Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

Encephalon 54 is coming home

September 15, 2008 in Blogs by Vaughan

The 54th edition of the Encephalon psychology and neuroscience writing carnival has just arrived, this fortnight hosted by its originator at the Neurophilosophy blog. A couple of my favourites include an article by Neuronism on how IBM’s ‘Blue Brain’ large scale neural simulator is showing 40hz gamma band oscillations (oh my God – it’s becoming conscious . To the bunkers!), and another from The Neurocritic on how viewing beautiful artwork reduces the perception of pain. The Neurocritic piece also finishes on the fantastic line “Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, it modulates pain-related activity in the anterior cingulate cortex”. There’s plenty more news, new material and discussion from the last two weeks in mind and brain science, so do check it out. Link to Encephalon 54 .

Read more: 
Encephalon 54 is coming home

Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

Songs of Couch and Consultation

September 15, 2008 in Blogs by Vaughan

“Songs of Couch and Consultation” is a 1961 novelty album of songs about the psychiatric profession by folksinger Katie Lee (who, according to Utah Philips , went on to become an environmental activist and one of the founders of EarthFirst! ). The songs are reported to be in dubious taste, but you can hear a sample of three here , including MP3s of “Will to fail” (“I secretly am enjoying myself / while slowly i’m destroying myself”!) and the marvellous big band feeling of “Repressed Hostility Blues”. link Cover art of Katie Lee’s “Songs of Couch and Consultation”. link WFMU blog post on the album, including MP3s.

Continued here: 
Songs of Couch and Consultation

Barbie: Manufactured by Mattel, designed by evolution I

September 15, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Why do men like blonde bombshells (and why do women want to look like them)? It is commonly believed by social scientists and lay public alike that the media impose arbitrary images of ideal female beauty on girls and women in our society, and force them to aspire to these artificial and arbitrary standards.  Nothing could be further from the truth. According to this claim, girls and women want to look like supermodels or actresses or pop idols because they are bombarded with images of these women.  By implication, according to this view, girls and women will cease to want to look like them if the media would cease inundating them with such images, or else change the arbitrary standards of female beauty.  This view has been promoted, among many others, by the former model turned feminist social activist Jean Kilbourne in her documentary film series Killing Us Softly . Apparently, Kilbourne and other feminists believe that girls and women are mindless robots who would do and think anything that advertising agents tell them to.  To claim that girls and women want to look like blonde bombshells because of billboards, movies, TV shows, music videos, and magazine advertisements makes as little sense as to claim that people become hungry because they are bombarded with images of food in the media.  If only the media would stop inundating people with images of food, they would never be hungry! Anyone can see the absurdity of this argument.  We become hungry periodically because we have physiological and psychological mechanisms that compel us to seek and consume food.  And we have these innate mechanisms because they solve an important adaptive problem of survival.  Our ancestors (long before they were humans or even mammals) who somehow did not become hungry for food did not survive long enough to leave offspring who carried their genes.  We would of course become hungry just as much even if all the commercials about food disappeared today.  The advertisements are the consequences of our tendency to become hungry, not the causes.  They exploit our innate needs for food but do not create them. The same is true with the ideal of female beauty.  Two pieces of evidence should suffice to refute the claim that images in the media, and “culture” in general, force girls and women to desire to look like blonde bombshells.  First, women were dyeing their hair blonde more than half a millennium, possibly two millennia, ago, when there were no TV, movies, and magazines (although there were portraits, and it is due to these portraits that we know today that women were dyeing their hair blonde in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Italy).  Women’s desire to be blonde preceded the media by centuries, if not millennia. Second, a recent study shows that women in Iran, where they are generally not exposed to Western media and culture, and thus would not know Jessica Simpson from Roseanne Barr, and where most women wear the traditional hijab that loosely covers their entire body so as to make it impossible to tell what shape it is, are actually more concerned with their body image and want to lose more weight than their American counterparts in the land of Vogue and the Barbie doll.  Traditional social sciences, which ascribe the preferences and desires of women entirely to socialization by the media, would have difficulty explaining how Italian women in the fifteenth century and Iranian women today both aspire to and pursue the same ideal image of female beauty as do women in contemporary Western societies. Why, then, do women want to look like blonde bombshells?  Evolutionary psychology suggests that it is because men want to mate with women who look like them.  Women’s desire to look like them is a direct, realistic, and sensible response to this desire of men.  This simply leads to another question:  Why do men want to mate with women who look like them?  Because women who look like them have higher reproductive value and fertility and attain greater reproductive success on average.  There is nothing arbitrary about the image of ideal female beauty; it has been precisely and carefully calculated by millions of years of evolution by sexual selection.  Men today want to mate with women who look like blonde bombshells, and, as a result, women want to look like them, because our ancestral men who did not want to mate with women who looked like them did not leave as many offspring as those who did. Let’s take a closer look at exactly what I mean by “blonde bombshells.”  Note, first, that there has been a long line of blonde bombshells in the Western media:  Pamela Anderson, Jordan, Madonna, Brigitte Bardot, Jayne Mansfield, all the way back to the iconic Marilyn Monroe and even further back in history.  And there are numerous contemporary examples as well:  Jessica Simpson, Cameron Diaz, Scarlett Johansson, among many others.  Readers from non-Western societies can suitably substitute representatives of female beauty from their own cultures.  I do not know who they are, but I can nonetheless be confident that they share many of the features with their Western counterparts. What are these features?  In the next several posts, I will isolate and discuss in turn the key features that define the image of ideal female beauty.  These are youth, long hair, small waist, large breasts, blonde hair, blue eyes, and large eyes.  There is evolutionary logic behind each one.

