a new book on temperament brings nature versus nurture back again, citing research by harvard's jerome kagan indicating that personality is largely hard-wired. his book details findings that a baby's temperament at four months old helps predict future personality. the study finds that although someone who is shy and afraid can venture into the middle-range of behavior by adolescence, something likely determined by environmental factors, one very rarely - in only 5% of cases - switches to the opposite end of the temperament spectrum.

via arts & letters

the standard stereotype of the "bleeding heart liberal" is unfounded according to a new study. in a classic experimental economics game participants could contribute any or all of $10 to a public pot. money in the pot would be increased by the researchers and then distributed evenly between all players regardless of the amount each contributed. individual players were best off if they kept their $10 and if everyone else contributed the full amount.
the results? liberals and conservatives were equally matched in their self-serving behavior and disregard for the common good. as the researchers conclude, something else must account for policy differences – but what is it? perhaps we all have the same basic self-serving instincts, but when it comes to ideas about what others should do we diverge.

Labels: ideology

i'm finally catching up on my journal reading, so here's a tidbit:

Based on the regression corrected for nonlinearity with the addition of the squared SAT component, we developed the following equation to predict IQ from SAT scores:

X_IQ=(.126*SAT)+(-4.71E-5*SAT²)+40.063

The Standard error of prediction was 5.94.

this equation, from their data, seems to predict iq scores fairly accurately.

calculate your own iq using my handy iq calculator

see: Frey & Detterman, "Scholastic Assessment or g?" Psychological Science, Vol 15 No. 6

from yahoo! news:

"The new study chips 'yet another sliver from the rational model of economic man,' said Stanford University psychologist Brian Knutson, who reviewed the Swiss research. 'Instead of cold, calculated reason, it is passion that may plant the seeds of revenge,' he said.
People often are eager to punish wrongdoers even if the revenge brings them no personal gain or actually costs them something. From a practical standpoint, that may seem irrational. "

feeling good is not irrational, even from a practical standpoint. i've proposed before that our brains might unconsciously weigh the costs and benefits of our actions, even where emotions are involved, factoring emotional costs and benefits into the equation as well. the "high" we get from revenge may outweigh any harm we anticipate from the event, although whether we foresee that correctly is another story. the study's findings suggest this as well:

When the retaliation cost them money, a second brain region that helps weigh costs and benefits got involved, too, but the striatum remained key. The level of activity actually predicted which players would spend more money to get revenge.

the striatum is involved in enjoyment and satisfaction, and the article states that it's activation indicates "satisfaction from anticipating it [revenge]". so the more you predict that you'll be emotionally satisfied by revenge, the more likely you are to actually seek it. seems rational to me.

read the whole journal article: Quervain, D, Fischbacher, U, Treyer, V, Schellhammer, N, Schnyder, U, Buck, A, Fehr, E. The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment, Science, Vol 305, Issue 5688, 1254-1258 , 27 August 2004.

hat-tip: "magic" amanda brand

Labels: decision making, neuroscience

the other day a friend posed the question: if you could test for an illness you knew would kill you later in life, would you choose to take the test or live in ignorance? the response was overwhelmingly for the latter option. i held the dissenting opinion. i’d rather know so i could live my life to the fullest. a recent study may back up my decision.

through genetic testing women can discover a genetic mutation that can lead to certain types of cancer including breast and ovarian. researchers at georgetown wondered how this test impacted happiness, so they followed a group of women for six months after they were tested for the mutation. the results showed that those who tested negatively were, as one would predict, happier afterwards. the surprising result is that those who tested positive for the mutation were not affected either way – they felt the same as before the test was administered.
an interesting result is that those who test negative can have significant guilt that they escaped somehow but their relatives did not, a phenomenon we also see when people survive traumatic incidents.

from psychology today

Labels: decision making, well being

a fascinating tidbit in psychology today this month: placebos are nearly as effective as pharmaceuticals in many cases, particularly among children and those with mild depression. some of the data is shocking:

• in a zoloft trial, 59% of children improved on placebo, compared to 69% on zoloft.
• the response to placebos seems to be increasing 7% per decade.

