolutionary advantage at one point in time, but makes it impossible for any individual to be a consistent skeptic. Thus, labeling ourselves as a skeptic does not guarantee that we will behave like skeptics in all situations, and my book attempts to illustrate this point.

Suppose someone reads this interview and they decide they need to become more skeptical about the world. They want to understand how to apply critical thinking to their everyday life. Where do they start?

There are many excellent resources (Michael Shermer’s work, James Randi’s work, Richard Wiseman’s work, Skeptic Magazine, The Skeptical Inquirer, and so forth). I thought I would provide a resource that is not typically given in an interview like this. I would recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, Applied Economics, and Economic Facts and Fallacies. So many of us have such strong opinions about economics issues based upon nothing more than personal experience or what we would like to be true. These books provide a critical look at a topic that is important for all of us, but so few people have taken the time to learn even the basics of the subject.

Some people seem to be very rational most of the time but when it comes to discussing religion their rationality goes out the window. I think sometimes people proclaim beliefs that they really don’t believe. They try to tell themselves they should belief whatever but deep down in they don’t and this creates guilt. Usually because everyone who surrounds them holds this belief (or so they say) they feel social pressures to believe the same. Would you agree? Why are some people rational most of the time but in this particular issue so irrational?

This is a great question, but I would not confine it to religion. If you substitute in “the environment,” “politics,” “dieting,” “multiculturalism,” “male-female differences,” and so forth, the same would apply. In part 2 of my book, I attempt to answer the question of why can a rational person most of the time be irrational on a particular issue. In fact, I would argue that this occurs with all of us, but we are unaware of when we ourselves are the irrational one.

Any other projects you are currently working on?

Glad you asked. I have just finished a rough draft of a book which attempts to answer the question of exactly how did Sigmund Freud first become a household name in America. I believe the parsimonious answer has been overlooked, but do not want to give away the answer. The book is also intended to be a supplemental book when teaching a history of psychology course, as it stresses the important of historical research and that history can be quite exciting!

Can you recommend any sources to help create a more intellectual environment?

“When Good Thinking Goes Bad”!!!!!!!!!

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Todd Riniolo discusses his book When Good Thinking Goes Bad www.pointofinquiry.org/todd_c_riniolo_when_good_thinking_goes_bad/

Knowledge Roundup

2009-04-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

Finding the Truth

Do lie detectors detect lies? What do you think? The standard machine (polygraph) has three features 1) blood pressure cuff 2) a tube fastened around subject’s chest which indicates changes in breathing and 3) device measuring skin’s electrical conductivity. Baker & Nickell (Missing Pieces p. 105) “Unfortunately, while polygraphs do detect nervousness, Hines correctly observes (1988, p. 304) that ‘not everyone is nervous when telling a lie and not everyone is calm when telling truth.’ Factors other than nervousness that may affect the responses are physical handicaps, moral attitudes toward veracity, location of the test, personality of the examiner, and the subject’s state of mind (“House Measure” 1985).” Michael Shermer tests the polygraph Watch Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA

Snakebite the Myths and Facts Part one

Kristin at the Kentucky Reptile Zoo addresses questions regarding snakebites. Juvenile snakes can’t control how much venom they inject? What is most dangerous snake? What are the chances you will die if bitten by a venomous snake? Watch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQGcmseZGms

Raven Run Nature Sanctuary

My son and I became excited as we walked towards the Nature Center. There were sounds of birds and a mellow whistling of the wind that filled the air. Everywhere we looked we seen butterflies, birds, exotic looking plants, and a variety of trees. I knew we were experiencing nature at it’s best. After a few minutes we reached the Raven Run Nature Center. I was astonished with all of the displays featured in the Nature Center. I was thinking to myself wow all of this and we have not even seen the trails yet. We spent the remainder of the day traveling the trails and taking in the beautiful scenery. The sanctuary’s various habitats made me feel like I had visited three or four sanctuary’s not just one. This was my first visit to Raven Run, but definitely not my last………
This is my first article in Kentucky Explorer. Read the full article in April 2009 issue.

The Biology of skin color: Black and White
By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing. White skin, for example, was reported to be more resistant to cold weather, although groups like the Inuit are both dark and particularly resistant to cold. After the 1970s, when researchers were presumably more aware of the controversy such studies could kick up, there was very little work at all. "It's one of these things everybody notices," Jablonski says, "but nobody wants to talk about." Read full article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

Evolution in Action
By Carl Zimmer

Evolution doesn’t always take millions of years to occur. Carl Zimmer meets Richard Lenski the man who has been watching evolution occur in his own laboratory. “Twenty- one years ago, Lenski used a single E.coli to establish 12 identical lines of bacteria, each of which lived in its own flask. Ever since the experiment started, the bacteria have been evolving. Lenski and his students and colleagues in his Michigan State University laboratory have been tracking the microorganisms’ evolution in fine detail. Along the way, some of the bacteria have undergone extraordinary transformations.” Read the full article at BBC Knowledge Magazine, April 2009 issue pp. 42-46.

