Right off the bat, the title struck me as odd:

Dare you protest against God? Perspectives from a CWRU psychology study

From this atheist's perspective, it seems the question is something of a schizophrenic one. Because 'God' exists in the mind -- at least by an semi-stringent scientific standards we must conclude that -- the question is really about protesting against an imagined entity. Which is kinda crazy.

But sure, from another perspective, we can see the study as an investigation of types of belief and the cognitive response to internal dissonance between ideas.

The survey finding -

The researchers discovered if a person views God as cruel, then protest toward God is seen as more acceptable.

But when people see God as a kind and loving authority figure, then protest seems less acceptable. "In this case, protest could appear disrespectful to a good and fair leader," says Exline.

A couple things. First, isn't this a bit obvious? From a social standpoint, protesting against a loving parenting or village elder or some other authority figure certainly makes less sense than protesting against a cruel one.

Second, the description seems to reflect a focus on the individual removed from his/her social groups. My guess is that there is an integral cultural component to the issue. People don't pull their beliefs about a god out of a magic hat. They generally acquire them from others. Also, one's religious social group likely also influences beliefs about what type of relationship with this god is normative and/or expected.

Finally, as you might expect, my larger issue is reflected in the lead sentence:

Is it OK to protest God's actions—or inactions?

Ah . . . What god? Is this a precisely defined variable? Not only does the sentence assume the existence of a god, but also that this god performs actions, or at least can.

Really?!

In the least, scientists should quit perpetuating the idea that "God" is a neatly circumscribed variable. Why not "a god," "your/their god".... I know, it's more work. But science is work.

Isn't it possible that what the finding basically tells us is that whether or not a person thinks it's okay to protest against their god depends in part on what type of god a person believes? And right here we are back to my major issue. What type of god. Different types of 'god' does not equate to one GOD. Not in my book.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

Does living at home breed violence?

Say what?!

"Home" belongs in the same category as Mom, apple pie and baseball, doesn't it?

New research suggests the benevolence of living at home with parents . . . depends. It depends upon the sex and age of the individual.

The news release to the study bore this title: Young men living at home with parents are more violent. Okay, they've discovered a correlation, but is the link between variables causal or inertly predictive or something else?

Here's the data the correlation consists of -

Professor Jeremy Coid and Dr Ming Yang surveyed over 8000 men and women. Participants answered questions about violent behaviour over the past 5 years and mental health problems.

Their results showed for the first time that staying in the parental home is a stronger risk factor for young men's violence than any other factor.

A "risk factor." What's a risk factor? Good question.

Is living at home the equivalent of a young, adult male's non-religious madrasah? Here is how Coid interprets/explains his finding:

"And these [violent/antisocial behaviors] are more common among young men who do not have responsibilities of providing their own accommodation, supporting dependent children, or experiencing beneficial effects on their behaviour from living with a female partner.

"Young men who live at home are also more likely to receive financial support from their parents than in the past when the pattern was reversed. However, in this study their earnings or benefits were the same as those who had left home and taken on greater social responsibility. They therefore had more disposable income which may have partly explained why they had more problems with alcohol."

So living at home may not be a malevolent social influence as much as it provides a haven for individuals needing a more constructive social environment and role within it.

But we cannot be as confident of the explanatory layer to this finding as we can the data it is based upon. And frankly, the data itself is not all that solid.

An interesting finding; a thought provoking conjecture. I await further research.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

An issue I frequently harp on is that of language use. While precision with instruments is essential to good measurement, precision with language is crucial to defining variables, crafting hypotheses, and developing theories. Unfortunately, when it comes to educating the public about scientific findings, many writers "sexy" things up by playing fast and loose with words. Other times the problem may consist of a lack of good words to describe the phenomena in question.

When a writer lacks a good, tight-fitting word, he or she doesn't just leave a void in the sentence. They work with what they've got. "Sorry, we don't have this word in a size 9, we'll have to go with an 11 and add some fill." The more responsible and scientific thing to then do is to "add some fill," to explain how the word doesn't quite fit, and in doing so, outlining and better filling the void.