theories as to why placebos are so effective abound. in young people and those with mild depression, it could be that the circuits aren’t as severely disrupted or ingrained and are therefore easier to correct, possibly simply by a trick of mind. the conundrum of why placebos are increasingly effective over the decades, however, is another question altogether. an interesting theory is that drug ads are convincing us that drugs are more effective, creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

besides an interesting bit of trivia, you may be asking, what’s the point? well. the fda requires drug companies to prove that their drugs have statistically significant effects compared to placebos. if companies can’t prove this, their drug will not be approved for sale in the us. with this phenomenon on the rise, with such startling results as those cited above, perhaps the fda will have to rethink what it calls an effective drug.

in addition, i wonder if drug marketing is actually improving the effectiveness of the drug, therefore providing a kind of public good?

Labels: drugs, misc. psych, neuroscience, social

what is orthorexia, you may ask? it’s short for the newly coined eating disorder, orthorexia nervosa. with orthorexia, the victim doesn’t eat too much, doesn’t eat too little, but rather eats too healthily. yes. orthorexics obsess over their healthy eating habits. is it clinically useful to have a diagnostic category for those who are just too darn concerned that they’re getting the complete range of essential amino acids each day? of course, with any disorder it only technically becomes clinically diagnosable when it disrupts day-to-day functioning, but this would then include serious athletes and anyone diligent about trying to lose weight healthily. more information is available at orthorexia.com.

a recent article in usa today claims that homeowners associations are stifling free speech rights by forbidding political yard signs. it seems to me that one doesn’t really have free-speech rights if s/he’s signed a contract agreeing to give them up, as many homeowners have done. if homeowners are surprised and upset, they didn’t read the association rules carefully before they signed the contract, or valued the other amenities offered by the association more than their “right” to post yard signs. it could be that they didn’t foresee themselves wanting to post yard signs, and therefore didn’t factor that into their decision.

usa today is unnecessarily concerned that entire cities are – or will soon be - ruled by such associations. although in the worst case scenario homes not ruled by an association may someday be in inconvenient locations, the buyer will always have that trade-off. i am willing to bet that even in a market where only association homes were available, homeowners associations, in an effort to attract more members, will compete with each other. this will result in a variety of associations that appeal to the variegated tastes and values of homeowners. for this reason i sincerely doubt a situation where a whole region is ruled by only one association, but even then homeowners aren’t being forced to move to a particular region, and they can opt to move elsewhere.

the concern of private vs. public power is an important issue to debate theoretically, but as long as people have a choice to avoid being ruled by private power such as this, the issue is not one for serious concern.

link via NCPA

Labels: social

i just came across a great article in july's wired about outsourcing explaining in techie terms the argument that outsourcing creates more, not fewer, jobs. they write that although there will be a shake-out, where some "people will be too old, too inflexible, or otherwise unable to find new work", on the whole outsourcing creates jobs. they claim that outsorcing alone created 90,000 jobs in the us in 2003. why? they argue that firms save money outsourcing, and are then able to expand production and also create new jobs in other sectors such as marketing and research.

in my implosive post a few days back, i mentioned the quandary of how accurately people are able to judge the outcomes of their decisions and that it should be the subject of it’s own post. well, i just finished an article in the journal psychological science that speaks to this and so today is the day.
the researchers compare two different resources we use to gather information for decision making, experience and written guides (brochures, books, etc.). subjects using written guides tend to make cautious decisions, oftentimes overweighing the probability of rare outcomes.
when using only experience, as we are often required to do, subjects made riskier decisions, underweighting the likelihood of rare events. rare events are, well, rare, and therefore less likely to be at the forefront of our minds unless the event just occurred, which is unlikely. therefore, we tend to make decisions from experience underweighting the probability of those rare events because they are literally the furthest thing from our mind, a phenomenon called the recency effect.
in life unpleasant outcomes are often rare. it isn’t every day we’re hit by a car when carelessly walking across the street. it makes sense then for us to underestimate negative outcomes if going just off of experience. are then our decisions less rational because we are not taking into account in the proper proportions the likelihood of certain events? it seems to me that this phenomenon, although unconscious, is rational. we should undervalue those rare events and free ourselves to receive the benefits of doing things we otherwise would not do.

