Free Will - it's the only choice

You must read this absolutely fantastic article that discusses more of the philosophical quandaries surrounding the debate over free will vs. determinism.

The unified viewpoint of Social Psychology

This article should be read by EVERY psychologist of every discipline as well as every academic authority in every field.

A Double Shock to Liberal Professors

The simple honesty on display by Jonathan Haidt is astounding. Assuming that ANY world-view is simply the "correct" world-view is nothing but a monumental display of arrogance. This goes far beyond "moral relativism" - a standpoint that I disagree with on a fundamental level. This strikes right at the heart of open-mindedness.

He's not asking to ADOPT the viewpoints of others, what he's asking is that you have an open mind and at least listen to and have available as resources others who think differently. Group-think is a recognized effect that is noted for frequent and often disastrous errors. The only way to even begin to avoid group-think is to have access to differing viewpoints.

I cannot say how impressed I am with Dr. Haidt. My hat is off to him and any efforts I can contribute towards his goals will be gladly provided.

A quick departure for my hobby

I'm a photography guy. I love it. I'm still what would be considered an amateur at best , but I'm continually studying and practicing to hone my skill.

Anyhow, I just found a new site called LensHero. It's a site that allows you to compare any lenses you like or you can ask it for suggestions based on your needs.

I just did a search on lenses for my Canon T1i for "Low light situations" and it gave me a report on several lenses from Canon and Sigma in the 20 - 80mm range (all prime lenses) and on Tamaron 60mm lens. It provides a very slick look at some vital stats to let you compare across the range.

It looks terrific as a research tool, but I'd really like to see a little more in two specific areas. First there should be some way of showing recommendations or some kind of rating system. For example, they have both a Canon and a Sigma 50mm lens. The Sigma is more expensive, and I'd like to know if it's worth the extra cost.

Second, I think they're missing a few things that would be nice to know from a lens buying perspective such as: number of elements to the lens (affecting the complexity of the lens) and the number of blades used for the aperture (affecting the bokeh).

But, those two quibbles aside, I think it's a great starting point for your lens purchasing research.

LensHero | DSLR Lenses

Drug Treatment Could Sharpen Adult Brains

Drug Treatment Could Sharpen Adult Brains: "

Tests in mice show potential for reversing the slowdown in learning that comes with puberty

Anyone who's tried to learn a second language knows that the earlier in life you start, the easier it is to learn. Now, a scientist at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center (SUNY) has not only discovered why learning becomes much harder after puberty, but also how to fix it. The SUNY team found that learning difficulty resulted from the proliferation of special chemical receptors during adolescence, and that the stress steroid THP could reverse the problem.

Sheryl Smith, the lead SUNY researcher, first discovered the learning impairment receptors in 2007, but only recently did she link the spread of the receptors during puberty to increased difficulty learning. Smith tested mice on a rotating walkway containing an electrified section of track. Young mice and older mice learned to avoid the electric shock after only one pass. The pubescent mice, however, failed to learn even after multiple passes, shocking themselves again and again.

Later, Smith began providing the mice with THP, a hormone that lowers stress in young and adult mice, but actually increases stress in teenage mice. Surprisingly, the increased stress counteracted the learning disability, allowing the adolescent mice to learn to avoid electrocution much faster.

This research holds significant promise for human teenagers with learning disabilities, but even Smith cautioned that it will be some time before this research can be applied to humans. Of course, considering how stressful high school life can be already, I'm not sure any teens would volunteer.

[New Scientist]

The Case for Teaching Less Math in Schools

Couldn't agree more. We already overload our students with all the testing requirements. Although, that is somewhat cultural - many other countries have much, MUCH stricter and more consequential testing in place.

When Less is More: The Case for Teaching Less Math in Schools | Psychology Today

The Genetics of Temperament

The Brain Rules blog is quite excellent. As are the books.

Brain Rules: The Genetics of Temperament

Study: Video games can hurt schoolwork

Study: Video games can hurt schoolwork: "Parents who fear that buying a video game system will hurt their kids' schoolwork might be right."

