zimbabwe has its own eminent domain stuff going on, too, with mugabe's recent charades:

Police have torched or bulldozed tens of thousands of shacks and street stalls since launching the blitz on May 19. Other buildings have been torn down by their owners at gunpoint.

hm. kind of like what'll happen if susette kelo refuses to vacate her home? it may have been decided by a judge, but it is still going to be enforced by guns and bulldozers.

also, check out some fun stuff that's been going on since kelo (via q and o blog). as justice o'connor said, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Labels: political

yesterday, i had my legs waxed. to some who know me well, this will be a shock. to others, you may wonder why this warrants declaration. i will give three reasons, in no particular order:

1. it was the most painful thing to which i have ever willingly submitted myself. it is difficult for me to imagine worse pain.
2. i put my well-being in the hands of a tiny, sadistic, chinese woman who i’m fairly certain could not understand a word i said, and vice versa for sure.
3. this event ended a three month shaving hiatus.

my shaving hiatus began in april when it occurred to me that the only reason i shaved was because of social pressure to conform to some arbitrarily arrived upon norm for leg hair. surely, there is no more pervasive norm that is so against nature. this irritated me, and the more i thought about it the more i needed a better reason than that to ever shave again.

i have never before been so incredibly self-conscious, and began to notice how pervasive the practice really is – even among my contrarian friends, everyone shaves. the double-takes and scornful looks i got from other women surprised me (although friends were supportive). the desire and power to punish deviants, no doubt a throwback to our caveman days, certainly is strong.

for a while i enjoyed my deviant status, and took pleasure in the incorrect stereotypes i was probably categorized under (especially when wearing my “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt). at first i derived a sense of moral superiority over the sheep herded up to shave their legs unthinkingly, where i, clearly a more enlightened being, had broken from such meaningless conformity. ah, humans. how weak they are.

but, honestly, i hated it. i mean really, really, hated it. althougth i had certainly internalized society's norm, i felt it was ugly and gross, and even after months, i wasn’t used to it. although able to avoid scorn most places, except the gym and the pool, i couldn’t take it myself.

coward? maybe. norms are present in all cultures, and we seem programmed to create them. i learned that sticking with norms has merit, if only to conserve psychological resources.

to celebrate my liberation from liberation, i shared a pint of ben & jerry’s with david. so good.

more on norms

FYI, wolford net hosiery is excellent at camouflaging, and is probably good to have on hand in case you can’t shave.

Labels: personal

acting violently serves as immunization against the effects of community violence. or, so says a study founding a correlation between acts of violence and reduced incidence of depression in violent communities.

being aggressive in the context of community violence could be an adaptive strategy that preserves adolescents' sense of control in a volatile and unpredictable environment. "This may seem counter intuitive, that violence in a violent context could be somewhat protective for psychological well-being among adolescent boys."

the "vaccine" only works for males, it seems, and the older, the stronger the correlation. for girls, the inverse is true, with violent offenders becoming more depressed than their passive counterparts.

correlation is not always causation, and there are several explanations for this correlation besides that of a "violence vaccine." one among them is that there could be something particular about persons who act out violently that also prevents them from being depressed - perhaps a kind of proactive, although perverse, resilience.

acting violently could very well, however, actually help stave of depression. it could give the actor a feeling of control that is probably lacking in violent neighborhoods, a feeling that is very often discussed as a significant component of psychological well-being.

it seems fairly obvious why the correlation is positive for girls, who not only face the legal repercussions of violent actions, but also more social pressure to "behave" than boys typically do. in addition, the threshold for violent action in girls, i'm willing to bet, may be much higher. that is, girls are less prone to violence both biologically and socially. because of this, fewer girls act violently. since fewer girls act violently, the ones that do have reached a much higher threshold, skewing the sample towards really messed-up individuals who may be more likely to be depressed than the wider sample of boys who are violent at the drop of a hat.

Labels: misc. psych, well being

amy's reference to dean's post on mispronounced words led me to check my pronunciation of "insouciance." the second pronunciation at merriam-webster is hilarious, hilarious, hilarious. it reduced me to an annoying 13-year-old who insisted on playng it over and over again.

Labels: personal

i'll be at a wonderful, fabulous, amazing, thrilling IHS summer seminar and on other traveling adventures next week. until i'm back in DC, i don't think i'll be able to blog much, if at all...

Labels: personal

being brain-damaged may not be so bad after all. in a study from this month's psychological science, participants with focal lesions in emotion centers made better decisions when presented with risky investment tasks. the emotional brain has been chided for making myopic, risky decisions, but here it seems it’s the unemotional brain taking all the risks, and for the better.

the task at hand was a positive-expected-value investment game, which means that benefits outweigh the costs of playing. even though rationally it made more sense to bet, normal and control patients became more conservative with each round. in contrast, lesioned participants bet at approximately the same risk level throughout. as the risk of loosing was low, "risky" decisions paid off, and lesioned participants made off with more winnings.

because most dilemmas are not positive-expected-value, and have more ambiguous elements, this study lacks immediate practical application. emotions can play a valuable role in many decision-making processes, particularly where ambiguity is involved. however, it is important to note when emotion is a good, or bad, guide for decisions - something this study helps to do.

source: baba shiv et al."investment behavior and the negative side of emotion." psychological science june 2005.

Labels: decision making, neuroscience

if you are in the dc area and want to help fight blood cancers, today provides a fun and tasty opportunity to do so.

from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. today, baja fresh will donate 15% of its sales to the leukemia & lymphoma society.

view participanting restaurants in the DC metro area.

Labels: personal

a kid from my high school, devon seymour, was killed over the weekend in iraq. the news was sobering; it is easy to forget what is actually going on over there.