Case in point -- an article from ScienceDaily bearing this title: Scientists Show Bacteria Can 'Learn' And Plan Ahead.

Okay, we've got half-quotes around learn. So the bacteria don't learn as we customarily think of learning. What about plan ahead? Can bacterial truly do that as we do? Or is more explanation needed?

In the article we find many loose-fitting words in need of further explanation.

Bacteria can anticipate a future event and prepare for it, according to new research at the Weizmann Institute of Science.

How do they anticipate? What do they do to prepare? Explanatory paragraphs further confuse as much as they clarify:

Their findings show that these microorganisms' genetic networks are hard-wired to 'foresee' what comes next in the sequence of events and begin responding to the new state of affairs before its onset.

Foresee? Respond?

the scientists found that when the wine yeast feel the heat, they begin activating genes for dealing with the stresses of the next stage.

Feel? Activating?

After reading the article more closely a second time, I have a better understanding of the research, and the meaning of the words used to describe it. I may be wrong, for this is not my area of specialty, but the underlying science seems to be about a type of epigenetic change in bacteria.

What does epigenetic mean? Good question. The Wikipedia entry is quite clear on the matter. It fills the shoe of that term nicely.

In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.

Notice how the loose-fitting behave was tightened parenthetically? That is good science writing. And let's end with the good.

1. Why We Kick a Loser When He's Down.

FromWinning Makes People More Aggressive Toward the Defeated we learn,

A new study found that winners -- those who outperformed others on a competitive task -- acted more aggressively against the people they beat than the losers did against the victors.

"It seems that people have a tendency to stomp down on those they have defeated, to really rub it in," said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.

Hmm. To "really rub it in"? To me, the above reasoning runs hollow, if not off-track. In the animal world, after a heated battle, the dominant doesn't merely require the defeated to "cry uncle" and then the two walk away arm-in-arm as buddies who have just played a game of darts. In the animal kingdom, the dominant never lets up nor lets its guard down just after a heated battle. To do so would be . . . stupid. Status is serious business.

And for a loser to act aggressively toward to the victor . . . no, no, no, that is plain stupid. Unless of course you hold some sort of Freudian perspective in which emotional retaliation makes sense above all else. The stupidity holds true particularly if the loser and the victor are from the same social group, and wish to remain so. Instead, the loser needs to behave as if he or she has indeed lost and recognizes it. Otherwise, the loser risks continued aggression if not banishment from the group. Sure, at some other other time the loser my attempt to rise again. But to risk not only status but even group membership itself after a loss is a huge risk . . . to a social species.

The research authors note that,

. . . other research suggests that people are more aggressive when they feel powerful, as they may when they win a competition.

And that that I reply, "of course!" It would be insane for a 'loser' to act more aggressively after evidence that they are a weaker. In a sense, to aggress is to attempt to move up (or protect one's one position). To do this post-loss is not so smart. After a victory, well, maybe you are that strong!

2. Why the Spiritual Realm is "Up."

In my Almighty Alpha book-in-project I wrote a post, "Why Godliness is Up." In it I explored this question:

Could a hominid feel reverent about a deity beneath its feet? Or is something underfoot too easy to dominate, too easy to put under one’s heel and perhaps snuff out?

Why is the spiritual realm generally considered to be above our heads? Because we love the blue sky and twinkling stars? I don't think so. We tend to project the abode of "something greater" in the same direction as the verified geometrical relationship between the average lower-level manager and the corporate CEO. As much research into human behavior has shown, if you are tall, people instinctively view you as somehow greater.

In the clichéd version of a plebe meeting a spiritual guru, the guru sits tranquilly atop a mountain while the plebe struggles to ascend to that level. Whether or not the guru is a material entity or an imagined force. And so I found it curious that the science article,Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, made no mention of that relationship -- the "moving up means encountering the more powerful" element. Instead I read,

Prolonged stay at high altitudes, especially in social deprivation, may also lead to prefrontal lobe dysfunctions such as low resistance to stress and loss of inhibition. Based on these phenomenological, functional, and neural findings we suggest that exposure to altitudes might contribute to the induction of revelation experiences and might further our understanding of the mountain metaphor in religion.