'My Brain Made Me Do It'

'My Brain Made Me Do It': "(Prometheus Books) As scientists explore how the brain works, it's likely that new findings will alter our understanding of human nature, particularly free will. Do our decisions arise from purely mechanistic processes? Is our feeling of self-control an illusion created by our brains? What will become of free will and moral responsibility? 'My Brain Made Me Do It: The Rise of Neuroscience and the Threat to Moral Responsibility,' answers these fascinating questions and more."

fMRI becomes big, big science

fMRI becomes big, big science: "There are probably lots of criteria you could use to determine the relative importance of different scientific disciplines, but the one I like best is the Largest Number of Authors on a Paper. Physicists have long had their hundred-authored papers (see for example this individual here; be sure to click on the “show all authors/affiliations” [...]...

Biswal, B., Mennes, M., Zuo, X., Gohel, S., Kelly, C., Smith, S., Beckmann, C., Adelstein, J., Buckner, R., Colcombe, S.... (2010) Toward discovery science of human brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10), 4734-4739. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911855107 Toward discovery science of human brain function

Can going to church change your views of god?

Can going to church change your views of god?: "Christians don't agree on the nature of their god. Their different ideas are many and varied, but one broad way of looking at it is that they tend to believe either in a personal god (one who takes an active, day-to-day interest in people's lives and also intervenes), or an impersonal, distant god (the sort of god who lights the blue touch paper at the moment of creation and then retires to a safe distance).So who believes in what kind of god? Well, that's the topic of a recent paper by Scott Schieman at the University of Toronto (I was going to post on an anxiety study today, but Schieman's paper has recently hit the newswires, and the reports miss what's really the central point of his study).We already know that poor people, the poorly educated, African-Americans, and women - i.e. people with low social status - tend to prefer an active, personal god. That's not too surprising.What Schieman wanted to know was whether belief in a personal god was linked to religious activities. He found that it was, and in an intriguing way.He took data from the Baylor religion survey, and compared individual's socio-economic status (a combination of income and education) and compared it with beliefs in divine involvement and divine control. He did that by creating a statistical model derived from the data, and you can see one of the outputs from that model in this figure.The figure shows how belief in divine involvement varies with socioeconomic status for three different groups: people who go to church weekly, those who go several times a year, and those who never go to church.Look first at the right-hand side of the graph (where the rich people are). It shows what you might expect: people who go Church every week tend to believe in divine involvement, but people who never go to church are less likely to (but they still score fairly high).Now look at people with low status, on the left. All of them have high levels of beliefs in divine involvement - even if they don't go to Church!The effect of that is that, among people who go to church weekly, levels of belief in divine involvement stay high as you move up the socio-economic scale. For people who never go to Church, these beliefs drop away as you progress upwards.Schieman interprets this as evidence that going to church regularly can reinforce belief in divine involvement:My observations ... [contest] the view that SES is uniformly associated with lower levels of belief in divine involvement and control. The finding that high SES individuals tend to report similar levels of divine involvement and control as their low SES peers—when they share high levels of religious involvement—challenges the assertion that higher SES contributes to “demythologized beliefs” processes. In contrast, the results are more consistent with the view that exposure to messages and lessons in religious activities reinforces systems of “religious explanations”— especially doctrine about God’s involvement and causal relevance in everyday life.What he's saying is that the reason high status people don't believe in a personal god is not because their education and wealth persuade them that such beliefs are wrong, but rather because they stop going to church. And when they stop going to church, their beliefs in a personal god are no longer reinforced.He does also acknowledge that causality can work in the other direction (high status people who don't believe in a personal god don't go to church). However, after pondering this one quite a bit, I suspect he's on to something.After all, there are lots of reasons for a low status person to believe in a personal god, even if they don't go to church. That's fairly uncontroversial.But you can well imagine that a high status person might have reasons to go to church, even if they don't believe in a personal god. And yet, those that do go to church regularly do actually believe in a personal god.Could it be that repeated exposure to an environment that promotes a particular ideology actually influences your beliefs, despite all the external factors that work to undermine them? It wouldn't be the first time that had happened!Schieman, S. (2010). Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life Sociology of Religion, 71 (1), 25-51 DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srq004 This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons....