Continued here:
Barbie: Manufactured by Mattel, designed by evolution I

Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

A history of the history of madness

September 14, 2008 in Blogs by Vaughan

Madness and Civilization was a hugely influential book by the French post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucault and is often cited as a key ‘anti-psychiatry’ text owing to its claim that the modern concept of madness was an Enlightenment idea developed to allow the confinement of people that others in society found unacceptable. What I wasn’t aware of is that Madness and Civilization is actually a cut-down translation of the original French text where most of the references to source material remained untranslated. A full translation, renamed with its correct title History of Madness , was released last year and was given a damning review in The Times by medical historian Andrew Scull who derided Foucault’s “isolation from the world of facts and scholarship”. Actually, Foucault’s major claim that 17th Europe undertook the “great confinement” of the mad through the building of asylums has been debunked before. The much-missed medical historian Roy Porter pointed out that France was the only country in Europe to centralise its administration of services for the ‘pauper madman’ while other countries didn’t typically have any legislation in place until the 19th century. I was also interested in Scull’s debunking of the myth that visitors could pay to view the patients of London’s ‘ Bedlam ‘ Hospital: Foucault alleges, for example, that the 1815–16 House of Commons inquiry into the state of England’s madhouses revealed that Bedlam (Bethlem) placed its inmates on public display every Sunday, and charged a penny a time for the privilege of viewing them to some 96,000 sightseers a year. In reality, the reports of the inquiry contain no such claims. This is not surprising: public visitation (which had not been confined to Sundays in any event) had been banned by Bethlem Royal Hospital’s governors in 1770, and even before then the tales of a fixed admission fee turn out to be apocryphal. I looked this up in Russell’s Scenes From Bedlam (ISBN 1873853394) that confirms the ban on visitation in 1770, but does make reference to paying visitors, although it gives the impression that the arrangement was much more ad-hoc than is commonly assumed and casts doubt on the huge figures Foucault quotes. Unfortunately, it doesn’t reference any historical documents on the matter, and neither does any other book I have, so I’ll have to do further investigation. However, this is just one point among many where Scull notes that with the benefit of the fully translated version, we can see that Foucault’s research is just not up to scratch and doesn’t support his major historical claims. But it’s probably worth saying that Foucault’s other major idea, that madness is not a fixed entity but is defined as much socially and politically as in medical terms is still as valid today. Particularly in an era where we are increasingly medicalising what we previously considered unfortunate but non-medical problems and stresses. Link to Times article ‘The fictions of Foucault’s scholarship’.

