Rats, Bad Decisions and Jelloshots

It is an accepted fact of life that alcohol and good decision making have only loose a acquaintance  with one another. Like ships passing in the night, they may meet or they may not. This is true for the momentarily intoxicated but does that propensity for poor choices follow us even after the libations cease? Adolescents who drink alcohol from an early age appear to suffer from impaired decision making skills later in life but the connection is not clear cut as to whether the alcohol lead to that ill advised life choice or if the bad decisions lead to the alcohol.

In an effort to tease out those threads researchers used rats to model behaviour. In this case to entice the rats to consume the alcohol they provided it as part of a “palatable gel matrix” or in common parlance, jelloshots. This allowed the researchers to promote high levels of voluntary alcohol consumption among the adolescent rats. Now to measure the effect of this alcohol on the rats decision making abilities they weren’t able to offer the rats stock market options or the choice of marrying Tony Veitch. To substitute for these sorts of things the rats were give a choice between low risk certain rewards and large but uncertain risky rewards.

Rats that had consumed large amounts of alcohol were biased towards the high risk behaviour even after 3 months without alcohol, or well into maturity. Whereas the control rats displayed behaviour that assessed the risk against the pay-off and went for the more certain rewards. Unfortunately the full study is locked behind a pay wall* so I can’t determine how the study was controlled, how reliable these results are and what they actually tell us about the link between early alcohol abuse and risk taking behaviour later in  life. If anyone has access to this info I’d appreciate it. In the absence of this information it seems as if the alcohol is a significant predictor of risk seeking behaviour independent of the innate predilections of the individual. Or to put it another way:

*Why is the best stuff hidden away? Universal Open Access, your day will come!

Can Torture Ever Be Justified?

I don’t think I would be going out on too much of a limb if I observed that most of us find the idea of torture to be repellent. As social creatures it is natural for us to shy away from inflicting harm on our fellows, empathy stays our hand when ruthlessness might otherwise help us achieve our personal goals. This holds true both in normal social interactions and in the extreme situations of conflict. It requires a significant expenditure of effort for us to overcome our inbuilt aversion to causing pain.

Even so torture can be rationalised as being for the “greater good” such as in the hypothetical situation which illustrates when torture might be a reasonable recourse known as the “ticking time bomb” scenario. In this case it is supposed that a terrorist has planted a bomb in a populated area, the terrorist is captured but the authorities have not been able to ascertain the location of the bomb which might go off at any time killing hundreds or possibly thousands of innocent people. If the terrorist refuses to co-operate, so the logic goes, it is then not only permissible to resort to torture to extract the information it might even be obligatory in order to prevent greater harm.

This situation however contains a hidden assumption that if untrue leaves the entire argument moot, namely, torture leads to accurate information. If this assumption is false then the justification falls apart. Last week in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences Shane O’Mara argued exactly this point. The main thrust of O’Mara’s argument asserts that prolonged stress causes changes in the brain that make it difficult for the subject to accurately recall memories and make the implantation of false memories and confabulation more likely.

False memories can be laid down when a subject incorporates what they are told into their own memory as if it actually happened when it did not. Simple repetition of information can induce false memories in normal subjects, assuming that it does not also happen in stressful situations is not  particularly reasonable.

Confabulation is the involuntary creation of false memories in response to questioning when the frontal lobe of the brain is impaired. The subject believes what they are saying and so is not lying but the information may not be accurate in any meaningful way. Events from the subject’s past and imagination can be jumbled together without the ability to tell the difference between them, when or if they happened. As prolonged stress can have negative effects on the frontal lobe confabulation could be a real danger in torture situations.

In addition the subject will also be conditioned that while they are talking the extreme interrogation techniques are stopped, thus talking represents safety. There is no extra inducement to truthful speech. In this situation there is no immediate method of ascertaining the truth of the subject’s words and so as long as the subject continues to talk further interrogation is not necessary.

Given these objections and certainly in the absence of reliable data to refute these points the justification for the use of torture simply dissipates. I for one find this information very reassuring.

Disgust or Anger?

The ability to recognise the emotional states of those around us is a very useful tool which allows us to act appropriately in social situations. If this ability is impaired then it could lead to inappropriate reactions when dealing with others, this in turn could land us in hot water. An impairment like this has been suggested to explain the behaviour of delinquents, though it is unlikely to be a sole cause of antisocial behaviour.