Schieman, S. (2010) Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life. Sociology of Religion, 71(1), 25-51. DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srq004 Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life

Belief in free will is a belief in vitalism

Belief in free will is a belief in vitalism: "Any readers who have checked out my web lectures or podcasts (particularly the "I-Illusion") know how I deal with the topic of free will and determinism. I would recommend that those of you interested in this topic read this excellent open access essay in PNAS by Anthony Cashmore. (Figure 1 is a nice summary of models for the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought.) The abstract and a figure:

It is widely believed, at least in scientific circles, that living systems, including mankind, obey the natural physical laws. However, it is also commonly accepted that man has the capacity to make “free” conscious decisions that do not simply reflect the chemical makeup of the individual at the time of decision—this chemical makeup reflecting both the genetic and environmental history and a degree of stochasticism. Whereas philosophers have discussed for centuries the apparent lack of a causal component for free will, many biologists still seem to be remarkably at ease with this notion of free will; and furthermore, our judicial system is based on such a belief. It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago.



Figure (click to enlarge) - Models for the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought. In A, the commonly accepted model is shown whereby WILL influences conscious thought and, in turn, unconscious neural activity, to direct behavior. The difficulty with this model is that there is no causal component directing WILL. In B, a causal component for WILL is introduced; however WILL now simply reflects unconscious neural activity and GES (genes, environment, and stochasticism). That is, WILL loses its “freedom.” In C, WILL is dispensed with, and conscious thought is simply a reflection of unconscious neural activity and GES. Conscious thought is now primarily a means of following—more than a means of influencing—the direction of behavior by unconscious neural activity. This subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior in model C, is indicated by the dotted arrow 2 (contrasting with the solid line for the corresponding arrow in A and B).

Psychopaths' brains wired to seek rewards, no matter the consequences

Psychopaths' brains wired to seek rewards, no matter the consequences: "The brains of psychopaths appear to be wired to keep seeking a reward at any cost, new research from Vanderbilt University finds. The research uncovers the role of the brain's reward system in psychopathy and opens a new area of study for understanding what drives these individuals."

The Ten Coolest Therapy Interventions, Honorable Mentions & Wrap Up

The Ten Coolest Therapy Interventions, Honorable Mentions & Wrap Up: "

You're cooler just for knowing the coolest interventions in psychotherapy. Here it is, the entire Top Ten list along with a few techniques that almost made it and some concluding thoughts.

Talking and listening are the foundation of therapy, but sometimes therapists shake things up with procedures to focus attention on specific elements of healing. A few weeks ago I introduced a buffet table of psychotherapy techniques: some old favorites in the field as well as newcomers. My goal was to give a sense of what therapy provides beyond mere conversation and illustrate some of the unique ways theory is applied.

Descriptions of our work tend to focus on the various psychological theories we use rather than the techniques. Discussing theory does help explain the ideas that underlie the process, but techniques are how many of these theories are put into practice. I thought the techniques needed a series of their own. Just to keep things interesting, I made this overview a Top Ten list.

I also said in the introduction that ranking therapy interventions was fun, but pretty ridiculous. What some clients find transformative others may regard as worthless bunk. And much to some readers' chagrin, effectiveness outcome research was not part of my criteria. Instead, I chose the list based on five factors: creativity, boldness, compassion, mystery and a cool name. I then found experts for each one to describe its coolness. This was the most fun for me, having experts describe the interventions in their own words. Based on my subjective standards, here are the ten interventions that measure highest on this ambiguous yardstick. (click through to see the full article)

The Ten Coolest Therapy Interventions:

