Baby signing in the real world

January 12, 2009 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

Take a look at this video made by fellow ScienceBlogger Dr. Isis . She’s talking with her son, a toddler who adorably mimics her as she says very complicated words such as “Adventures in Ethics and Science” and “Wackaloon” (but sadly, not “Cognitive Daily”): It’s cute, but it’s difficult to say whether Dr. Isis is really talking with her child. The difficulty babies have pronouncing words has led many parents to suspect they might be able to communicate better with their children using hand signs. Last week we talked about a study suggesting that teaching babies even a few signs like those used by the Deaf can help babies and their parents communicate. Babies can learn the signs earlier than spoken words, and these signs may represent a marked improvement in the ability of parents to communicate with their babies. This can mean that babies cry less and both parents and children get along better. But what does this communication look like in the real world, outside of a laboratory setting? Do babies stop signing as they get older? Why? One advocate of ASL (American Sign Language) suggested that the baby-signing movement might improve understanding between the Deaf and hearing communities. Does it live up to that promise? Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Here is the original:
Baby signing in the real world

Happiness Outliers

December 28, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Like many of you, I have recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s new book Outliers, which presents his perspective on success and the people who achieve it. Like his previous books, Outliers is well-written and provocative. We should all pause for a positive psychology moment and be grateful that such a talented writer is among us. Gladwell’s concern is with celebrated accomplishment like that attained by John D. Rockefeller, the Beatles, and Bill Gates. Prodigious achievement is an often over-looked member of the positive psychology family. Getting much more positive psychology attention are the warm and fuzzy family members, the ones we want to hug because they hug back: happiness, hope, kindness, and love. In contrast, accomplishment is elite and exclusive and for many of us not nearly so embraceable. Nonetheless, accomplishment matters mightily and obviously contributes to the life worth living. The arguments advanced in Outliers square with the research as I know it. First, prodigious achievement does not simply happen because of an individual’s genius. Talent matters but is not sufficient. Rather, achievement results from the alignment of all sorts of factors external to the individual: being born in the right time and place, having access to appropriate resources, and receiving instruction and encouragement. No one does it alone. There are no self-made men or women. Rugged individualism is ruggedly wrong. Second, before success is achieved, someone needs to put in years of work perfecting a craft, whatever it may be. Gladwell suggests 10,000 hours as the minimum commitment, and this may be an underestimate. Psychologists who study achievement talk about the 10-Year Rule, meaning that people who make important contributions to a particular field have usually devoted a full decade to the mastery of necessary knowledge and skills. Psychologists also talk about the 12-Seven Rule, meaning that this decade needs to be filled with 12-hour work days, seven days a week. Sound daunting? Of course, but American Idol notwithstanding, there are no shortcuts to excellence. This conclusion may not be what many young people want to hear. I sat on a train the other day next to a young woman. We talked about her career aspirations, and I gently mentioned the 10-Year Rule. She kept changing the topic to "positive imaging" as a better principle to follow. I persisted because it is irresponsible for those of us who know better to let our children think that success comes easy or overnight, that it is just a matter of finding one’s passions and interests, printing business cards, starting websites, or – heaven forbid – simply wishing and hoping for success. Third, Gladwell stresses the role of legacy in achievement, by which he means the affordances of the cultural group into which one is born. In given times and places, legacy makes achievement in a particular domain easier. For example, Gladwell discusses Jewish lawyers from a generation past who were not hired by elite (i.e., WASP-y) law firms and thus had to start their own firms. These elite law firms also did not handle certain sorts of cases – like the occasional corporate takeover – which necessarily fell into the laps of the "other" law firms. As business and legal landscapes changed to make corporate takeovers more common and exceedingly lucrative, it is not surprising who flourished. In closing, I would like to suggest that the ideas in Outliers may apply to another sort of achievement: happiness. Here I mean more than somewhat above-the-scale midpoint life satisfaction. I mean prodigious happiness, not extraverted mania but a life that entails walking on sunshine, one that makes onlookers shake their head and say wow. Each of us probably knows a few people who are happy in this prodigious way. Were they simply born that way? Would they be happy in any and all circumstances? Extrapolating from Gladwell’s book, I say no. A cheerful temperament and secure attachment may set the stage, but a happiness outlier, no less than an achievement outlier, further represents a perfect storm of enabling factors, many external to the person, as well as the absence of disabling factors. This sounds fatalistic and probably not the starting point for a self-help book. But remember the role played by sustained practice in the lives of achievement outliers. There are things we can do to be happier, but these probably take many years to perfect. Research suggests that happiness and life satisfaction do not increase with age. If we take these data at face value, they mean either that people are not trying to be happier or – more likely – that they do not know how to do so. Perhaps this can be a long-term contribution of positive psychology. However, positive psychologists need to do more than provide a reasonable formula. We also need to provide the warning label: This will take a really long time! Can we speak about a happiness legacy? Gladwell’s discussion of legacy is the most interesting part of his book but also the most tenuous. "Culture" is a sprawling term, and in focusing on one aspect of culture to explain achievement, he necessarily ignores all of the others that may also be crucial. So, he attributes the mathematical accomplishments of East Asian school children to the fact that China, Japan, and Korea are rice-based economies. It takes a lot of hard work to grow rice, a cultural lesson presumably carried into the classroom even if a student is not the child or grandchild of rice farmers. True. But there are other features of East Asian cultures that might also matter. Gladwell mentions some of these – e.g., "number" names in East Asian languages are short and consistent. He does not mention the possibilities that the written languages of China, Japan, and (until 1446) Korea engage different parts of the brain than the Western alphabet. He does not mention Confucianism, which has infused East Asia for centuries and not only extols hard work but also places the teacher at the top of the respect pyramid. But I digress. What does a happiness legacy look like? It would be a culture that stresses the sorts of things that lead to a good and satisfied life: family, friends, community, freedom, tolerance, engagement, meaning, and purpose (see my earlier blog entry Book Review: The Geography of Bliss) . It would likely not be a culture that stresses hedonism, materialism, or ruthless competition. It would certainly not be one that tolerates or rewards meanness (see my earlier blog entry Positive Psychology and Assholes). It might even be one in which there were no Wednesdays (see my earlier blog entry Happy Days and Happy Times). That said, I suspect that happiness legacies can be more local. Indeed, to paraphrase Tip O’Neill, perhaps all happiness legacies are local. What is encouraging is that local cultures can be changed. Gladwell provides several intriguing examples of legacy change. He describes how South Korean airlines, once quite dangerous because of culturally-mandated deference that led co-pilots never to challenge pilots, even as their planes flew dangerously off course, became much safer by mandating the use of English – and all the bluntness that entailed – in the cockpits. Gladwell describes how the acclaimed KIPP schools have changed the cultural legacy of their students. As I see it, the KIPP schools in effect have created East Asian classrooms in the inner cities of the United States. Wow. How can we create a cultural legacy of happiness? If you have read any of my other blog entries, you know my answer: Let other people matter. And that means moving beyond the slogan and working diligently over the years to make it so.   © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

More here: 
Happiness Outliers

Einstein was smart, but Could He Play the Violin? – the winner of the synchroblogging contest [A Blog Around The Clock]