Why We Believe

2009-04-09T06:20:00.000-07:00

Why We Believe
By Jamie Hale

Have you ever wondered why people believe things when there is no evidence to support their beliefs,but tons of evidence indicating the belief is false. Why do people believe calories don’t matter, the world is 6000 years old, paranormal claims, homeopathy cures, dietary supplement magic, virgin giving birth, and so on? Shermer tackles this question in Why People Believe Weird Things. Shermer points out there is no single reason people believe weird things, but there are a few common reasons, including (ch. seventeen) : the belief is consoling, immediate gratification, morality and meaning (if you can’t believe in something higher or divine you lack morality, so they say),and hope springs eternal. In chapter 18 shermer asks Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. The chapter begins with this quote “When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service!” John Mackay. Isn’t that the truth. Shermer says “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”

Pages: 59-60 Shermer Why People Believe Weird Things

“In day-to-day life, as in science, we all resist fundamental paradigm change. Social scientist Jay Stuart Snelson calls this resistance an ideological immune system: “educated, intelligent, and successful adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions” (1993, p.54). According to Snelson, the more knowledge individuals have accumulated, and the more well-founded their theories have become (and remember, we all tend to look for and remember confirmatory evidence, not counterevidence), the greater the confidence in their ideologies. The consequence of this, however, is that we build up and “immunity” against new ideas that do not corroborate previous ones. Historians of science call this the Planck Problem, after physicist Mac Planck, who made this observation on what must happen for innovation to occur in science: “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning” (1936, p.97).” The ideological immune system often becomes problematic for graduate students. The problem occurs once students rely to heavily on guidance from instructors, or only look at some of the evidence. Acknowledging only sources that support the University’s biases, but neglecting sources that contradict (confirmation bias)strengthens the ideological immune system. To combat this problem students should look at all the available data ( within reason). This is often a long and tedious process, but it is necessary if gaining real knowledge is the objective.

I would agree with the points Shermer makes, and I would further add, people don’t always believe what they say they believe. Why do they say it? A detailed discussion of why they say they believe is not the objective of this article (refer to Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell). However, I would like to mention two of the most common reasons people say they believe what they don't believe-to avoid confrontation and prevent discomfort to friends or family. To illustrate my point, consider the rational individual that believes in the *virgin birth (virgin, person who has never had sex) of Christ. They probably really don’t believe this nonsense, but the spouse and friends hold this belief dear to their heart and they believe thinking anything but that would be horrible. It is easier for the pretend believer to agree. For many people the issue of abortion or religion are touchy subjects and any discussion is meaningless, as their emotions overwhelm their rationality. In these instances even a generally rational person may become irrational. The more they have invested in this belief the harder it becomes for them to abandon it, or at least the harder for them to admit they abandon it.

* virgin birth myth is derived from a mistranslation of ‘young woman’ into ‘virgin’ in the biblical account.

Many weird things are taught on the basis of faith (belief without any evidence). Once blind faith is established then any belief can be justified. From a very young age many children are taught that they should not question authority (teachers, religion, health professionals and so on), have faith. Promoting this attitude is a dangerous road to travel. It is also important that we separate blind faith from science. It’s fine to have faith (maybe, and depends on strength of faith and faith in what) if you would like, but don’t make the mistake of trying to disguise faith as science (e.g. creation science, which is not science). I find it comical when religious (of various religions) fanatics attempt to classify science as a religion. Religion is based on mounds and mounds of faith and delusional testimonials. Science is based on observable, testable, falsifiable, replicable and measureable evidence. Religion does not fall under the umbrella of science, as it is faith based and the very essence of faith, to reiterate, is belief in the absense of evidence.

No wonder society is so gullible regarding the dietary supplement industry, religious doctrine, governmental policies, self help myths, etc. It’s really not that hard to understand why people fall for all the nonsense they are exposed to on a daily basis, considering they have been taught their entire lives not to question authority and some things you just have to believe, regardless of how irrational they seem.

Suggested Readings

Dennett, D (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon. Viking.

Flesch, R (1951). The Art of Clear Thinking. Barnes & Noble Books.

Gilovich, T (1991). How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. The Free Press.

Shermer, M (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. Owl Books.