• 10. The Miracle Question - What: One simple question that moves clients toward a solution-focused outcome. Why cool? Immediately shifts the brain toward positive thinking. Guest: Linda Metcalf, author and Solution-Focused Therapy expert.
• 9. The Empty Chair - What: Telling off your demanding boss, even if the chair opposite you is empty. Why cool? Enabled millions of people to practice expressing how they really feel. Guest: Dan Bloom, President of the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy.
• 8. Paradoxical Interventions - What: By prescribing the very symptom you want to eliminate, somehow you gain power and control. Why cool? Insight and progress sneak through the back door. Guest: Cloe Madanes, pioneer of Strategic Family Therapy.
• 7. Voice Dialogue - What: A summit meeting between conflicted parts of self. Why cool? Helps clients understand how complex they are and work toward integration. Guest: Hal and Sidra Stone, founders of the Psychology of the Selves.
• 6. Hunger Illusion - What: Stop yourself before acting on habit and see what comes up. Why cool? Gives powerful insight into the unconscious with no therapist required! Guest: George Weinberg, venerable psychologist and Hunger Illusion creator.
• 5. Head-On Collision - What: ISTDP therapists are essentially resistance exterminators who eliminate harmful defenses. Why cool? It's quick, it's bold, it's hardcore, it's punk rock. Guest: Allan Abbas, leading researcher in ISTDP.
• 4. Sandplay - What: Using your hands, sand and plastic figures to communicate your internal world. Why cool? The psyche becomes a visible, tangible 3-D environment. Guest: Barbara Turner, prominent author and Sandplay therapist.
• 3. Primal Therapy - What: Expressing emotions locked away from consciousness. Why cool? It confronts the deepest wounds to achieve profound results. And John Lennon did it. Guest: Arthur Janov, founder of Primal Therapy.
• 2. Virtual Reality - What: Using a computer-generated environment to help soldiers and others work through emotional trauma. Why cool? Just re-read that last sentence. Guest: Cyber-psychology's bad boy, Skip Rizzo.
• 1. Transference Interpretation - What: Ties together the past, the present and the therapy in one well-crafted statement. Why cool? Patience, understanding and insight collide in one life-changing sentence. Guest: Popular author and psychoanalyst Glen O. Gabbard.

That's it. A survey of some of the most innovative, transformative interventions psychotherapy has to offer. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here are a few others that almost made the cut.

10CTI: Honorable Mentions

• EMDR - Treating thousands of cases of PTSD, one eyeball at a time.
• Equine Therapy - When the couch becomes a saddle for treating eating disorders, mood disorders, autism, even gang violence.
• Here and Now - For some folks, this is the most difficult question ever: 'How are you feeling here with me now?'
• Doubling - This classic group therapy/psychodrama technique involves group members pitching in to help find a voice.
• Hypnosis - The original therapeutic technique has helped millions with such varied issues as smoking, pain management and putting.
• Mindfulness - Everyone's talking about it. Is it fad or fixture?
• Art Therapy - Everything Cathy Malchiodi is saying in her blog series qualifies as cool.

Not every therapist uses specific interventions and not every client wants them. Some clients prefer therapy to be a place where they talk and feel heard by a supportive, insightful person with whom they have a trusting relationship. That's all they need to do productive work. Others are looking for tools that bring quick results or have issues that require a special intervention. It all depends on the client's goals.

As I've said before, these techniques require dozens to thousands of hours of training before therapists can use them ethically and successfully. Beyond accurate implementation, an additional skill is knowing when to use them and when to step back. Sure, I can suggest the empty chair (for example), but am I competent to do so? And is this the time and place for it?

If current clients find some of these techniques appealing I encourage them to discuss it with their therapist. Maybe the therapist has the training and hadn't thought to apply it. Maybe they can get the training or they have an opinion why it's not a good fit. It's also possible for a therapist to refer a client to a specialist in a certain technique (like EMDR). It's all about getting the best treatment for the client.

So that's a wrap. My deep gratitude to all the busy experts who took the time to share their considerable wisdom with the masses. Stay cool.

"

"Why do we believe", and are atheists really more intelligent?

"Why do we believe", and are atheists really more intelligent?: "ResearchBlogging.org editor Dave Munger has written an article for SEED magazine entitled 'Why do we believe'. The article summarizes recent blog entries regarding studies on the origins of religiosity. It's really worth reading to get a good overview of the subject, and what do you know he links my entry on god's will and beliefs in it.

Among the studies that are mentioned is a controversial study entitled 'Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent' (link at the end of this post).

Medical writer Tom Rees devotes his blog Epiphenom to the scientific study of religion. Last week he examined a study on the relationship between intelligence and religious belief. Published in Social Psychology Quarterly, this study by Satoshi Kanazawa replicated the results of several earlier studies in showing that strong religious belief was correlated with lower intelligence. In this case, adolescents who scored higher on intelligence tests were less likely to be religious as adults.