December 20, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Happy Anniversary, PLoS ONE! Today is PLoS ONE’s second anniversary and we’re celebrating by announcing that the winner of the second PLoS synchroblogging competition is SciCurious of the Neurotopia 2.0 blog. “This fluent post captures the essence of the research and accurately communicates it in a style that resonates with both the scientific and lay community” – Liz Allen, PLoS. Here is the winning entry, cross posted in its entirety: ==================== Einstein was smart, but Could He Play the Violin? I already wrote one entry for PLoS ONE’s second birthday, but I’m feeling sparky today, and I think I like this paper better. I don’t know about you guys, but when I was a sprog, my parents dragged me to music lessons. LOTS of music lessons. As of right now, I have been producing music of some type for the past 21 years straight. And I LOVE it. Of course, I didn’t always love it. I remember my mother dragging me and my brother to lessons, making us sit down every day and practice (I was, and still am, no good with the practicing), and the fear and shakiness of recitals (heck, I still get that, and it’s been 21 years). In her time, Sci has actually “mastered” (it’s a debatable point), three different instruments (‘instruments’ is a loose term), and still uses one of them professionally on occasion. And if you can guess what they are, Sci will…do something cool. Like send you one of her favorite books. Or perhaps a tshirt with a molecule on it. Or perhaps some of her delicious cookies. Obviously, you can only guess if you don’t KNOW already (that means you, Dad). So there you go, contest open. Anyway, years and years of music lessons. But the question is: did they do me any good? Does playing ‘Baby Mozart’ really do anything, and is anything achieved by starting your child on Suzuki when they are 2, other than the pain and misery of your child, and possibly an eventual love of music? Can it, perhaps, make me SMARTER? Forgeard et al. ” Practicing a musical instrument in childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning ” PLoS ONE, 2008. And for the record, Einstein did play the violin. Apparently he was quite good. There actually are several studies out there that show that techniques that you learn can “transfer” to other techniques, giving you a bit of an edge. This works best when you’re performing skills that are very similar to each other (like learning how to estimate the area of a square, and then learning how to estimate the area of a triangle). We know this happens for musicians in the development of fine motor skills. Once you’ve been playing the violin for a while, other things that require fine motor skills will come to you a bit easier (perhaps we should train all would-be surgeons on musical instruments, if you can master playing Rachmaninoff, brain surgery should be a piece of cake). Of course, most of the studies that have been done are correlational in nature. Kids who play musical instruments have better motor skills. This could be due to the music, or the kids could play music because they have good motor skills. Good motor skills could be a development of things like the higher socio-economic class that often goes along with being taught music as a child, and thus parents are maybe able to put more effort to their development. The possibilities go on. Correlation is NOT causation. The same thing goes for the correlation between musical learning and IQ. There was a modest correlation, but it could be just the effect of the extra lessons the kids were receiving, resulting in more time spent on focused attention and mastering a skill. Significant correlations have also been shown for music and verbal and language skills. Music lessons have been found to be correlated with increases in reading ability and phonetic comprehension. This actually leads me to a question: if language, reading, and phonetic comprehension are related to the pitch and tone of words, do children who are tone deaf have a harder time mastering reading and verbal skills? I think this might warrant a future PubMed search. Unfortunately, all the previous tests tended to focus on the “transfer” of skills to not very related fields, like IQ. So in this study, the authors wanted to look at the effects of music learning on “near” transfers, skill closely related to music training: spatial reasoning, verbal abilities, nonverbal, and mathematical. They also looked for VERY closely related skills: fine motor control and auditory skill. They grabbed a whole bunch of kids around 8-11 years old. Some played musical instruments, some didn’t (one of the problems with this study to me is that the control group is a good bit small than the instrumental group, 41 musicians vs 18 non). Kids were controlled for the socio-economic class of the parents. Average length of music training was close to five years. They also divided the kids up by whether or not they got Suzuki training, but ended up grouping them together, as Suzuki effects were no different from other instrumentalists. Dang, they didn’t graph their data. Well, I shall fix. Because I can. People should be so grateful I do all their graphing… There you go. So, as you can see from the graph (the pretty, pretty graph), musical kids scored a lot better on fine motor skills for left and right hand (the first two sets of bars). This is pretty expected, if you’re using fine motor skills a lot, presumably you’ll get better at them. The musical kids also did better when distinguishing tones and following melody lines, though interestingly, they didn’t show any improvements in rhythm. I wonder if this has anything to do with the kids of music the kids were studying. There wasn’t a single drummer in the bunch, it was all either piano or stringed instruments. And finally, the kids with musical training scored a lot better (I know it doesn’t look like it, but the MANCOVA analysis uncovered a difference) on vocabulary testing. They outperformed their non-musical counterparts in both verbal ability (vocabulary) and non-verbal reasoning skills. They didn’t find any differences in math or spatial reasoning. The authors hypothesize that music training may transfer skills to some other related domains. The other hypothesis is that music training doesn’t enhance a specific skill set, but rather your general intellectual ability. This would mean they would score higher on every test given. In fact, they DID score higher, but most of the time the scores didn’t reach significance. Still, remember this is correlation, not causation. Families were of similar socio-ecoomic class and education, but that doesn’t mean they are all similar parents. Kids who take music lessons may have parents that are more involved in their intellectual development. Kids that persist in taking music lessons for a good chunk of time may have superior motivation. Correlation =/= causation. But it’s still a cool paper, and no matter what, it’s quite clear that music lessons didn’t HURT. Time to tape your poor child to the piano bench! Marie Forgeard, Ellen Winner, Andrea Norton, Gottfried Schlaug (2008). Practicing a Musical Instrument in Childhood is Associated with Enhanced Verbal Ability and Nonverbal Reasoning PLoS ONE, 3 (10) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003566 Read the comments on this post…