Labels: personal

help cuce-skywalker and obi-wan cannoli battle darktater and the dark side of the farm in grocery store wars, a short by the organic trade association hawking organic produce. it's really pretty funny.

one question though: how does non-organic produce have "artifically lower prices?"

thanks go to j-hawk for the tip.

update: cannoli is spelled with two n's, nikki.

Labels: economics, social

because i'm too lazy to do a real post:

1. after winning the lottery, a man quit his job and proceeded to spend nearly a million dollars in two years. this week he was caught stealing because he was too embarrassed to go on welfare (or get another job, apparently). how does one possibly spend that much cash in two years? was he buying lamborghinis and diamonds? and did he not sense that this was a bad idea? anyone who needs help experimenting with how to spend that much dough, though, please contact me at hedgehog.blog@gmail.com. i am sure we can think of something.
   
   
2. canadians discovered the ills of representative democracy when a group of ruling elite decided to erect a statue honoring some local official kicked out of town for - literally - sizing up suspects. the statue features a plaque with a man with his pants down. social conservatives are outraged, but apparently don't connect this warped use of taxpayer money with the warped uses they back.
   
   
3. speaking of pants around ankles, i'm glad mike was found not guilty. other's didn't agree, though, and it reminded me how great it is that americans don't see the judicial system as omniscient. they separate the truth from the state's verdict. it's a simple thought, but something that made me smile today. people are skeptical, and that's awesome. relatedly, mike says he won't sleep with boys anymore - that's great, but it would have been better to decide this after the last trial, don't you think, mike?
   
   
4. go see mr. & mrs. smith. it's pure candy, true, but it tastes good. i enjoyed it because there were lots of guns but moreover because brad pitt and angelina jolie are both all kinds of hot.

Labels: links

baby-face bias isn't just the irrational desire to hear bad music. it's also the phenomenon wherein we perceive adults with babyish faces to be more naive, honest, and kind than their more mature-faced counterparts.

i recalled this bias with a laugh when i heard that a baby face actually hurts political candidates. in a recent study, politicians who lack baby faces won more votes, and more elections. perhaps we aren't seeking honesty and kindness in our representatives.

but for those baby faces among us, don't despair. we may not be winning politicians, but past baby-face studies indicating that a less-mature face helps us get away with all sorts of other crimes. judges seem to be unable to imagine baby-faced individuals as intentionally causing harm (see zebrowitz 1991). however, importantly, judges can think of baby-faced folks as incompetent - perhaps leading us, in part, to the results of the current study.

Labels: misc. psych, political

whatever kind of political implications it has, most would agree that social capital is a good thing. but what kinds of social interactions facilitate the development of social capital? membership in formal organizations is decreasing. is all hope lost?

a study from the journal political psychology says maybe not. this study examined informal social interactions and their impact on social capital.

importantly, the study hints at why many people prefer informal interactions, which the study found were "thought to be immediately rewarding and to provide long-term satisfaction to a greater extent than organizational participation." organizations cost money and often have barriers to entry, whereas informal interactions are more accommodating and often free. there are lots of potential reasons for the decline of membership in formal organizations (not least of which is the modern welfare state that decreases the need for nongovernmental support networks, but that's another story), but this one is interesting in that it points to our increasing desire to "have it your way."

that desire may not reap such ill consequences as previously thought. the study notes that while formal organizations are still tops for building civic competence, informal participation is actually better at building "feelings of connectedness and social support." informal interactions also exceed in providing companionship and creating networks of mutual obligation.

i'm certainly no expert on the subject, but that seems like a good thing to me.

source: green, mc et al. organizational membership versus informal interaction: contributions to skills and perceptions that build social capital. political psychology. february 2005 (yes, i am that far behind on my reading. back off!)

Labels: social

the post title may be an exaggeration, but does have a seed of truth to it according to a new study.

i've previously posted on implicit prejudice - prejudiced beliefs we supposedly have without consciously thinking them - and later wondered whether it really even matters, given that when subjects are have an additional 500 milliseconds to respond that "prejudiced" response usually disappears.

just-published research may indicate that implicit racial bias does matter, but not in the way you'd think. the results indicate that blacks prefer to interact with whites scoring higher on the implicit racism scale.

psychologists gave whities standard implicit association tests (IAT) and then were paired with a black participant to discuss racial issues. the latter were then asked to rate how much they liked their conversation partners.

shelton et al. conclude that implicitly "racist" students may overcompensate when trying to conceal their bias, making them appear friendlier and therefore more desirable. those without strong racial bias may not try as hard to appear unbiased, and therefore are perceived as less favorable.

would the IAT given with longer time intervals (allowing the conscience to correct for immediate reactions) correlate in this way? certainly not - i'd guess researchers would get the inverse - and expected - result.

nota bene: yesterday's aei panel on neuromorality included a great presentation by philip tetlock of university of california at berkeley critiquing implicit association tests and their implications... you can watch the video online.

source: shelton, jn, et al. ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. psychological science. may 2005

Labels: misc. psych

scientists are experimenting with a nose spray containing synthetic oxytocin, our body's bonding hormone. oxytocin is involved in a host of processes involving human interaction (including love and sex).

after using the spray, subjects were more willing to invest money with a high risk (i.e., with no guarantee of profit) - but only when trading with a human. scientists believe the hormone jolt encouraged players to trust their partner more than they typically would have.

researchers see the spray as having the potential to help people with social phobias and autism, and i assume probably for postpartum depression as well (women who don't breastfeed don't get the oxytocin payoff, and could benefit). i see lots of other non-pathological applications, esp. as regards the military - how useful it would be to implicitly trust your fellow soldiers despite what your brain would rationally tell you.

however in some instances wouldn't distrust, rather than trust, benefit? i wonder the danger of extra oxytocin overriding good judgment?

read more.

Labels: neuroscience