Of course. Eating a piece of pie will alter your brain, at least in the short term. Some areas will become more or less active, other areas may undergo an increase in the circulating amount of “yum, pie” neurochemicals. (Or maybe decrease because they have all bound to their receptors, resulting in dessert euphoria.)

But what about in the longer term? Exciting new experimental results suggest “maybe.” Although the news release title does not include that word.

Violent video games alter brain function in young men

Why “exciting”? For a few reasons: the issue is controversial; the research data is fairly strong, being generated by an experiment; there is a potential that I could have my previous high-doubt position corrected.

Yang Wang, lead presenter of the paper at the 2011 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the RSNA (Radiological Society of North America), concluded -

“For the first time, we have found that a sample of randomly assigned young adults showed less activation in certain frontal brain regions following a week of playing violent video games at home.”

Interesting.

As for the good of this study: random assignment to experimental and control groups, with a measure of brain changes done relatively objectively (fmri).

The not-so-good–maybe even the “terribly flawed”–is this: It seems the control group was not given a placebo-like task. Oh-oh. They simply didn’t play the games. The consequence is that we can’t really conclude it was the violence in the video games that caused the brain changes. Can we? I would have liked to see the control group play highly-competitive word games. Or something. If that had been done, I think Yang would have been more justified in making this claim:

“These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning.”

An additional criticism might be the use of “long-term.” In this case, long term was “a week.” Significantly, “the video game group refrained from game play for an additional week,” resulting in “the changes to the executive regions of the brain returned closer to the control group.”

Is that truly long-term, or merely long-ish term?

It seems this smoking gun may have had some dry ice inserted into its barrel.

A deity is frequently turned to when a person knows the values and rules of their social group, but needs some assistance on the follow through. He or she seeks encouragement to take the high road. In 12-step programs, drug addicts surrender to a “higher power.” And it may help. A bit. If people believe there is some invisible alpha watching their every move, perhaps they are more likely to stay in line. A god, in this facility, props up their super-ego to the point it becomes a super-duper ego, capable of turning down a drink even while away on a business trip.

The personal-advisor sort of great alpha is an omni-present, invisible chaperone who keeps a person from violating the standards that one part of their brain would like them to obey. Other parts of their brain may have different mandates.

Can this ghostly presence people perceive as a background agent in their lives tip the scale and influence behavior? My guess: sometimes. For some people, maybe a lot; for others, a little; for many, not at all. But that is only an educated guess. I prefer not to base beliefs and conclusions upon guesses.

Those who engage in undesirable behavior naturally become frustrated. Why can’t their body follow their thoughts? The body, the carnal self, is thus their adversary. Which is the origin of the term Satan. Adversary. So there you have it, the body is evil. It tempts us to transgress our marriage vows. It makes us get angry at others. It forces us to crave water when we are thirsty, and sleep when we are tired. Bad body.

My point: bodily urges can be good as well as problematic. Condemning the body and engaging in self-flagellation, verbal or otherwise, doesn’t strike me as smart, or pragmatically advisable. To use psychiatrist-speak, the ongoing battle between the superego–the inner judge–and the id–the inner gorilla–causes people unending angst. Help! And so they ask, What would Jesus do? Keep that question in mind 24-7, and you’ll have that gorilla on a very short leash. Unless it is provoked beyond the control of a flimsy string of self-talk.

If we could only listen to our hearts we would hear the quiet voice of a god telling us what to do. Or so believers insist. But that damn inner monkey makes such a racket. And he’s always there, hulking in the corner. Say your prayers, sing songs, read the Bible. Whatever you do, stay away from bananas.

I certainly don’t advocate caving to all physical urges. I just think that the key to behaving well is more complex than religion proclaims.

Supernatural explanations are incredibly simplistic next to the tangled, causal chains that operate in the natural world. In this regard, one could understand why an intellectual simpleton (relatively speaking) would prefer supernatural explanations. Yes, there are many reasons people believe–including the cognitive convenience of ready answers when dealing with frustrating issues. In terms of our “baser instincts,” why not paint the whole matter black-and-white, with bodily urges representing temptation and earthly sin, and moral teachings the high road, the pull of heaven and a god?

Why not? Beyond the questionable efficacy that comes with applying it, the belief perpetuates an antiquated view of the what and how of human behavior.

The paper title outright implies a causal relationship between happiness and crime. It reads, “Get Happy! Positive Emotion, Depression and Juvenile Crime.” The news release gets more explicit in the words it uses -

Happiness can deter crime, a new study finds

If happiness can deter crime, it must then causally influence it. How was this determined? What data was the conclusion based upon? Hold onto your veils, it ain’t pretty.