Read the original here:
Einstein was smart, but Could He Play the Violin? – the winner of the synchroblogging contest [A Blog Around The Clock]

Einstein was smart, but Could He Play the Violin? [Neurotopia (version 2.0)]

December 18, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

I already wrote one entry for PLoS ONE’s second birthday, but I’m feeling sparky today, and I think I like this paper better. I don’t know about you guys, but when I was a sprog, my parents dragged me to music lessons. LOTS of music lessons. As of right now, I have been producing music of some type for the past 21 years straight. And I LOVE it. Of course, I didn’t always love it. I remember my mother dragging me and my brother to lessons, making us sit down every day and practice (I was, and still am, no good with the practicing), and the fear and shakiness of recitals (heck, I still get that, and it’s been 21 years). In her time, Sci has actually “mastered” (it’s a debatable point), three different instruments (‘instruments’ is a loose term), and still uses one of them professionally on occasion. And if you can guess what they are, Sci will…do something cool. Like send you one of her favorite books. Or perhaps a tshirt with a molecule on it. Or perhaps some of her delicious cookies. Obviously, you can only guess if you don’t KNOW already (that means you, Dad). So there you go, contest open. Anyway, years and years of music lessons. But the question is: did they do me any good? Does playing ‘Baby Mozart’ really do anything, and is anything achieved by starting your child on Suzuki when they are 2, other than the pain and misery of your child, and possibly an eventual love of music? Can it, perhaps, make me SMARTER? Forgeard et al. “Practicing a musical instrument in childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning” PLoS ONE, 2008. And for the record, Einstein did play the violin. Apparently he was quite good. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Go here to read the rest:
Einstein was smart, but Could He Play the Violin? [Neurotopia (version 2.0)]

Why Do We Yawn? [Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)]

December 17, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

tags: yawning , thermoregulation , budgerigars , Melopsittacus undulatus , animal behavior Yawning human, Homo sapiens serving as a perch for a domestic budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus . Image: Wendy (Creative Commons License). Yawning. Everybody does it. In fact, I am yawning now as I write this piece. Yawning is interpreted to have a variety of meanings, ranging from tiredness to boredom. Perhaps more interesting is the fact that yawning is contagious among humans, at least: watching someone else yawn, seeing a photograph or reading about — and even the mere thought of — yawning is enough to induce this behavior in observers. (Tell me: have you yawned yet?) Even though yawning is very common, the physiological and evolutionary reasons for yawning behavior are poorly understood. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

View original post here:
Why Do We Yawn? [Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)]

Is it sexist to think men are angrier than women? [Cognitive Daily]