More: 
A history of the history of madness

Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

PSYOP merchandise

September 13, 2008 in Mind Hacks by Vaughan

I’ve just noticed that various US Military Psychological Operations (PSYOP) units have created their own online merchandise, so you can buy t-shirts, mugs and even teddy bears branded with unit insignia. In fact, the teddy bear picture here seems to be emblazoned with the insignia of 346th PSYOP Airborne Company . Perhaps the most impressive online store has been created by 5th PSYOP Battalion who have created their own custom products and images. For those wanting something a bit more official looking, one online store has the patches for virtually every US PSYOP battalion. In fact, CafePress seems to have a large number of PSYOP related merchandise although it’s obviously a mixture of military memorabilia and civilian creations who just want to use PSYOP images for its hipster value. On the more disturbing end of the scale, t-shirts with the slogan “PSYOP: Because Physical Wounds Heal” seem to be regularly featured on EBay. There’s also quite a few PSYOP promotional videos on YouTube, including this slightly clunky film that has a hint of 80s corporate video about it. Gotta dig that music.

See the original post: 
PSYOP merchandise

The bloodier the game, the more hostile the gamer

September 11, 2008 in Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

One big problem with many of the studies of video game violence is that they compare different games. Sure, people might behave more aggressively after playing Carmaggeddon instead of Tetris — they’re completely different games! What would be more impressive is if we could simply remove some of the violence from a game and see if the violence itself — rather than, say, the game’s storyline — is what’s actually the root of the aggressive behavior. Fortunately, the standard settings of Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance allowed a team led by Christopher Barlett to do just that. They had avid gamers play Mortal Kombat on a Playstation 2 using one of four levels of bloodiness, from Maximum (where combatants not only bled profusely, but the blood pooled on the ground and could be realistically tracked around the combat arena when players stepped in it) to None (where even a brutal hit with a sword or other weapon would cause no bleeding). Before and after the gaming session, players’ hostile thoughts and feelings were measured with a survey, and heart rate was taken at several points to measure arousal. Here are the results: As the game got bloodier, hostility levels after playing the game, especially compared to pre-game hostility, were significantly higher. The results for arousal were less clear-cut, but similar: Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Excerpt from: 
The bloodier the game, the more hostile the gamer

Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

Taking responsibility

September 10, 2008 in Mind Hacks by Vaughan

Cato Unbound has a thought-provoking essay arguing that we need to radically re-think our relationship to psychoactive substances of all kinds to encourage informed responsible drug use rather than relying on the impossibility of prohibition to protect society. The piece is by the founders of the Erowid drugs information and experience exchange site, who have been at the forefront of promoting education and information as the basis of responsible drug use. “Know your body. Know your mind. Know your substance. Know your source.” One of Erowid’s earliest slogans, this directive encourages people to pay close attention to multiple aspects of their psychoactive substance use. These include understanding the individuality of response; avoiding drugs contraindicated because of health issues; learning enough about each substance to avoid unexpected effects and overdoses; and choosing both substance and information sources carefully in order to reduce risks. While these principles may seem obvious, they are seldom taught in contemporary drug education. Alcohol is a good case to study, as its use is accepted in our culture and is not illegal for those over 21. Yet healthy and pragmatic drinking practices are seldom taught by parents, schools, or the government. By the time young adults reach the legal drinking age in the United States the vast majority of them have already consumed alcohol. In 2006, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the average age at which Americans first tried alcohol was 16.5, with only one in ten waiting until they were legally of age to drink.[14] And they haven’t just had a sip; nearly 40% of 20-year-olds have gotten drunk in the last month.[15] The opportunity to teach responsible use of alcohol—the most commonly consumed and arguably one of the most dangerous strong psychoactives[16]—is missed. The situation is much worse for controlled substances. Teaching responsible, intentional use to young people does not require giving detailed instructions on how to use illegal psychoactives. The general principles can be taught through education about prescribed medications, alcohol, or other legal drugs. There are many practical lessons about how to safely and responsibly use psychoactives, whether learned from personal subjective experience, research, or the hard-won wisdom of others. They make the important point that this applies to all drugs, illicit, commercial, medical, natural and artificial – from aspirin to angel dust. Link to ‘Towards a Culture of Responsible Psychoactive Drug Use’.

