[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.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Video games = bad. Right? Wrong. Why? Because it is a hasty answer to a bogus questions: Are video games good or bad?
Critical thinkers will examine and critique a question before answering it. Video games–which video games? Good or bad–in what ways? And, importantly–good OR bad? Is this black/white thinking helpful?
While the vast majority of research into video games has focused on the violent type and how they might influence human beings to be more aggressive/violent, there have been a few studies on other types of video games having a more beneficial affect on behavior. But there are a few. A new one has just been published in the June 2009 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. And the science behind it seems relatively solid.
The article presents the findings of three separate studies, conducted in different countries with different age groups, and using different scientific approaches. All the studies find that playing games with prosocial content causes players to be more helpful to others after the game is over.
Co-author Brad Bushman said,
These studies show the same kind of impact on three different age groups from three very different cultures.
Good. I like that. But then I think Brad got a bit carried away with this statement,
The resulting triangulation of evidence provides the strongest possible proof that the findings are both valid and generalizable.
Boy do I hate the word “proof.” Fine, use it in mathematics. But for forensics and psychology and virtually all of science, I find the term inappropriate. Proof has too much certitude and finality infused into it. Evidence is better.
That said, we can now see how the question, “Are video games good or bad?” is a bogus question, particularly if we expect a brief answer.
-
[source] University of Michigan (2009, June 18). Some Video Games Can Make Children Kinder And More Likely To Help. ScienceDaily.
Just as alcohol comes in different strengths, so too does science. On one end of the spectrum you’ve got shots of pure vodka, on the other you have some hyper-fruity concoctions with only a slight hint of rum.
Mind you, sometimes you’ve got to start with the fruity stuff. Maybe often. You then progressively distill out the impurities and up the strength. Scientifically speaking.
A recent study on home births and midwifes struck me as quite fruity. Allow me to highlight the chunks of pineapple and candied cherries.
First, the title: Midwives Use Rituals to Send Message That Women’s Bodies Know Best.
“Rituals” . . . fine. But it depends what they are. Might be a legit variable. Yet a ritual isn’t good by default, simply because we like the word.
Then, “women’s bodies know best”? That strikes me as pandering and at least partially mistaken. It implies always. There is plenty of research showing people don’t really know their bodies well, nor are they skilled at interpreting what their body is ‘saying.’ Sometimes, sure. Maybe what the midwives are doing is giving the women greater confidence to . . . trust and accept the incredibly dynamic changes their bodies go through during childbirth. To relax (relatively).
Next we have a paragraph that has a cloying taste, to me — one that manifests bias.
The midwife experience uses these rituals to send the message that home birth is about female empowerment, strengthening relationships between family and friends, and facilitating participatory experiences that put mothers in control, with the ultimate goal of safe and healthy deliveries less focused on technological intervention.
Um, technology isn’t bad, nor is empowerment always good. These are mere words and we really have to get into the nitty-gritty to evaluate any goodness or badness.
Data source alert: in-depth interviews with midwifes and their clients. That’s bottom-shelf, low-proof brew. Even when you add the ‘in-depth’ umbrella.
What strikes me as most cautionary and likely telling about the quality of the science conducted — and the questionable intellectual diligence of the scientist — is the use of jargon. The use of terms that are less scientific, more political. They are aimed at persuading by way of their first-sniff attractiveness or repulsion. Empowerment, rituals, participatory, mind-body connection, family, home . . . how can you not root for those? Technology, hospital, medicalized, equipment . . . who could have warm and fuzzy thoughts about something medicalized?
Consider this bit from the news release:
Cheyney also documented the use of common phrases to create birthing mantras. She lists phrases such as “don’t fight it,” “let your body do it,” “open,” and “let it be strong,” as key components to the home birth ritual.
“Don’t fight it” is a . . . mantra? Oy. Another colorful word with questionable substance behind it.
Oregon State University researcher Melissa Cheyney seemed to argue that home births were better than hospital births. And some times for some people, they no doubt are. For other people at other times, probably not.
Finally there is this, at the core of the issue -
Cheyney said evidence shows that hospital births result in about triple the rate of cesarean section for low-risk women compared to midwife-attended home births. Because of her unique role as both a researcher and midwife, Cheyney was able to gain access to hundreds of home births in various parts of the United States, and also witnessed more than 60 hospital births.
This is definitely an important issue. But is the solution to the unnecessarily high rate of cesarean births to instead opt for home births? Does a drawback to hospital births automatically make home births better? Though the two issues overlap, it seems to me that there are a number of things going on. For instance, maybe the more important factor is the profit motive (to avoid insurance claims, maybe, to pad the hospital bill, sadly maybe?) Hospitals don’t like taking risks, so they tend to avoid them. And they do prefer to make money. Midwives lack the same incentive when it comes to risks, but might share the one about protecting their wallets. Is there an element to a turf war to this? I wonder.
Personally, I think home births are great if they can be done safely and you are into that sort of thing. Other times, hospital births are the smarter choice. But the only way to determine when one type of delivery might be better than the other is to do better science.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Many people claim to have an “open mind.” But they fail to expose their open mind to any form of new information. In a practical sense, their open mind stays parked in the driveway. How is that mind functionally different from a closed mind?
A recent article over at ScienceDaily, Americans Choose Media Messages That Agree With Their Views, highlights this problem. Co-author of the study, Silvia Knobloch, said,
“We found that people generally chose media messages that reinforced their own preexisting views.”
It seems that not only to human beings tend to cherry-pick the data to acknowledge, but also the sources of data (if you can call them that) to consult. Both of these fall into the domain of “the confirmation bias:” perhaps the most serious impediment to corrective learning. If you don’t already know, the confirmation bias consists of recognizing and acknowledging information that confirms your belief while ignoring and neglecting information that conflicts with your beliefs.
What is an actively open mind to do? Find sources of information that show a true range of legitimate positions on topics (i.e., not the often bogus single pro-voice placed across from the single con-voice in a “debate” that in actuality is no debate). And for those really tough and important subjects, I believe it is incumbent upon the open mind to put his/her body into drive and seek out potentially disconfirming media and information. It takes effort, and it is not as enjoyable as discovering yet more evidence that you are “right,” but it is an essential practice for minds that are open in more than potential alone.
For a few years I was a member of American Mensa. One of the primary things I discovered about the group, and people with high-IQ in general, is that ‘smart’ people are as capable of others of holding bizarre beliefs. Where they put their smarts to use frequently is in the creativity with which they formulate and defend their beliefs. A second gunman on the grassy knoll? Hell, there may have been a third! It was a real head-shaker.
That experience helped me realize that a major cause of belief in fanciful nonsense is not a lack of smarts, or a lack of applying logic or reasoning. Rather, it is twofold: 1) A failure to adequately consider and weigh the evidence. And reasoning isn’t evidence. 2) A problem of values. Not many people will find value in a ho-hum truth. Or a conclusion of “don’t know yet.” Instead, we gravitate toward those beliefs that are pleasing to us. That compliment our worldview and thus have greater value to us.
A recent study has revealed another way our thinking tends to be be self-serving. In, Creative excuses: Original thinkers more likely to cheat, I read -
Creative people are more likely to cheat than less creative people, possibly because this talent increases their ability to rationalize their actions, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
Bingo. We have a winner. But not really.
Intelligence is not a sterling scalpel capable of performing operations in a vacuum. Rather, thinking is a tool wielded many ways, that is influenced by many things.
Recent Comments