December 17, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Earlier today we asked readers to imagine an angry face. Then, in a surprise poll , we asked what gender the face was. So far our results match those of a study led by D. Vaughn Becker: over three-fourths of the responses were “male.” In the published study, there was no difference in the response based the respondent’s gender. Both men and women are much more likely to think of a male “angry” face than a female one. If we’d asked you to picture a happy face instead of an angry face, the results would switch almost as dramatically in the opposite direction: Most people say happy faces are female, although in this case, the effect is entirely due to male respondents. Women’s responses are evenly divided male-female. But the researchers weren’t just interested in imagined faces. What they really wanted to know is if there’s a gender bias in recognizing facial expressions. Are we more likely to perceive a male face as angry and a female face as happy? Are we quicker and better at recognizing angry faces in men compared to women? If we are, does this mean we’re sexist? Thirty-eight volunteers sat at computer monitors, which showed pictures of men and women with either angry or happy faces. The task was to indicate, as quickly as possible, whether the faces were happy or angry. Here are the results: Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Excerpt from:
Is it sexist to think men are angrier than women? [Cognitive Daily]

Avatar of Cognitive Daily

by Vaughan

Grounding the helicopter parents

November 24, 2008 in Blogs, Mind Hacks by Vaughan

The New Yorker has an extended review and discussion of various new books critical of the increasing trend for parents to be overinvolved in their children’s lives owing to the trend for ‘intelligence boosting’ products and activities. It’s a nicely balanced article that highlights some of the worst trends in ‘overparenting’ while also pointing out some of the flaws with the recent wave of criticism. To get some perspective, look at “Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood” (2004), by Steven Mintz, a professor of history at Columbia. Mintz’s story begins with the beginning of the United States, and therefore he describes children with troubles greater than overparenting: boys dispatched to coal mines, and girls to textile mills, at age nine or ten. As for the current outbreak of worry over the young, Mintz reminds us that America has seen such panics before—for example, in the nineteen-fifties, with the outcry over hot rods, teen sex, and rock and roll. The fifties even had its own campaign against overparenting, or overmothering—Momism, as it was called. This was thought to turn boys into homosexuals. For the past three decades, Mintz writes, discussions of child-rearing in the United States have been dominated by a “discourse of crisis,” and yet America’s youth are now, on average, “bigger, richer, better educated, and healthier than at any other time in history.” There have been some losses. Middle-class white boys from the suburbs have fallen behind their predecessors, but middle-class girls and minority children are far better off. Mintz thinks that we worry too much, or about the wrong things. Despite general prosperity—at least until recently—the percentage of poor children in America is greater today than it was thirty years ago. One in six children lives below the poverty line. If you want an emergency, Mintz says, there’s one Over-involvement is certainly a risk, however, and this can be seen even in the very beginning of infancy. One of the key skills psychologists talk about in early life is the ability to self-soothe – in other words, learning to independently manage discomfort and strong emotions. This begins when babies are getting into sleep routines in the months after being born. There is a temptation to attend to the baby and soothe it as soon as it cries but this can have the opposite effect and the child actually sleeps worse because they don’t have the opportunity to learn to settle themselves. A recent large study helped to confirm this and found that parents that encouraged independence and self-soothing by not attending to their baby at every cry reported that their child had extended and more consolidated sleep. Link to New Yorker ‘The Child Trap’ article.

See original here: 
Grounding the helicopter parents

Avatar of Cognitive Daily

by Vaughan

Making Sense of Bastards

November 23, 2008 in Blogs, Mind Hacks by Vaughan

A 2005 article from business psychology journal Organization Studies discusses the psychology of being a bastard. It has a serious point, but is just hilarious for the contrast between the academic language and the subject matter. The serious point behind the article, written by psychologist David Sims , is to look at how people in business organisations make narratives or stories about someone being a ‘bastard’ to demonize them and persuade others of the fact. This can be to discount someone else opinion, undermine their status, or to create a dragon against which they can valiantly fight for their own glory. However, because of the subject matter, it’s frequently funny as it analyses the varied types of company bastards as they’re constructed within organisations. Just some of the section headings are pure genius: Narrative 1: Clever Bastard Narrative 2: Bastard ex Machina Narrative 3: Devious Bastard A Narrative Understanding of Bastards Making Sense of Bastards Link to ‘You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations’ (thanks Olwyn!). Link to DOI entry for same.