But Rees says Kanazawa’s study goes beyond those earlier studies to arrive at a potential explanation of why less-intelligent people are more religious: Intelligence evolved in order for people to adapt to novel situations.

You should go over to Epiphenom to read a summary of the study as well as my commentary on it, posted as a blog comment. In summary: I don't think it's very good. Kanazawa's evolutionary argument is completely based on some pretty wild conjectures and lacks any sort of empiric support. His argument is at most 'sorta reasonable', but we must do better than that surely. For us real evolutionary researchers that have to spend considerable time and effort gathering a solid line of evidence, this sort of jumping to conclusions can be a tad annoying.

Also, let's remember what kind of forces we're dealing with here, how evolution through natural selection actually acts and what it acts on. Even if we assume first, that intelligence tests do measure some sort of good approximation of intelligence, and second, that results gathered today actually reflect a past situation; what difference do a 'good few' average points make for survival? Any conclusions made from the correlation between higher intelligence, as measured by intelligence tests, and atheism are only significant within a larger evolutionary and functional neurobiological context. So take claims that atheists are more intelligent (on average) with a considerable pinch of salt.

Read more on the subject on Epiphenom, here and here.

Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Social Psychology Quarterly DOI: 10.1177/0190272510361602

Swedish blog tags: Vetenskap, Biologi, Neurovetenskap, Hjärnan, Religion

Technorati tags: Science, Biology, Neuroscience, Brain, Religion...

Kanazawa, S. (2010) Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/0190272510361602 Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

R-rated movies increase likelihood of underage children trying alcohol

R-rated movies increase likelihood of underage children trying alcohol: "(Burness Communications) R-rated movies portray violence and other behaviors deemed inappropriate for children under 17 year of age. A new study finds one more reason why parents should not let their kids watch those movies: adolescents who watch R-rated movies are more likely to try alcohol at a young age."

How to convince anyone of anything

How to convince anyone of anything: "

In a series of posts, called readers choice, I write on whatever topics people submit and vote for. If you dig this idea, let me know if the comments, and submit your ideas and votes.

This topic was requested with a slightly different title: How to make a convincing argument.

Right away it’s good to know most people do not like confrontation. The word argument itself tends to make people think of lawyers or divorce proceedings, unpleasant stressful things. It’s worth going for a more positive and less loaded word: convince. The goal is to persuade, to make them want to agree with you and feel happy, or smart, or right, when they do. This has higher odds of success than bludgeoning them with logic, or trying to pin them into a mental submission hold. If you use your brain power to wrap people’s mind into a pretzel, it’s likely once you turn your back they’ll squirm their way right back out to the shape they had before you got involved. And they’ll likely resent you for twisting them up too.

It’s good to know our species sucks at convincing others and being convinced, or acting on those new ideas. Check out the stories of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Socrates… some of our greatest minds, perhaps our greatest people, tried to convince their followers of some pretty fucking simple ideas (e.g. do not kill, the golden rule), ideas which were often ignored or perverted by their followers in less than a generation. If this crowd couldn’t pull it off with the name of god, the threat of damnation, or the gift enlightenment behind them, the odds for the rest of us can’t be all that great. If you have ideas or a mission, no matter how persuasive you are, most people will not hear you. Most people will not change. The bet is that some will, and that’s enough reward for the effort. Or that your own thinking will sharpen through the process, and that’s valuable too.

The secret behind all the skills of pitching, persuading, selling or inspiring is the individual person you are talking to. There is no magic recipe for convincing large numbers of people of something all at the same time. That’s really hard to do. But if you are only trying to convince one person of something you can learn about them, study their interest and beliefs, and use that knowledge as a foothold for the ideas you want them to support or follow.

If you are in a meeting with 5 other people, identify the most influential people in that room. Those are the people your pitch needs to be aimed at.

The classic mistake people make is focusing on their own pitch. Their points. Their slides. Entirely forgetting who the audience is. This is shooting blind.