i have recent experience with this phenomenon: i undervalued the probability that a car would be driving behind me as i was backing out of my parking space, prompting me to be careless, gun it, and smash in the side of a lawyer’s lexus. where usually the recency effect allows me to do things i wouldn't otherwise do, this time it just raised my insurance.

reference: hertwig, barron, weber, erev. decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. psychological science, vol 15 no 8. aug. 2004

Labels: decision making

ted kennedy was somehow added to the new "no fly" list kept for potential terrorists. the hilarity of this situation aside, i'm frightened. first, i didn't really know that such a list existed. second, how can such an egregious error be made? if they're putting senators on it by mistake, how many other soccer moms, dentists, and sixth-graders are on it? i hope this doesn’t happen to me, i don't exactly pull the same clout as teddy to get it straightened out so quickly.

scientists have discovered a positive correlation between the amount of gray matter (ie somas, the bodies of neurons) in one's brain to his/her intelligence!

i wonder the impact of this study, if results are replicated and confirmed. finding such a direct link seems like it obviates the need for IQ tests in a way - MENSA can now recruit based on soma count. exclusive schools and competitive companies may someday make decisions in part based on your brain scan.

now we need to answer why some people have more gray matter and others have less, and if there's any way to increase that.

another fascinating outcome: it's related to gray matter levels all over the brain, not just in one particular "smart spot." so... intelligence is distributed, making it harder to damage, which is good news.

Labels: decision making, neuroscience

most of us take stock of our peers and are happy if we’re doing as well or better, and feel unhappy if the converse is true. watching olympic award ceremonies always makes me think of these kinds of comparisons and how they can make a silver-medalist’s moment on the podium miserable. although the silver-medalist has achieved the second-highest honor possible at the most competitive championship in the world, the sm usually compares him/herself negatively to the gold-medalist. silver is nothing to that gilded disk. however, look at the case of the bronze medalist who is usually just thankful to be on the podium at all. the bronze-winner typically is very happy because s/he compares down to those who didn’t place – how lucky am i to even be here, s/he thinks. so, in summary, the silver medalist is objectivly better off, but feels much worse.

this phenomenon varies in its applicability, it seems, in accordance with expectations and experience. in the winter olymics michelle kwan (figure skating), who had won silver previously and hoped for gold this time, was instead too busy falling on her ass to win the gold, or even silver, so had to settle for a measly bronze. she was devastated.

to what extent is this controllable? can we will ourselves to compare down?

and furthermore, why does it make us so unhappy that someone else is better than us?

"the Platonic metaphor of the mind as a charioteer driving twin horses of reason and emotion is on the right track - except that cognition is a smart pony, and emotion a big elephant".

the new zeland news reports on neuroscientific studies trying to explain why humans, despite what economists say, behave irrationally sometimes (or, more than sometimes, as i've observed). the article states that economics is based on the fallacy that people behave rationally when making economic decisions. economists and behavioral scientists have been bickering about this for a while, but neuroscience may have something interesting to say about it.

first let me say in defense of economics: saying that economics is based on individual rational behavior is untrue - from my admittedly limited study of the subject it seems it's really the study of aggregate behavior, which does usually tend towards the rational laws economists espouse. individual behaviors are a different story. it's true that we all make decisions based on what we see as the costs and benefits of the outcome, but how accurately we can gauge that outcome in objective standards is another question entirely and should be the subject of it’s own post.

the nz reports on the classic study where person a gets $10 and has the option of giving some to person b. person b can accept or reject the gift. typically if person a offers only a dollar or two, person b rejects the gift, presumably because s/he’s offended. however that’s not usually how it happens – person a typically offers nearly half of what s/he’s given, and person b usually accepts it.

in the experiment, both person a and b have a clear understanding that what position they’re in is a result wholly of the turn of the die. that “a” has $10 and “b” none has nothing to do with hard work, only randomization on the part of the experimenter. i wonder how the results would change if there were a pre-game that distributed the money more meritocratically. or if person b was told that the $10 came straight out of person a’s pocket, and not the lab’s. this would give us a clearer picture of how these situations work in the “real world.”

