[recycled material - first appeared here]

Three recent, separate studies have illustrated how chemicals and chemical levels can influence thoughts, feelings, behavior: human psychology. In two of the studies, the chemicals were endogenous, or internally produced, in the third, exogenous.

1) Dopamine and pleasure.

The first sentence to the news release tells it:

Enhancing the effects of the brain chemical dopamine influences how people make life choices by affecting expectations of pleasure, according to new research from the UCL Institute of Neurology. [bold added][source]

Drugs that influence dopamine levels in the brain include cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines. Caffeine, too.

2) Carbon dioxide and fear.

Yes, your body creates carbon dioxide. Oxygen comes in through the lungs, carbon dioxide out. Higher levels of carbon dioxide have been found to trigger fear and anxiety.

A new study by University of Iowa researchers shows that carbon dioxide increases brain acidity, which in turn activates a brain protein that plays an important role in fear and anxiety behavior. [source]

Like the above on pleasure, this finding on fear has important mental health implications.

[T]he study team, including first author Adam Ziemann, M.D., Ph.D., found that making brain tissue less acidic (raising brain pH) blunted fear behavior produced by carbon dioxide and reduced learned fear. [bold added]

This is your brain; this is your brain with an altered pH. This is your emotional state and behavior; this is your emotional state and behavior with acidic brain tissue.

3) Phthalates and effeminate play.

Phthalates do not naturally occur in the human body. They are used by industry to soften plastics. When humans are exposed to these the can be absorbed. And when in a mother’s body, the can influence the developing fetus.

Phthalates are also found in vinyl and plastic tubing, household products, and many personal care products such as soaps and lotions. Phthalates are becoming more controversial as scientific research increasingly associates them with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities, and reduced testosterone in babies and adults. [source]

The news release containing the above information reported this very interesting finding:

In Swan’s study, higher concentrations of metabolites of two phthalates, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), were associated with less male-typical behavior in boys on a standard play questionnaire….Girls’ play behavior was not associated with phthalate levels in their mothers, the study concluded.

Phthalates have previously been recognized as anti-androgenic compounds: they act against or disrupt the male hormones. How could the mothers’ exposure to this chemical affect their boys’ style of play?

Swan hypothesized that phthalates may lower fetal testosterone production during a critical window of development – somewhere within eight to 24 weeks gestation, when the testes begin to function – thereby altering brain sexual differentiation. [bold added]

Who knew that studying chemistry in school could aid your understanding of human psychology? We now know better.

A curious aspect of human child abuse is the “cycle of abuse” element. Victims of child abuse are more likely to develop into perpetrators of abuse. For the psychologist of the humanist variety, this doesn’t make sense. You would think that the abused child would have learned from his /her harsh experience and become, in fact, less likely to abuse. Wouldn’t personally experienced sadness and anger make a person more sympathetic?

Psychologists of the psychodynamic persuasion, meanwhile, may explain the cycle dynamic in terms of becoming “stuck” or failing to resolve the hurt. Perhaps they secretly hate their abused self, and they attempt to work it out variously on their own victims.

But hold your horses. Or in this case, birds. Research on seabirds has surprisingly uncovered a similar cycle of abuse.

The new study of Nazca boobies by Wake Forest University researchers provides the first evidence from the animal world showing those who are abused when they are young often grow up to be abusers. The study appears in the October issue of the ornithology journal, The Auk.

“We were surprised by the intense interest that many adults show in unrelated young, involving really rough treatment,” said Wake Forest Professor of Biology Dave Anderson, who led the study with Wake Forest graduate student Martina Müller. “A bird’s history as a target of abuse proved to be a strong predictor of its adult behavior.”

In Nazca boobies, traumatic abuse of developing young significantly increases the chances those maltreated individuals will exhibit the same maltreatment later in life as adults, Müller said.

How do the researchers come to their conclusion? Good question.