Sure, slight oxygen deprivation might do funny things to the brain. But why climb the mountain in the first place? My answer: to move up. To brush elbows with the greats. To "hear them," and to elevate one's opinions in the eyes of those who have never ascended that high.

Maybe.

Perhaps I've just been reading too much about chimpanzee behavior. And thinking that were I covered with fur, I might look at a gorilla and think, "Oh look, there goes my distant cousin!"

1. Why We Kick a Loser When He's Down.

FromWinning Makes People More Aggressive Toward the Defeated we learn,

A new study found that winners -- those who outperformed others on a competitive task -- acted more aggressively against the people they beat than the losers did against the victors.

"It seems that people have a tendency to stomp down on those they have defeated, to really rub it in," said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.

Hmm. To "really rub it in"? To me, the above reasoning runs hollow, if not off-track. In the animal world, after a heated battle, the dominant doesn't merely require the defeated to "cry uncle" and then the two walk away arm-in-arm as buddies who have just played a game of darts. In the animal kingdom, the dominant never lets up nor lets its guard down just after a heated battle. To do so would be . . . stupid. Status is serious business.

And for a loser to act aggressively toward to the victor . . . no, no, no, that is plain stupid. Unless of course you hold some sort of Freudian perspective in which emotional retaliation makes sense above all else. The stupidity holds true particularly if the loser and the victor are from the same social group, and wish to remain so. Instead, the loser needs to behave as if he or she has indeed lost and recognizes it. Otherwise, the loser risks continued aggression if not banishment from the group. Sure, at some other other time the loser my attempt to rise again. But to risk not only status but even group membership itself after a loss is a huge risk . . . to a social species.

The research authors note that,

. . . other research suggests that people are more aggressive when they feel powerful, as they may when they win a competition.

And that that I reply, "of course!" It would be insane for a 'loser' to act more aggressively after evidence that they are a weaker. In a sense, to aggress is to attempt to move up (or protect one's one position). To do this post-loss is not so smart. After a victory, well, maybe you are that strong!

2. Why the Spiritual Realm is "Up."

In my Almighty Alpha book-in-project I wrote a post, "Why Godliness is Up." In it I explored this question:

Could a hominid feel reverent about a deity beneath its feet? Or is something underfoot too easy to dominate, too easy to put under one’s heel and perhaps snuff out?

Why is the spiritual realm generally considered to be above our heads? Because we love the blue sky and twinkling stars? I don't think so. We tend to project the abode of "something greater" in the same direction as the verified geometrical relationship between the average lower-level manager and the corporate CEO. As much research into human behavior has shown, if you are tall, people instinctively view you as somehow greater.

In the clichéd version of a plebe meeting a spiritual guru, the guru sits tranquilly atop a mountain while the plebe struggles to ascend to that level. Whether or not the guru is a material entity or an imagined force. And so I found it curious that the science article,Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, made no mention of that relationship -- the "moving up means encountering the more powerful" element. Instead I read,

Prolonged stay at high altitudes, especially in social deprivation, may also lead to prefrontal lobe dysfunctions such as low resistance to stress and loss of inhibition. Based on these phenomenological, functional, and neural findings we suggest that exposure to altitudes might contribute to the induction of revelation experiences and might further our understanding of the mountain metaphor in religion.

Sure, slight oxygen deprivation might do funny things to the brain. But why climb the mountain in the first place? My answer: to move up. To brush elbows with the greats. To "hear them," and to elevate one's opinions in the eyes of those who have never ascended that high.

Maybe.

Perhaps I've just been reading too much about chimpanzee behavior. And thinking that were I covered with fur, I might look at a gorilla and think, "Oh look, there goes my distant cousin!"