A study published recently lends support to this hypothesis, published last month in the journal of  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health (or CAPMH for short, catchy) the study looked at 24 Japanese young adults that were serving time in correction facilities (in Japan). Simply put the researchers compared these so-called delinquents with a control batch of young people (matched for age and gender), in the ability to correctly match an emotion to a facial expression. Six basic emotions were represented with 8 different pictures each, so participants had to match a total of 48 pictures.

The emotions covered were anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise, the prediction was that the incarcerated subjects would have difficulty interpreting some facial expressions and that this difficulty would skew the subjects towards misidentifying expressions as anger. This in fact did happen, the delinquent subjects actually identified disgust as anger more than the control group.

This interesting result is lessened in it’s impact somewhat due to the fact that the control group also made this mistake a large percentage of the time. This predilection in the delinquents however is an insight into how certain personalities might perceive some social situations as being more hostile than they really are. These personalities are also marked by being quick to anger and experiencing more intense anger than others so recognising how this occurs can be useful information in diffusing these situations and possibly diagnosis of individuals who might otherwise be labelled as simply “difficult”.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!*

A few weeks ago my wife went out dancing with friends, when she came back the one thing that had stood out for her in the evening was how similarly certain groups of people had been dressed. As the youngsters dancing around her left and were replaced each new batch had it’s own discernible style, this type of clothing with that kind of jewelry. Of course there were variations within each group but the similarities, at least to her, were far more striking. We all know of people around us that seem to slavishly follow the crowd, who wear the popular clothes, style their hair the popular way, listen to to popular music or in other ways agree with the popular opinion. We are certainly not as easily influenced as them, we are individuals.

There does seem to be this tendency to be able to recognize conformist behaviour in those around us while simultaneously denying such influences in ourselves. Our peers follow the pack while we make reasoned and informed choices. This effect is the focus of a study performed by Stanford and Princeton Universities. Students were subjected to a number of different surveys and situations designed to show how much they deemed their own choices were dictated by social influences versus their peer group. From university policy decisions to political party positions, driving behaviour  and why they bought an iPod respondents consistently followed popular behaviour themselves while ascribing to their fellows more susceptibility to such influences.

This pattern seemed to hold whether or not such conformity was described as positive or negative behaviour. In other words even when making the same choices as their peers was set up as being desirable they still denied that it was a factor in their own choices. As discussed in the final paragraphs of the study this difference in perception of other’s behaviour compared to our own is likely to contribute to exacerbation conflict and misunderstandings when dealing with those whose views disagree with our own. In such circumstances if we regard ourselves as rational and others as blindly following the crowd (and vice versa) then this makes finding common ground more difficult and demonising the enemy easier. So it may be more constructive not to wonder why are they behave the way they do but to step back and consider why do I think the way I do?

* Obviously this title is ironic, I am of course trying to show people that they are following the pack even while admitting that I must do so myself.

Project Implicit

Are you sexist? Have a tendency to think that women should stay out of science? Do you prefer the company of straight people over that of gays? Like whites more than blacks? In these enlightened politically correct times it is socially unacceptable in most circles to answer yes to many or all of these questions (depending on where you live). Some will deny that they would answer yes to any of these questions but privately do so, while others will deny even privately that they would. That is to say I might publicly decry the attitudes portrayed in the above questions and even consider myself to be tolerant and unbiased while still holding the views subconsciously.

This is where Project Implicit comes in. Project implicit attempts to uncover the unconscious attitudes of those that take the test and in the process learn something about human nature. The tests are devised in such a way that categories under study have both positive and negative words associated with them in turn. Thus you end up with four alternatives: Gay/Good, Gay/Bad, Straight/Bad, Straight/Good. Once these associations are stipulated the subject is timed in their ability to adhere to these groupings when the positive or negative words are flashed on a screen. When a positive word flashes when the Gay/Good:Straight/Bad pairings are active the subject must hit a key to assign it to the Gay/Good category and conversely when a negative word is flashed assign it to the Straight/Bad category. Each participant must complete testing rounds covering all four possible pairings, after which the amount of time it took to assign each word is tallied and the implicit bias determined.

The underlying assumption of the tests is that people with a preference for one set of pairings, say Gay/Bad:Straight/Good will respond faster than with the reverse pairings. This is meant to indicate the extra processing time required to artificially group the categories. In other words, using less politically charged groups, a combination of Natural/Food and Artificial/Buildings will seem more natural and be easier to assign the words apple, grass, rocks, airplane, computer, garage. In which case participants will do this task faster than the more unwieldy categories of Natural/Buildings and Artificial/Food (ok perhaps in this age Artificial/Food isn’t so unusual but you get the idea).