Work the opposite way. Understand their goals, their core beliefs, their preferred kind of thinking (data driven, story driven, principle driven, goal driven) – how do they argue for things? How do they convince others to do things? That’s the toolkit to work from. But most people find this boring. They can’t get their egos excited about studying other people, so they don’t. And then they fail. But if you can be generous of mind, and like a method actor put yourself inside their view of the world, you will understand them. And once you understand them you’ll see their perspective on you and your ideas.

I know if I can find a way to connect my idea to something they themselves argue and fight for, my chances improve dramatically. And if I can’t convince them, my studies of how they think, combined with their refutation for my ideas, will teach me something new about their view of things. At a minimum, their counterargument will give me new knowledge that will help me the next time I have to convince them, or someone else, of something. Or it might convince me they are unconvincable, and my time is best spent elsewhere.

I also know that i have to believe in the idea myself and for the right reasons. If I’m not entirely convinced, it’s very hard to naturally convey conviction. But if I can go into a conversation and state, honestly, “I believe so much in this idea I’d bet half this years salary on it” or “If I’m wrong I’ll do all your chores this month”, there is an undeniable power and sincerity whoever is listening will feel. Sometimes this can work as a bluff, but that’s a bad habit to get into.

I think the entire philosophy of user experience design works well for convincing people (Which is ironic as many user experience folks are not very good at convincing people of their ideas). If you deeply understand who you are trying to convince, how their mind works, and why they are in the room listening to you, your ability to position an idea so they understand it, consider it and support it goes way up.

Also see: How to pitch an idea

"

The scientific brain

The scientific brain: "Good science involves formulating a hypothesis and testing whether this hypothesis is compatible with the scientist's observations. Researchers in the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt together with the University of Glasgow have shown that this is what the brain does as well. A study shows that it takes less effort for the brain to register predictable as compared to unpredictable images."

Belief in the Brain

Belief in the Brain: "

Religious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things­--at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, used functional MRI to evaluate brain activity in 15 devout Christians and 15 nonbelievers as the volunteers assessed the truth or falsity of a series of statements, some of which were religious (“angels exist”) and others nonreligious (“Alexander the Great was a very famous military ruler”). They found that when a subject believed a statement--whether it was religious or not--activity appeared in an area called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is an area associated with emotions, rewards and self-representation.

[More]

Ritalin boosts learning by increasing brain plasticity

Ritalin boosts learning by increasing brain plasticity: "Doctors treat millions of children with Ritalin every year to improve their ability to focus on tasks, but scientists now report that Ritalin also directly enhances the speed of learning."

NeuroPop's Ghostly Synth Tunes Take Aim At Your Brain

This is somewhat controversial and not to be confused with the rather stupid brain-altering music you can download to your iPod.

NeuroPop's Ghostly Synth Tunes Take Aim At Your Brain

Remembering Names: Secrets of Memory Experts

Remembering Names: Secrets of Memory Experts: "

When I try, I can learn names quickly and effectively. Even though I don't have a particularly good memory, I've developed skills and tricks: my secrets for learning names.

First, pay attention. If I want to remember someone's name, I make that person the focus of my attention. I look at the person, listen to the person, and ask questions. Focusing on that person, by the way, is a good way to make a positive first impression. I'm not perfect at this. Sometimes when I meet people, their names fly right past me without every slowing down. I turn hoping to find the name, but it has disappeared. This happens because I am thinking about what I want to say, looking for someone else to talk with, or planning what I am going to do next. When the name flies past without registering, I ask the person to repeat it. Then I work to make that person the focus of my attention.

Second, use the name, re-use it, and keep using it. When I meet someone, I use that person's name in my next conversational turn. I don't simply say, 'It's nice to meet you.' Instead I say, 'It's nice to meet you, Helen.' I continue using the name during our conversation. In some conversation turns, I may not say the name, but I think it - rehearsing the name internally. This is my basic trick for learning the names of students who visit me in my office. I start by getting the student's name and then use it throughout the conversation. I always end by thanking the student, by name, for visiting. In even a short conversation, I will use a student's name several times.