The researchers collected data during three breeding seasons documenting which nestlings suffered abuse or neglect, then several years later evaluated their behavior as adults in the same colony. They tracked the birds and identified them using leg bands. [source]

While this skeptic wonders about potential observational bias (was it blinded in any way — such as the observers of the adult birds’ behavior not knowing which had suffered the abuse as nestlings — I consider the finding plausible. Why? Certainly not because the theorizing of Freud is applicable to boobies (sorry). But because I know many species are capable of context-based, observational learning. For instance a human child can learn to read to his/her doll by being read to him/herself. Is that part of what happens in the cycle-of-abuse phenomenon?

Previously I may have chalked some of it up to socioeconomic factors. But that certainly doesn’t apply to birds. I don’t think.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

A news release about a new study on Kava as a treatment for anxiety caught my attention. In it I found some bad and some stupid. Fortunately–and contrary to what usually happens–there was a link to the published article itself, and there I found a bunch of good. Usually I tend to encounter hidden bad when I dig deeper.

First, the bad. Then the good. Finally, the stupid.

The bad. The news release reported that “the placebo-controlled study found Kava to be an effective and safe treatment option for people with chronic anxiety and varying levels of depression.” Beyond that general statement, the report gave zero numbers. No precision with that element of scientific language. “It worked,” is not very helpful in evaluating a treatment.

Also, while the study was deemed “safe,” raising “no major health concerns,” the trial lasted a pathetically brief three weeks. Three weeks!

Upon clicking a link to an abstract from the Springer journal Psychopharmacology, I found the option to view the full text in .pdf. And so I did. And, surprise, surprise! I discovered that the researchers did some very good science.

The good. Besides being placebo-controlled, the trial was randomized and double-blinded. Okay, there were only 37 subjects that completed the trial. Still, it is good to know, and reasons for drop-outs were explicitly stated.

And the treatment was indeed significantly effective. For example, on the primary measure (Hamilton Anxiety Scale: total range of 0 to 56) anxiety scores fell an .8 points in the placebo group and 9.9 points in the Kava group. That indeed rates as “effective.”

Now for the stupid. Statements like this, made by the lead researcher, perpetuate ignorance and folklore:

“We’ve been able to show that Kava offers a natural alternative for the treatment of anxiety, and unlike some pharmaceutical options, has less risk of dependency and less potential of side effects,” Mr. Sarris said.

First, no, Mr. Sarris, you have not shown less risk of dependency and side effects with a single, three-week trial of 37 subjects.

Second, “a natural alternative”? Oh come on. Please. Be a little more scientific and don’t perpetuate stupid misunderstandings. Here is the difference between “natural” and “conventional” medicines: the connotations of words. Natural brings to mind forests and flitting fairies perhaps, conventional conjures up images of laboratories.

Any safe medicine consists of chemicals manufactured or extracted to a concentrated and standardized dose. In terms of this study, the “natural Kava” came in tablets containing 250 mg. kavalactones. Subjects didn’t drink it out of a coconut shell while listening to tribal drumming.

Seen another way, alternative treatment are simply para- and/or pre-conventional. They have yet to be fully tested and distilled to higher potency. And safer form as well, for many raw, alternative treatments contain undesirable chemicals along with the effective ones.

Science done well provides so much good. But yes, along with the good we can find doses of bad and stupid. Maybe some day there will be a way to better extract and concentrate the good, for the good of the general public.

While I think everyone is for treating children with great love and consideration, blaming parents for everything their children becomes and does is mistaken. It relies on a simplistic view of human nature. That blank slate thing. More on more we are realizing that grandparents deserve some of the blame. Great, great, great grandparents, too.

Consider a recent study finding that links a particular gene to the psychological traits of optimism and self-esteem.

The specific link:

The researchers found that people who have either two “A” nucleotides or one “A” and one “G” at this specific location on the oxytocin receptor gene have substantially lower levels of optimism, self-esteem and mastery and significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms than people with two “G” nucleotides.

Who do you blame for a child getting a set of genes that may predispose them to lower levels of self-acceptance and overall happiness? Do you simply chalk it up to a bummer outcome of a round of Darwinian roulette?

Must the cause of one person’s suffering always be pinned on other people?

No, definitely not. But a big part of the solution to suffering will certainly come from other people.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

[This is the 3rd part in a 4-part series. Intro here.]