Can human attitudes be “tricked” into showing themselves in this way? The researchers think so and a mounting pile of scientific papers seems to back them up. I certainly recommend at least taking a few of the “Demo” tests, the results may surprise you. Approximately 30% of respondents register strong preference for whites over blacks or straights over gays so there is a good chance of falling into those categories despite your own expectations. The website even has a warning before the tests are administered: “In reporting to you results of any IAT test that you take, we will mention possible interpretations ……. If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further.” For some reason the words of Yoda and Luke are brought to my mind:

Luke: There’s something not right here… I feel cold. Death.
Yoda: That place… is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go.
Luke: What’s in there?
Yoda: Only what you take with you.

Fast Thoughts are Happy Thoughts

Ever noticed that when you are excited or happy your thoughts seem to zip hither, thither and yon at a dizzying pace? Perhaps at the same time you also had feelings of increased energy, creativity and self esteem. These are all symptoms of the psychiatric condition of mania, but you’re probably fine. The persistent linking of mania with rapid thoughts has lead some researchers to suspect that the speed of thought itself, and not necessarily the content of those thoughts, has a direct effect on a person’s mood. Thus merely thinking at a faster pace can create a more positive mood, along with those other symptoms, I mean normal feelings, of creativity, energy, etc.

With this approach as their starting point psychological scientists Emily Pronin and Daniel Wegner, of Princeton and Harvard University respectively, conducted an experiment to elucidate the exact effect of thought speed on mood, independent of the contents of those thoughts. To this end they recruited a number of students to read statements aloud at different speeds, the statements were either fast and positive (eg ‘‘Wow! I feel great!’’) or fast and negative (eg ‘‘I want to go to sleep and never wake up’’) and were contrasted with the reverse combinations, slow/positive, slow/negative. The results showed that the speed of a person’s thinking does indeed have an impact on their mood independent of what they are thinking. Those who read depressing statements fast had a more positive outlook than those who read the depressing statements more slowly.

This work has implications for the treatment of both mania and depression, having manic patients work to slow down their thought processes or those suffering depression increase the speed of theirs might be a more sustainable and empowering (for the patient) method of treating the conditions. Not to mention how this might affect business brainstorming sessions, want to boost your team’s creative output? Just get them doing quick mental exercises to get their brains in the mood. Have some bad news to give? Say it really fast.

Voting with a Look

At their most influential levels elections can have the power to change the world, witness the sweeping changes that the new American president has ushered in. As a result those candidates that we elect are chosen based on careful consideration of all the issues, reflection on their policies and an understanding of the impact that will come about based on those choices. Or are they? We all like to think that we make these decisions as rational thinking adults but recent research may call that certainty into question. A study published in February this year and conducted by John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland looked at election results by using children. Specifically they showed children pictures of election candidates in the French parliamentary elections as part of a game. At the end of the game the children were asked which person they would prefer to captain their boat. The children’s choices accurately matched the outcomes of the actual elections.

Expect the Worst, Hope for the Best. Or is Vice Versa Better?

Are you a fan of Balsamic vinegar in your beer? Perhaps you would be if you didn’t know it was there. “Predictably Irrational” is a new book by  Duke University professor Dan Ariely that explains the ways in which our expectations can hugely affect our experiences and decisions. A study he performed at M.I.T. approached almost 400 pub patrons and asked them to sample two beers. One was  regular Budweiser while the other was Budweiser with a few drops of Balsamic added. Participants were either never told about the vinegar, told before tasting or told after tasting. Those that were never told or told only after tasting the two beers much preferred the “Special Blend” to the regular beer, while those told before tasting did not.

The conclusion was that it is the expectation that the beer would taste bad and not the actual information about the extra ingredient that made the difference. Arly points out in the study that this expectation aversion and the benefits of remaining ignorant is routinely, and correctly, exploited by mothers trying to get their children to try new foods. Mothers also seem to recognize the second part of the equation, that the deception need not be upheld after a positive reaction has been obtained. In other words once the stubborn child has happily consumed the new food safe in the knowledge that there was nothing “Yucky” in the portion mothers then smugly inform them of the reality knowing that it now makes no difference.

Curiously though the study found that although the above situation is common in households the fact that the new found preference for the new food persists even after being told the distasteful truth was not intuitive and could not be predicted by M.I.T. students surveyed. If asked how many people would still prefer the vinegar infused beer after being told the truth the students were all over the map in their predictions. So the “Try It, You’ll Like It” gambit used by parents everywhere really does work, but only if you withhold the truth first.

 Resources

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=great-expectations-for-2009-08-12-31

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/Beer.pdf