The authors used 1995 and 1996 data from nearly 15,000 seventh- to ninth-grade students in the federally funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the largest, most comprehensive survey of adolescents ever undertaken.

They found that about 29 percent of the youth surveyed reported having committed at least one criminal offense, and 18 percent said that they had used at least one illegal drug. The researchers then correlated these reports with self-assessments of emotional well-being. [all emphases added]

The researchers correlated them. How, then, did they get to the causal part? Co-authors Bill McCarthy and Teresa Casey are quoted as saying,

We hypothesize that the benefits of happiness — from strong bonds with others, a positive self-image and the development of socially valued cognitive and behavioral skills — reinforce a decision-making approach that is informed by positive emotions.

So the study finding, at least as advertised, is a hypothesis? Isn’t it possible that happiness and crime are correlated, but not causally? It seems possible to me, for instance, that “strong bonds with others, a positive self-image and the development of socially valued cognitive and behavioral skills” might both increase personal happiness and decrease the likelihood of involvement in criminal behavior.

Mind you, I do find it likely that happy people are less inclined to commit crime. Maybe. I haven’t seen actual stats on the matter. But I don’t think this study alone makes a strong case for it.

Psychology is a complex field. Social psychology, even more complex. Read and interpret with caution.

For the fun of it, I invite all readers to make a guess.

In a finding I would file under the heading, “evidence that psychology is a lot less simple than the assertions of pop psychology maintain,” we have this:

Study: Popular kids — but not the most popular — more likely to torment peers

While experts often view aggressive behavior as a maladjusted reaction typical of social outcasts, a new study in the February issue of the American Sociological Review finds that it’s actually popular adolescents—but not the most popular ones—who are particularly likely to torment their peers….

[T]hose students in the top 2% of the school social hierarchy—along with those at the bottom—are the least aggressive.

Interesting. Of course, this is just one study. Yet I think it is clear from this and other studies that we can’t explain away bullying by painting it as an affliction of the sadly maladapted, as a misguided attempt to restore or achieve a better social standing and/or to fulfill previously unmet emotional needs.

It is more complicated than that.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

The book series and website, “Darwin Awards,” came out a number of years ago. Their moto:

Honoring those who improve the species…by accidentally removing themselves from it!

At the site and in the books you will read of individuals like this one:

(Winter 1995, Michigan) During the ski season at Sugarloaf Resort, a new lift operator was assigned to work the bottom of Lift 2. He was greatly impressed by the bull wheel that turned slowly above his head. The giant spokes on the wheel were impossible to resist. He grabbed onto a spoke and did a few pull-ups while the wheel turned.

After entertaining himself in this manner for a while, he decided to try this trick on the outer rim of the wheel. His timing was off. He did not drop down in time. Caught between the wheel and the lift cable, he was sliced in twain during this fateful final trip around the bull wheel. [emphasis added]

Personally, when I read anecdotes like the above, I’m not so much inclined to think What an idiot; did he have no common sense! Instead, I recall the times in my more impulsive youth that I came close to becoming a statistic myself.  One example: Skiing much waaaaaay too fast down a slope and coming over a rise to find a boy sprawled out on the snow directly in front of me. The last-second evasive action I took sent me tumbling into a snow fence. Fortunately, I busted only a fence rail and the lens to my goggles — not my body. What was I thinking . . . skiing so fast I severely limited my control!

I wasn’t thinking.

Nonetheless, there may actually be a link between IQ and accident-proneness. Robust frontal lobes — mature ones — may indeed help a person avoid winning a Darwin Award.

As the news release, High IQ Linked To Reduced Risk Of Death discloses,

a lower IQ was strongly associated with a higher risk of death from causes such as accidents, coronary heart disease and suicide.

Of course, a variable such as IQ score is difficult to tease apart from others including education, employment, and lifestyle factors like access to good healthcare. And the researchers did attempt to do that:

The researchers studied data from one million Swedish men conscripted to the army at the age of 18. After they had taken into account whether a person had grown up in a safer, more affluent environment, they found that only education had an influence on the relationship between IQ and death.

The researchers say the link between IQ and mortality could be partially attributed to the healthier behaviours displayed by those who score higher on IQ tests.

But I did read something in the study that made me doubt: a half-truth (as far as I know).

Previous studies have suggested that preschool education programmes and better nourishment can raise IQ scores.

Yes, significant differences in nutrition can have a long-term influence on brain development and IQ. But the research I’ve seen on preschool education programs and IQ suggest that the increase is short-term. The raised IQ tends to fall back down a few years after the enrichment program ends. Long term gains are likely sustained by . . . a changed lifestyle that includes greater cognitive stimulation.

It seems there are few easy answers. Besides avoiding the temptation to do pull-ups on a spinning chair lift wheel.