The concept of the mid-life crises provides a whopper of a belief-net. In the example discussed previously, at least one of the two variables — sugar — can be strictly defined. But both mid-life and crisis are sufficiently abstract as to allow all sorts of data to be caught,
whether it be genuine butterflies, or moths, locusts, sparrows and the occasional twin-engine Cessna. Does mid-life consist of the years between 40 and 60? That’s a lot of years. And what about crisis? What constitutes a crisis? If recently divorced Dave across the street buys a boat that he obviously can’t afford, is this evidence of a crisis?

Armed with the belief in a mid-life crisis, a person can readily notice and acknowledge those instances of mid-life-ish persons behaving in a crisis-ish manner. My own mother, at the age of 55, following three decades of driving a series of station wagons, bought a black, two door Trans-Am. A few relatives may have gossiped about my mother’s otherwise hidden crisis, using this inkblot of unusual behavior as evidence. Someone with graying hair doing something odd — must be going through a mid-life crisis. Meanwhile, opposing cases fail to register. We fail to pronounce, “Hey, there’s a person who is happy and sane during the middle years of their life.”

As for alternative cases, who, after observing Brad, twenty-nine years old and recently divorced, dating a much younger woman and bringing home a boat he obviously can’t afford, is going to reckon, “gee, I guess twenty-somethings have crises as well.”

In mid-life, male and female hormone levels do change. And thoughts about one’s mortality may increase. In fact, it is a normative experience to enter middle adulthood (the years 40 to 65) with two living parents, and to leave with none. So there may be some are good reasoning as to why there could be a mid-life crisis. But how heavily should we weigh “good reasoning.” What does heavier information reveal?

Unfortunately, direct evidence is lacking. No double-blind, placebo-controlled experiments have been performed on the link between mid-life and crises. (I guess psychologists have yet to figure out how to use time travel in the university basement laboratory to project one group of subjects into their own future while the control group stays behind. Or something.) But there does exist fairly strong data, or information, that highlights opposing cases. For example, midlife is actually a time of remarkable stability in personality traits. In one study, Paul Costa, a leader in the field of personality and co-creator of the “Big Five” model, summarized his findings this way: “older Ss were slightly lower in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness.” He added, “There were no differences in personality scores that might be attributable to a mid-life crisis or transition.” (3)

In their review of common mid-life changes, Aldwin and Levenson write, “In contrast to these perspectives on the putative crisis of middle age, surveys routinely find individuals in midlife to have fewer psychological symptoms, higher levels of marital satisfaction, better life satisfaction and mastery, and, in general, to be in fairly good health.” (4)

Human minds could be described as perpetual reason-seekers. We like to attribute behavior, especially unusual behavior, to a cause. “A cause,” as in “a single cause.” Sometimes any old cause will do, as long as it allows us to park a striking observation in the web of our minds. Whether observations, the foundation for building beliefs, are deemed noteworthy can depend upon the beliefs we already hold. The resulting feedback process allows relatively vacuous propositions such as “mid-life is a time of crisis” to persist. Three decades ago Orville highlighted two contradictory aspects of the issue this way: “While the heuristic value of a concept of developmental periods is recognized, it is noted that data do not indicate that mid-life stages form an invariant progression of events.” (5)

Sure, there are potholes in the road through mid-life. But I suspect that early life and late life have their share. Furthermore, those in mid-life who hit one rarely suffer consequences worthy of the term “crisis.”

—
(3) Costa, P. T. 1986. “Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: II. stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness.” Psychology & Aging, 1 (2), 144-149.
(4) 4 Aldwin, C. M. & Levenson, M.R. 2001. “Stress, Coping, and Health at Mid-life: A developmental perspective.” In: Lachman, M. E. (ed.). Handbook of Midlife Development. New York., Wiley, 188-215.
(5) Brim, O. G. 1976. “Theories of the male mid-life crisis.” Counseling Psychologist, 6 (1), 2-9.

[Update: There is now cross-cultural evidence that males are more
likely to become depressed in middle adulthood. Evidence of a "crisis" . . . ? Hmm.]