Read the original:
Taking responsibility

The New York Times Gets It Wrong Again

September 9, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

An article on gender differences in yesterday’s New York Times starts with the following unfortunate generalization: "When men and women take personality tests, some of the old Mars-Venus stereotypes keep reappearing. On average, women are more cooperative, nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive. Men tend to be more competitive, assertive, reckless and emotionally flat." To bolster its 1950s reasoning, the Times pulls out the tired old example of Title IX. While Title IX has totally leveled the playing field in high school and college athletics for more than a generation, the Times reminds us that male runners still "train harder and are more motivated by competition." It’s interesting how the Times uses athletics as its frame of reference–where males have dominated since the time of the ancient Olympics and women were forbidden to watch the games. The Times seems to have forgotten that competitiveness doesn’t need to roar loudly or have an athletic supporter attached. For an area where young women are out-competing and humiliating young men, we don’t need to look much farther than the female-to-male ratios on our college campuses. It used to be that outside of places like Vassar and Sarah Lawrence, there were far more male than female students. Today, the opposite is true. In some colleges, women now outnumber men by 3-to-2 or more. Now how did that happen if, as the Times tells us, men are the more competitive gender? As for the Times’ saying that women are "more nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive," perhaps it should read what some of its own columnists have been saying about Sarah Palin.

Read the original here:
The New York Times Gets It Wrong Again

Mal de Media, or Why the Media is Pushing Me Into Wrist-Cutting Mode?

September 9, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Mal de Media or Why the Media is Pushing Me Into Wrist-Cutting Mode? I am depressed. I am frightened. I think Obama may lose because taking the high road may end up being the road back to his seat in the senate. I’m not the only one who is worried. Virtually all my friends, my social network, are seeing whispering, muttering ravens everywhere and are sure they’re hearing owls calling out the name Obama as they perch on branches over the river Styx. We’ve watched with ulcerated astonishment as the likes of Rove, Schmidt, and Palin have removed the stake from the Republican corpse which we were told might be dead for a decade or two, and reanimated it in a brief span of two weeks. The bad news seemed inescapable. I was at a museum opening a few days ago, enjoying myself, luxuriating in my break from a news tracking, poll tracking, pundit chattering cable-mainlining jag, immersing myself in an exhibition of 19th and 20th century presidential election memorabilia (distance in time is distance from grief). While reading some presidential election trivia (shortest U.S. President, 5’4" James Madison), a usually chipper friend came up to talk about the election and how gloomy he was. Another friend came up to us, as if drawn by a morbid magnet, and poured out her world weariness and election pessimism. We traded aghasts for a few minutes and then concluded that if the Democrats lose this election, the Democratic Party is through, especially as the party leaders are flat out too incompetent to run a presidential campaign against the Republicans or do what has to be done in congress. It won’t be called the Bull Moose II Party for sure, not after Sarah Palin, but it won’t sure won’t be the Democratic Party anymore either. As they walked away, nodding and shaking their heads at the same time I realized that I was depressed again. My museum escape route ended up being the river walk in The Blair Witch Project . I was back where I started. Then, last night, I watched Keith Olbermann to see how he would handle being demoted by MSNBC, taken off the presidential debate panel of questioners because of how he, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and others handled coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions. Truthfully, it wasn’t a pretty picture, their convention performances, what with squabbling, name calling, snideness, snarkyness, petulance, you name it. It reminded me of the now-classic William F. Buckley-Gore Vidal debate debacle during the 1968 election. But Olbermann — and Matthews — were replaced on Sunday in part because the Republican Party complained about their partisanship. Are you kidding me?! The party of Fox News complaining about partisanship…well, yeah, I guess so, why wouldn’t they? That’s what they do. With straight faces. Last night, though, Olbermann acted as though nothing of the sort happened. It was business as usual. Demoted. Me? I have no idea…. Then he began his touted interview with Barack Obama. Like my friends and I, Keith seemed distressed about the high road commitment Obama’s campaign has taken while his poll numbers drop and he’s getting body slammed and beaten like a piñata by the likes of Sarah P. while the McCain-Palin campaign managers are saying this election is not going to be about issues but about personalities. And they’re doing it. And they seem to be succeeding. Ya gotta love these guys. Keith kept asking Obama if he’s going to change strategy and hit harder and Obama kept saying, in effect, no; not in so few words, mind you, but "no" nonetheless. Americans are too smart to be fooled by the same ole, same ole 2 X4 approach to campaigning of the Rove-Schmidt axis of evil he didn’t say as such, but implied. Well, readers, I think Obama is out of his #$$% mind. As are his strategists. Where’s the evidence that the public is too smart to be fooled, taken in? 2000?, 2004? Vote for the guy you would want to have beer with? Who’s like you? Former Nebraska Republican Senator, Roman Hruska, must be laughing in his populist grave. Rachel Maddow’s debut show followed Olbermann. She was also upset about how the poll numbers are going and how maybe, for her too, it’s enough with the high road, the nuanced discussion of the issues. People who get it already have it; those who don’t, won’t. Former Democratic N.Y. State governor, Mario Cuomo, a wise, wise, eloquent man, said that you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose. Sorry sir, not against the Republicans, not if you want the chance to govern in prose. But what Maddow and Olberman kept and keep doing, which keeps REALLY ANNOYING ME, is laughing derisively at the Republican candidates and the Republican gambits and stratagems and game plans. Meanwhile, the Republicans are picking the Democrats’ pockets and sticking KICK ME signs on the backs of their jackets. I found myself mentally screaming at the TV, at Rachel and Keith: Wake up, for god’s sake!!! These guys deserve respect for discovering how to win; win dirty, yes, win ugly, yes, win sometimes criminally in terms of vote suppression, yes. Respect the enemy for their tactical skills at winning battles AND wars. Then, suddenly, I was mentally screaming at Obama: fight them like Burt Lancaster’s Elmer Gantry promised to fight the devil. Deride them no more. You make fun and they beat you black and blue. All the while the American electorate keeps sitting on a well-crafted screw. Most modern Republican Party leaders since Nixon seem to feel the ends justify the means, even if the means destroy the gasping ends, a once proud nation now merely a house divided. Democrats must not do the same thing. But they do need to know their enemy for what he is, what he is willing to do, and what the American voter seems willing to believe. Obama’s campaign must fight them with truth, and, as necessary, make them down and dirty truths, not utter only noble truths. This is not now the age of nobility. It may be again someday but now it’s a time to fight with tools befitting the stakes-our nation’s soul. In these times, it is whether you win or lose, not how you play the game. But will, (can?, will?, what’s the word?) the Democrats make the switch? I turned off the TV after feeling sick over Keith and Rachel. Found it hard to sleep. Mind kept racing, stomach kept churning, teeth kept gnashing. Then, like old what’s his name discovering gravity, it hit me! (once again) — I was making myself sick. I was talking to my friends too much. Watching the news shows too much. Reading the paper too much. Prophesying too much. I was ODing on bad news and bad ruminations; trying to read by the light of a bad moon rising. Being up on the news is a good thing. But, can there be too much of a good thing? Yes. (continued tomorrow)