View original post here:
Making Sense of Bastards

Maggie’s Law

November 13, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Quiz with bonus essay: Of the following situations, which poses the greatest danger for a motor vehicle accident (MVA)? Bonus essay: Explain your answer. A. A 35 year old, 180 lb, man consumes six beers over four hours at a party and drives home. B. A 27 year old medical intern drives home after working a 36 hour shift in which she got no sleep. C. Both A and B are equally dangerous. D. Neither A nor B poses any increased danger of a MVA. As it turns out the answer is most likely: B. For a rough estimate, a 180 lb man consuming six beers over a four hour period would have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of approximately 0.07%, below the legal limit of 0.08% for driving while intoxicated in the United States. This is not to say it would be safe to drive with this level of alcohol as it would result in impairment of cognitive functioning and most definitely is not advised. (Please note that there are a number of BAC calculators on the internet which take into consideration different factors such as weight and sex that may affect BAC and often given different results for apparently similar input data. While they may give some useful idea about the impact of a given amount of alcohol consumed they are inexact and the best advice is: Do Not Drink and Drive. Period.) Somewhat surprisingly, however, a number of studies have shown that the loss of more than 24 consecutive hours of sleep (not uncommon in certain work situations where people have, for example, overnight shifts) can result in a level of cognitive impairment in judgment and reaction time equal to a 0.1% BAC, well above the legal limit. Each day many health care professionals drive home after a night of conducting sleep studies or working in an emergency room and may have gone this long without sleep. Even more frightening is the possibility of a chronically sleep deprived individual drinking and then driving so that overall impairment is even greater. Sleep deprivation results in impairment of cognitive ability and causes significant risk of making mistakes when driving or engaging in potentially dangerous activity. For example, several major industrial accidents in the recent past were associated with sleep deprived workers including the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster. Drowsy driving is not a small problem. Nearly 1% of the driving population admits to having had a drowsy driving related MVA and over 50% of drivers admit to having driven at some point while drowsy. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that every year there are approximately 100,000 MVAs related to drowsy driving with 76,000 injuries and 1500 deaths as a result. When considering the number of truck drivers, police officers, health care providers, military personnel, astronauts and other professionals potentially working under conditions of significant sleep deprivation it is clear that there is a considerable risk of serious accidents and deaths because of lack of sleep. You do not want your pilot to be falling asleep as you are landing at a busy airport. Many people suffer from undiagnosed sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea that can cause daytime drowsiness. There are millions of commercial drivers in the United States and many of them may be driving without adequate sleep or may have sleep disorders that can impair their ability to drive. You do not want your child’s bus driver falling asleep while driving the bus because she does not know that she has sleep apnea with daytime drowsiness and is having " microsleeps " without her knowledge. A bus can cover a great deal of distance during a 3 to 10 second microsleep. There are a number of ways in which anyone can become sleep deprived. Sleep deprivation may be acute, for example, getting no sleep in the previous 24 hours or chronic as when someone regularly gets less than an adequate amount of sleep. After 16 hours of continuous wakefulness performance begins to decline. If adults get less than 5 hours of sleep per night the drive to sleep greatly increases and cognitive functioning declines. An individual with a BAC of 0.07% will have impaired judgment, reasoning ability and memory. He or she will be unable to accurately judge the state of intoxication so as to make an appropriate judgment about the ability to drive. As noted above, a person who has 24 hours of sleep deprivation can have the same level of impaired judgment and delayed reaction time as a person with a BAC of 0.1%. A significant debate in the sleep medicine field relates to what the appropriate approach should be to this public health problem. One approach is to outlaw driving while sleepy and treat it as a criminal offense in the same way as driving while intoxicated. This has been tried in one state with limited results. Other options involve the use of education, screening (e.g. for sleep apnea in truck drivers) and technology to help alert drivers to the fact that they are too impaired to drive. For example, the relatively "low tech" method of providing rumble strips on highways has already shown evidence of effectively reducing the frequency of drowsy driving accidents. More complex technology may be useful in the future such as measuring brain waves or eyes movements for evidence of drowsiness. The question arises: Would people want such relatively invasive technology incorporated into their cars? To date New Jersey is the only state to outlaw a specific type of driving while sleepy. This is known as Maggie’s law and was enacted following an incident on July 27, 1997 when Maggie McDonnell, a college student, was killed in an automobile accident when struck by a van driven by someone who had not slept in 30 hours and had also smoked crack cocaine. The van driver fell asleep at the wheel at the time of the accident. This led to 2 trials and resulted in the driver of the van being given a $200 fine and a suspended jail sentence as driver fatigue could not be considered as a factor by the juries. Maggie’s mother, Carole McDonnell, could not believe that this degree of irresponsible behavior had led to such a minimal punishment. She campaigned to pass a law to help prevent motor vehicle accidents due to drowsy driving. Maggie’s law was eventually passed in 2003 and allows for a significant prison sentence for driving while fatigued which is defined as being without sleep for more than 24 consecutive hours prior to the accident. Of note, in the first two years after its passage only one person was prosecuted for driving while fatigued. This did result in a conviction in 2004 for vehicular homicide with a five year prison sentence. Several other states have considered similar laws but enforcement is difficult as there is no current test to prove conclusively that someone is sleep deprived. This is unlike the situation with alcohol where accurate measures of BAC do exist and are readily available. A number of difficult questions are raised by efforts to pass laws such as Maggie’s law. If such laws are passed around the country would they help and how would they be enforced? Should someone with undiagnosed sleep apnea resulting in unrecognized drowsy driving be treated in the same way as someone who knowingly drove after a prolonged time without sleep? Is 24 hours without sleep an adequate measure of when someone is too fatigued to drive? Should hospitals provide time and space for health care professionals to nap before driving home after all night shifts? And so on. This obviously is a complex issue and one that presents significant challenges to finding a workable solution. What do you think? Should we as a nation specifically make drowsy driving illegal with serious penalties on the same order as driving while intoxicated or is it better to use other approaches such as better education, more police training and innovative technology to prevent drowsy driving? Let me know.