i’d argue that perhaps taking that one dollar as opposed to rejecting the offer is not always the most rational choice anyway. there are things that people value more than one dollar, including pride. perhaps person “b” is in reality paying one dollar for the ability to hurt person “a”’s feelings like a did to him/her.

now about the neuroscience: when person b is offered only a few bucks, the insular cortex "lights up." ignoring my extreme skepticism about MRIs, this is not surprising. we think the insular cortex has to do with happiness/sadness (and a bunch of other things like memory and language). according to this study, the prefrontal “competes” with the insular cortex, and is the source of the rational impulse to take the low offer. the more “activated” the insular, the more likely to reject the offer, and the more “activated” the prefrontal, the more likely to accept.

does this mean that the insular cortex is related to emotional (and therefore objectively unwise) reactions and the prefrontal to more rational deliberation? maybe. it’s true the prefrontal cortex is thought to be involved in coordinating thoughts and actions in a goal-directed way. it’s also, interestingly enough, thought to be involved in impulse control and “forward thinking.” perhaps it’s the mature part of the brain.

more on this later i'm sure. it's a constant theme of economics and behavioral science.

Labels: decision making, neuroscience, well being

kerry says he would've voted for the war in iraq even knowing that there were no wmd and that iraq has no close ties to al qaeda. why are all the anti-war folks voting for him again? he would have done it, but he would have done it right. hm. so, this year we have two choices: a war president, or a war president. i'm so voting for my cat.

Labels: political

corinne maier, an employee of a french public utilities company (edf), has just published a manifesto on how to be as lazy as possible at work. she's only half-joking. after reading about the work (entitled hello laziness), in which she details "why it's in your interest to work as little as possible and how to screw the system from within without anyone noticing," i'm amazed edf is taking it so calmly. i can't imagine an american company standing for it. although she's scheduled for "disciplinary hearings" in august, she says publicly she won't show because she'll be on holiday with the rest of france. talk about having confidence in your job security.

french unions are up in arms that edf is trying to oust her:

An umbrella body representing the six main unions at EDF has issued a statement defending Ms Maier's freedom of speech, saying she had "not revealed any secrets, jeopardized any business or even mentioned EDF by name once in the book."

had she explained this strategy to her boss in person, or handed out copies to her coworkers, would she still have a job? the issue is complex because she may have published the book in personal time, but it's not surprising the french economy is poor if a company cannot fire an employee for showing such an acutely poor work ethic. ah, unions! i wonder what sabine herold would say.

just desserts: i guess maier and her french followers are in for an early case of alzheimer's disease (according to Neurology).

this is not to say i'm unsympathetic to the woes of mindless office work, i've avoided private companies or government offices for precisely that reason.

Ha!. kind of how i feel about most elections: whoever wins, we lose.


link via jacob

sadly, this does seem to be a main selling point of the kerry campaign:

"With all the mess that's going on in the country—the deficits, the government's power-grab, the wars—it's time for a president who admits that there's a problem and has a plan to fix it," Brandt added. "A president who is not George W. Bush is exactly what we need—and Kerry fits the bill 100 percent."
Kerry's message resonated less strongly with one Lawrence, KS swing voter.
"Politicians make a lot of campaign promises," Lance Radda said. "Sure, this not-being-Bush policy sounds good now. But how can we be sure that Kerry will deliver on that promise once in office?"
Kerry addressed Radda's question.
"I promise you, here and now, that I will enact my one-point plan on the day I enter the Oval Office," Kerry said. "For the last three and a half years, we've had George W. Bush, and today I have this to say: We can do better!"

i was approached by a campaigner who came up to me and said, "would you like to help us defeat bush?" reality is scary as fiction sometimes.

you'll be rich! but then... will you be happy?

