[recycled material - first appeared here]
Yesterday I listened to a podcast that featured a personal hero of mine, Neil deGrasse Tyson, in which he responded to questions from the audience. Before answering one, he objected to the word "prove" in the question, saying he didn't like that term. Right on! Neither do I. And he explained why he didn't like the word, paralleling something I wrote here roughly a year ago.
Rather than providing proof, scientific findings support hypotheses; they boost our confidence in a theory; they increase the probability that our understanding of how things work is accurate.
To read more of that post, click here: Prove, Shmoove
Want your kids to be more pro-social? Quit building their self-esteem!
That might be one message a person could extract from a recent finding on personality attributes and self-less behavior. In the words of one of the study authors, Wade Rowatt -
"Our discovery here is that the understudied trait of humility predicts helpfulness." [source]
Hmm. Humble people don't generally consider themselves to be awesome. And yet they are more likely to do awesomely good deeds. At least good in terms of the greater good of a group. As for personally awesome deeds, well, you have to turn to American Idol to witness those. (!)
In pain? Distract yourself. In other words, turn your attention away from the unpleasant stimuli. It seems that what we focus on looms larger in our minds (to use everyday vocabulary).
A new study on pain management suggests that both placebos and distraction techniques (watching a movie, gardening . . . ) work to diminish pain sensations in similar ways. Not only that, but based on experimental results, it seems neither technique requires conscious/deliberate thought processes, and when used together they have a greater effect.
Interesting. This finding brings to mind a couple of personal experiences. First, I recall taking a cat to the vet for a vaccine. Just prior to the vet inserting the needle -- likely causing what would be a sharp twinge of pain -- the veterinary assistant began thumping the cat's head with a finger. She explained that it would make the cat notice it less. And the cat did seem to overlook what was going on elsewhere on its body.
Brilliant. I imagine this technique works on two levels. First, it "floods" the brain with other sensations so the needle prick loses its relative amplitude. Second, by tapping on the cat's head in a rhythmic fashion, it may set up the expectation of subsequent taps. And with expectation comes focus.
As for my own experiences with pain, I have found that my biology does not respond to over-the-counter pain killers. Which is a bummer (the technical term). Aspirin, acetaminophen, naproxen . . . I may just as well toss them over my shoulder instead of down my throat. Don't do nothing. But I have found my own semi-effective solution. For those really bad, "it feels like entire universe is splitting-in-two," headaches that can keep me from falling asleep, I have found that applying a Ben-Gay-type "hot" patch to my forehead helps.
Fortunately, no photographic evidence of those instances exists. But it does help. I don't know how to describe it, except to say that the not-pleasant sensation of heat on my forehead somehow drowns out a lot of the pain. Not completely, but enough for me to get some sleep. The brain is a weird thing. Or is it just mine?
Back to pain management and perhaps even mood management as well. The following analogy strikes me as relevant: Envision a floating, sphere-shaped compass. The viewer-window shows "S" for south. Pivot the vehicle and south is still there, but it is no longer in view.
Does consciousness work a little like this?
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Evolution has been, and still sometimes mistakenly is, portrayed as a grand parade to the new, the better, the more complex. But two things, at least, make this flatly untrue.
First, the failures are an undeniable yet indispensable part of the parade. Sure, they tend to be fleeting and thus partly invisible -- joining the parade for a mere half block before veering off to nowhere -- but to overlook them is sheer folly. The numbers, were we to count them, are staggering.
Second, there is no force pushing evolution inextricably toward the bigger and the better. None that seems more than a human projection, in my opinion. Consider this recent science news headline:
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals.
That's right, the male "Y" has been losing size (and hence complexity) over time. It's shrinking. And not due to immersion in cold water.
With evolution, whatever works in one form or another, persists. Whatever doesn't, disappears. Sometimes. If we are talking organisms, that is absolutely true. But non-working (non-functional) characteristics of organisms can persist if there is no cost the selective pressures can subtract. Sometimes.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so don't take my word for it. I also wouldn't advise taking any single thinkers word for anything. I suggest aiming for a deeper education.
Holy smokes, Batman! And by smokes I mean "Lucky Strikes." Check out this heading and subhead to a research finding:
Lifestyles of the old and healthy defy expectations -
Einstein researchers find centenarians just as likely as the rest of population to smoke, drink and pack on pounds. [source]
Damn. That doesn't fit in with our mantra of "you are what you eat" and "you are what you smoke and drink, or don't."
By the way, the Einstein researchers aren't necessarily brilliant. Rather they are affiliated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University.
Okay, this was one study. And the data isn't fantastic. But in some regards, it's not bad either. The researchers interviewed nearly 500 Ashkenazi Jews, living independently and more than 95 years old, about their health and lifestyle. Ashkenazi Jews were chosen as the subject pool both due to their alleged longevity and their relative genetic uniformity. They then compared this to previous information gathered from roughly three thousand cohorts. In brief, this what they found:
Overall, people with exceptional longevity did not have healthier habits than the comparison group in terms of BMI, smoking, physical activity, or diet.
What? Really? Okay, so maybe those really long-lived individuals benefit from good genes. Yet lifestyle might matter more for those with so-so genes. Might.
Recent Comments