View original here: 
Maggie’s Law

Aut lupus, aut deus [Evolving Thoughts]

November 12, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

So wrote the renaissance humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam: Man is to man either a god or a wolf. Here , courtesy of Leiter , is an article in The Telegraph , in which philosopher Mark Rowlands describes his life with a wolf, and how he ended up learning, as he puts it, how to be a human from the wolf. Few animals are as similar in their social behaviour to humans as wolves. The domesticated dog is subordinated to human breeding goals, but the wild wolf is itself – a pack animal with dominance psychology, capable of identifying intentions in other agents, of exploring, teaching and playing. And by evolutionary convergence, it is like humans in many respects. Not identical, of course; we have a lot of cognitive and psychological faculties wolves and their kin do not, but the similarity is what enabled us to domesticate them in the first place, and arguably they domesticated us back. For a canine in human care, the human social unit, whether a family, a police squad, or a farm, is its pack. Like Lorenz’s ducklings that imprinted on him at birth, we take cubs as soon as we can and imprint them on us. And they behave in ways we find agreeable in our social context… mostly. I once knew a family in which one of two spoiled wirehaired terriers killed a six month baby. The story was tragic and old – the dog, seeing the deference the baby was receiving from the rest of the family, challenged it the way a wolf would – by biting. Being a baby, the child was killed. [The idiot media and the moron who headed the local RSPCA blamed the parents and accused them of hiding their murder by making it look like the dog did it. I have hated the media ever since I spent six months trying to counsel two teenage half-sibs of that baby in my youth group from committing suicide. The parents belatedly won a lawsuit and a half-arsed apology on page 45.] Evolutionarily, canines are some distance from us. Inferences of their behaviour based on our motivations are misleading. They are similar but not the same , and we must always remember that. We have more direct insight into a chimp’s behaviour than into a dog’s, and even less into a cat’s. We might be more familiar with them, but that is a matter of happenstance. Their similarity is based on a limited convergence of social structure, nothing more. Read the comments on this post…

Here is the original:
Aut lupus, aut deus [Evolving Thoughts]