Third, associate the name with important features. We are all better remembering features than names (the subject of my previous post: The Baker-baker paradox). Take advantage of what your memory does easily. When I meet people professionally, I use their names with their professional attributes. I ask about their jobs and use their names during that part of the conversation. In social contexts, I use a person's name in association with important personal attributes - common friends, interests, or hobbies. Since these attributes may lead me to encounter people again, associating their name with these features will aid retrieval at the critical moment.

I have seen other writers suggest associating a person's name with a prominent physical feature. For example, if you meet me, you might notice my large nose. Imagining my name written down my prominent nose associates my name with a feature and uses mental imagery. Use the things we remember well, faces and attributes, to help remember names.

Fourth, cheat. I use the best memory aid that has ever been invented. I feel guilty giving away my most important secret: I write names down. Since I know my memory is weak, I rely on external memory aids whenever possible. If I want to remember someone's name, I make a written record after meeting that person. I review my written notes before going to a place where I might encounter that person again. With students in my classes, I use the class roster after class for an additional rehearsal. I look at the roster before I go to class and try to imagine what each student looks like. In addition, my university has class photo rosters on the computer system. I study those photos. If I have a university-wide committee, I review the committee roster just before I attend the meeting. If I attend an off-campus meeting, I review who I will be seeing and look up internet photos if necessary. The written word is a wonderful method of aiding memory - especially if reviewed just before you need the memory. This special secret often makes me appear better at remembering names than I actually am. There's nothing like cheating - or as we cognitive sorts say, using an effective mnemonic device.

In summary, pay attention when you meet someone. Use that person's name immediately and frequently during that first conversation. Associate the name with important personal attributes of the individual - particularly those attributes that will lead to future encounters. Keep written records and use those records prior to times when you know you may encounter individuals again. Finally, no system is foolproof. I admit when I fail and politely ask people to remind me of their names. I've found people respect this and interpret as my sincere interest in learning and remembering their names.

"

Recent research on memory/learning

Recent research on memory/learning: "(Williams College) Are we over estimating remembering and underestimating learning? Current research by Nate Kornell and Robert A. Bjork address this question and was recently published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology."

How reliable are fMRI results?

How reliable are fMRI results?: "

A new study has looked at the reliability of fMRI brain scanning results over time, finding that the same experiment will only only be moderately reproducible when conducted at two different times, suggesting that fMRI is much less reliable than most researchers assume.

The authors of the paper are the same ones who brought us the study showing that it's possible to find 'brain activity' in a dead fish if the analysis is done in a way that is common but prone to false positives.

The paper will shortly appear in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences but they've put a copy online and, although it's a scientific article, it's remarkably easy to read.

They review all the studies to date on what is known as the 'test-retest reliability' of fMRI. This refers to the ability of a measure to give reproducible results.

For example, if you're measuring an adult's height you want to make sure that your tape measure gives you similar results each time you use it on the same person. Of course, you may have readings that vary by a millimetre or two each time, but if you get wildly different results on Monday and Tuesday, you probably want to bin your tape measure.

In fMRI there are two types of results. One is 'where in the brain' and the other is 'how strong' is the activity.

We can examine the first by looking at how well the active brain areas overlap in scans taken at two different times, and we can examine the second by looking at the similarity of the strength of the results using a statistical test like a correlation.

The better the overlap and the statistical relationship between the results from the same test on the same people at different times, the more we can rely on our measurement technique.

This new analysis reviewed all the previous studies that have looked at the test-retest reliability of fMRI and found that overall, active brain areas overlap about 30% of the time and the correlation for the strength of the activity was about 0.5. To get some perspective a result of 1 would indicate perfectly reliable and reproducible results while a result of 0 would indicate no reliability at all.

An overlap of 30% and a correlation result of 0.5 shows fMRI has moderate reliability, but is much poorer than most people assume.

However, this overall result is perhaps a little too broad, and the authors make the point that the reliability varies depending on the type of scanner being used, what test is being carried out by the participants, what brain areas are being investigated and how the results are analysed.

Indeed, a recent study on the test-retest reliability of fMRI studies of the 'reward system' found the reproducibility of the results to be worse than this general figure while another study found an auditory detection task produced better results.