Read more here:
Mal de Media, or Why the Media is Pushing Me Into Wrist-Cutting Mode?

Avatar of Vaughan

by Vaughan

On the sweltering summers of the soul

September 8, 2008 in Mind Hacks by Vaughan

September’s New York Review of Books has an extended piece by Oliver Sacks where he reviews Hurry Down Sunshine , a memoir of a parent’s experience of seeing their daughter spiral into mania and psychosis. In typical Sacks style it is more than just a book review, as it takes us through the history of manic-depression and discusses its the various literary treatments over the years. I always thought manic-depression was a much better name for what is now diagnosed as bipolar disorder, precisely for the reason Sacks states in his review – that ‘bipolar’ suggests a kind of emotional see-saw, where you’re either up or down, where in reality, mixed emotional states occur in a significant minority of people with mood disorders. Only one thing about the article made me roll my eyes (OK, two if you count the minor quibble that psychologist Kay Redfield Jamison is misdescribed as a psychiatrist). Sacks says that “Mania is a biological condition that feels like a psychological one” and suggests it is due to “chemical imbalance in the brain”. Of course, mania is both a biological and psychological condition (as we think with our brains, how could it not be?) and the references to a ‘chemical imbalance’ is a misleading oversimplification. Otherwise, it’s as clear and engaging a piece as you’d expect from one of our best writers on the mind, brain and human condition. Link to Sacks’ NYRB review ‘A Summer of Madness’ (via MeFi ). Link to more information on Hurry Down Sunshine .

Go here to see the original:
On the sweltering summers of the soul