an interesting article on happiness and wealth landed above the fold of today's wall street journal marketplace section. it's central argument comes from psychologists seligman (of positive psychology fame) and diener. their study concludes that although a certain amount of wealth is required to attain happiness, that amount is little over the minimum wage line. at some unknown rung on the economic ladder we reach a point of diminishing returns where more money doesn't lead to a higher sense of well-being, contentment, or satisfaction.

but, you say, economists constantly argue that wealthier nations are happier nations. how can we reconcile this discrepancy? on the aggregate that's true, but as the article points out, it's only a correlation. seligman and diener rightly indicate that wealthy nations typically also have things such as liberty and rule of law. this is an interesting thread that i hope psychologists will pursue. instead of looking at wealth per se, a divisive tactic, we can all agree that institutions promoting freedom lead to a polity that's happy as clams - or, at least, has a better chance of being so lucky.

another intersting point from the article: the happier you are, the more money you'll make. perhaps i can then draw the conclusion: freedom causes happpiness, happiness causes wealth, therefore freedom causes wealth. huh.

article: Wealth and Happiness Don't Necessarily Go Hand in Hand, B1, WSJ 8-13-2004.
more on seligman and positive psychology
more on happiness vs wealth

Labels: well being

so... it's not just me! on arriving home after a business trip recently, i noticed that $200 i'd stuffed away between jeans and t-shirts was missing, and a card notifying me that my bags had been searched was substituted. there's little recourse for this type of thing, particularly because there's no proof i actually had $200 in my suitcase to begin with, or that it was tsa gnomes who spirited away with it.

now, it looks like tsa employees are getting what they -and we- deserve. accountability! well, sort of. we'll have to wait and see what happens. a system should be instituted allowing recourse for such actions. until then, i think i'll carry on my baggage, thank you.

Update: TSA will pay $1.5 million to 15,000 passengers to compensate for stolen items. (9/10/04)

today the fda rejected a surgical implant that had great potential to help those with chronic depression. although the fda's advisory committee gave the implant the go-ahead, it didn't pass muster with the fda itself. this issue brings up several dilemmas for free will. i haven't sorted them all out yet, so i'll think "aloud."

as for the device itself. fda-approved or no, utilizing an implant to control one's mood seems a drastic measure. i don't mean to be a luddite but it seems that this technology takes away critical choice for the individual, in that a mood is a kind of choice. of course thomas szaz or peter breggin would claim so. (i won't go into breggin's entire argument, but you can read it here.) it may be different for pharmaceuticals - although a pill controls mood during the time the drug is in the brain, that time span is much shorter. the individual has the choice to be drugged more frequently.

even if one surrenders to this line of reasoning (permanently drugged=bad), which is a stretch in itself, having free will to choose this is significant. can one opt to be a slave to a drug? certainly, esp. if the other choice is a life of despair or worse, suicide - good therapy is not an option either for philosophical or monetary reasons for some. the fda is withholding a possible - and possibly life-saving - remedy for a debilitating disorder. depression wrecks many people's lives, many people who for various reasons - including unstable lives and incomes - cannot take a pill every day.

is the fda being overly cautious? is it harming more than helping in this case, or would it be safer to wait and do more tests, risking the happiness and, not to be overly dramatic, lives of those who could benefit? to me it seems that the government should allow patients to make that cost-benefit analysis with a physician.

for more info on psychiatric drugs vs personal sovereignty, check out the group MindFreedom. i'm not associated with them in any tangible way, but they're interesting...

Labels: drugs, neuroscience, well being

david boaz (president of the Cato Institute)'s article in the la times reminds me of another seattle thought. the article gets into much more complex ideas, but the idea of "government magic" made me think of this...

we were in a shop at the fabulous pike place market that had all sorts of prints and hundreds of old magazines and newspapers. despite a pact to keep my wallet firmly in my pocket, i ended up buying a haunting mucha print and an early 1900's anti-capitalist propaganda poster. after we made our purchases, we asked the hippie proprietor a question - how's business? the response was not shocking: business is slow. the shop has been losing money for a while now, and she even had to stop ordering new stock for the time being. there was a definite edge to her voice, a fleck of despair. at the end of her lamentations, with clenched fists she exclaimed that hopefully, with a new president, they'd be back on track in no time. the only response i could muster was "well, let's not put all our hopes in one event." her proclamation had caught me off guard, but i don't think her mentality is unusual.