The authors conclude:

One thing is abundantly clear: fMRI is an effective research tool that has opened broad new horizons of investigation to scientists around the world. However, the results from fMRI research may be somewhat less reliable than many researchers implicitly believe. While it may be frustrating to know that fMRI results are not perfectly replicable, it is beneficial to take a longer-term view regarding the scientific impact of these studies. In neuroimaging, as in other scientific fields, errors will be made and some results will not replicate. Still, over time some measure of truth will accrue. This chapter is not intended to be an accusation against fMRI as a method. Quite the contrary, it is meant to increase the understanding of how much each fMRI result can contribute to scientific knowledge.

Link to full text of paper (via @hysell).

"

Teaching self-control skills to children reduces classroom problems

Teaching self-control skills to children reduces classroom problems: "(University of Rochester Medical Center) Children taught skills to monitor and control their anger and other emotions improved their classroom behavior and had significantly fewer school disciplinary referrals and suspensions, according to a study by University of Rochester Medical Center researchers."

Where do atheists come from?

Where do atheists come from?: "Social scientists have long wondered why so many people believe in God. We should ask why the rest don't, say Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant

How Reliable Are Your Memories?

How Reliable Are Your Memories?: "

The article I read examined the issue of repressed memories. Considering the readings for this week, there seems to be a lot of support for the author's theory that many so-called 'repressed' memories recall an incident that may have never, in fact, actually happened. The article summarizes a study done on a mother and her two sons. They were described an event that never actually happened to them as if it was something that they simply didn't remember. Specifically, that one of the sons was lost at the mall and returned to the mother through the kindness of a stranger. While this memory never existed in any of their minds prior to this, because it never happened, they were all able to be fully convinced that the event occured. What I think is most interesting is not simply that they were convinced that it happened, but their minds began to develop additional supporting memories of details. For example, that the man who returned the son to the mother had a beard and was wearing red suspenders. The seeming randomness of these details is fascinating. Furthermore, they all agreed on the same details. What does this mean? Maybe that they all shared, subconciously, memories of a similar man? Where did their minds pull this information from?

Everyone has those disagreements with friends about how a specific story went or how a situation unfolded: who said and did what, with whom, where? Like anyone else, I've been at least somewhat convinced that my memory of the event was incorrect by the intensity of another person who really recalled the event vividly. But like the imaginary bearded man in red suspenders, how accurate are any of these supposedly vivid details?

The author put the study in a more serious context, questioning the validity of the often sexually abusive in nature repressed memories that come up when people undergo psychoanalysis. I'd be interested to see how much more of a push it would have taken to, as the author suggests, convince the mother and her two sons that while the son was in custody of the bearded man, he had been in some way molested. If they can seemingly pull memories of this event out of thin air, how much more of a stretch would it have been to add another more serious event? It may even be easier to convince them of this because of the reputation of memories of traumatic events, especially from childhood, to be repressed. Do you think someone could convince you that something that you walked into the conversation thinking never occurred actually happened?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/201001/recovered-memory-syndrome

"

Study proves conclusively that violent video game play makes more aggressive kids

Study proves conclusively that violent video game play makes more aggressive kids: "A new study published in the March 2010 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, an American Psychological Association journal, reports definitively that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive thoughts and behavior, and decreased empathy and prosocial behavior in youths."

Brain scans now catch chemicals too

Exceedingly cool: Brain scans now catch chemicals too: "A way to visualise chemicals washing through the brain could vastly extend the power of fMRI, a workhorse of neuroscience

Children Teach Themselves to Read

Good stuff

Children Teach Themselves to Read | Psychology Today

Placebos, Truth and Paradox

Placebos, Truth and Paradox: "

In the UK, a House of Commons body has recommended that homeopathy no longer receive state support - for the perfectly good reason that there is no evidence that the theory behind homeopathy has any validity. However, it is recognized that it may have value as a placebo and hence helping some people to get well. The idea, though, seems to be that patients ought not to be misled.

That, of course, leads to the paradoxical state of affairs. Placebos can work; but patients should be told that they are taking placebos - the desire for transparency and honesty - and that usually reduces their effectiveness.

I wonder how many ill patients would prefer to be informed and remain ill...or rather trivially deceived yet be made better? After all, how many patients worry about the theory behind prescriptions more than whether what is prescribed will make them better?