in times of hopeless perhaps it's natural to seek one a one-shot solution. it's simple, it's easy. just get one party elected, and everything else will fall into place. it makes a politician's job so much easier - vote for me and i'll solve all of your problems. it's disturbing to believe that a situation is complex and that there are hundreds of events that must align to change something - and worse yet, that most are not under our direct control.

la times link via cafe hayek

Labels: political, social

i've always been a big fan of voting for various reasons. small-l libertarians as a group typically take the public choice argument that the benefits of voting are so small that they don't outweigh the costs and risks involved (time, gas, etc.). glen writes a good critique of this argument on his blog and proposes a more libertarian reason to vote.
besides the psychological satisfaction involved, there are other good reasons to vote and glen touches on some, although i realize it gets sticky when we start talking about social costs.
it remains, however, the sad fact that one vote doesn't make any difference, period. that's just math. but there's a bright side to it: growing up where i did, knowing the folks i did, it's hard to be TOO upset about it. i suppose i'm not a big fan of mass rule anyway, particularly rule by the aforementioned mass, so it might be for the best.

Labels: political

is this exhibit art or something from a strange science fiction novel? or both? the artist takes real dead bodies, replaces their fluids with plastic, and then positions them in various ways. a few examples:

The skinless Basketball Player, for example, is frozen in the middle of a crossover dribble, his muscular form balanced on the ball of his left foot.

Dr. von Hagens has meticulously revealed the Teacher's nervous system, from the brain to the thick spinal cord to the ever-finer nerves branching out to limbs and organs. With a book in one hand (an anatomy text, of course) and a piece of chalk in the other as if giving a lesson, the Teacher illustrates the multiple, simultaneous tasks of the nervous system: thought, speech, locomotor coordination, even regulation of breathing.

One display compares a human rider with his rearing horse; despite similarities in anatomical structures, there are major differences in proportions: The rider holds his own brain in one hand, the horse's much smaller one in the other.

the war on drugs claims another victim: todd, a seven year old springer spaniel.

did anyone see the thin white line episode of family guy?

and who names their dog todd?

seriously though. i see some discrepancies in our legal code, which is not unusual of course. many laws in the states give animals - pets specifically - certain rights and protections. a dog owner that feeds his pet a drug, let's say alcohol, especially to the point of overdose, would probably be fined and in some areas even jailed. let's not even go there if it were an illegal substance like cocaine. so, do dogs have rights, including not being drugged up, or not? and if they do, how can violating one law to crack down (no pun intended) on another be justified?

while wandering the streets of seattle last week, i noticed an oddly large number of wanderers and vagrants. it seemed more than in most cities i'd spent some time in. of course some of this can be attributed to the mild climate, it's easier to be homeless in a mild climate. but my colleague max borders pointed out another possible reason - that seattle just has better public services for these folks. this may not initially make sense - shouldn't such services actually reduce the number of homeless? but from a different perspective, providing such services (free food, shelters, etc) actually makes it easier to be homeless, and may attract more to the area.

sure enough, on searching the net for information on seattle policy towards homeless, they rank among the "best". and, they notice the odd phenomenon as well:

"It seems like a paradox, that numbers are going up while we're getting better at finding solutions," Steinbrueck said.

this is just another illustration of the hidden consequences of social services. is it really a solution if it creates more "problem?"

dov charney owns a t-shirt factory that doesn't use sweatshop labor, but he doesn't market it that way. he chooses to market his shirts based on their sex appeal instead. when asked why he doesn't appeal to customers' sense of ethics and mercy, he says:

''That's the problem with the antisweatshop movement,'' he says, snapping the book closed. ''You're not going to get customers walking into stores by asking for mercy and gratitude. Appeal to people's self-interest.''

this comment speaks for itself, but just let me say: sweatshop activists are movivated by the same interest as the rest of us: their own. and, in this case in particular, we're not the worse off for it (unless you have a moral opposition to sexy t's, that is)

Labels: economics