The brain behind politics

With the upcoming elections in the Netherlands, our craving for polls is on the rise again. As Dutch people very well know, we can be very good with polls although the final outcome is usually completely unrelated to the outcomes of the polls. What's more, even if the polls manage to get it right, it doesn't tell us much about who's actually going to lead our country, as the political structure in The Netherlands is such that winning doesn't automatically mean you're in.

As a Dutch voter who lives abroad, I am one of the lucky few who already got to vote before all the debates even got started. This doesn't matter, since the debates don't really add to my knowledge or help in my decision making process anyway. Politicians often go after the easy catch, and put up a great act of being indignant of their opponents choices and ideas, when they might in fact have acted on those very same ideas when they were in charge of our country. That aside, being able to vote for the political party of my choice is a precious right, which I will exercise even if it means having to look my kids' red pencil for half an hour, or trying to figure out how to refold the paper in such a way that my choice doesn't show. Because an absence of red markings or a wrong fold means your vote is out.

But to the point now. While browsing for information on an upcoming column about the advances in Neuroscience as related to psychiatric diagnoses, I found an interesting article related to voting. The research used fMRI to reveal specific brain activity in swing voters upon showing images and video clips of possible presidential candidates for the US elections of 2008. A short recap of some of their noteworthy conclusions:

Hillary Clinton produced mixed emotions in voters who didn't really take a liking to her. Apparently, although they stated they didn't like her, their brain activity showed they had some difficulty making up their mind (or brain in this case). For Mitt Romney, the initial results were more clear cut. Upon being showed a picture of Mitt, subjects showed high levels of activity in the amygdala, a brain structure related to anxiety (as stated in the article). However, after watching a snippet on him performing in public, the activity in the amygdala died out. Apparently, the subjects found Mitt to be harmless after all. As for Barack Obama, he just didn't sparkle much of anything in the subjects' brain...

Knowing the outcome of the 2008 elections, it doesn't take a brainiac to figure out that the described research, although highly entertaining, doesn't really add up. That is because, next to design issues such as sample size and background factors of the subjects, some alternative explanations weren't explored.

For instance, it might have been that people watching Hillary Clinton were simply contemplating the difficult decision between their desire to want to punch the dear woman in the face, or yell profanities. Or, a slightly more feasible hypothesis, that they simply didn't know whether they should cut her some slack because of her husband's little slip-up (remember Monica) or judge her solely on the basis of her political ideas. Concerning the results of Mitt Romney, the researchers kind of left out some of the other functions of the amygdala. Because although involved in anxiety (and anger), the amygdala is also related to, yes, pleasure. Whether it be the consequence of him having five children or simply his good looks, it could be that the subjects actually took a fancy to dear ol'Mitt. The subsequent decline in activity might then be explained as the result of him found lacking when seen in action. And do I even need to go into the results of Barack Obama, who might not have been the cause of any peaks in the brain but who did manage to peak in the election?

So, what can we learn from all this? We simply do not know enough of our brains yet to come to any definite conclusions between specific brain activity and behavior. Neuroscience is interesting and definitely deserves our further attention as a way of understanding our behavior (and behavior problems), however, we do need to be careful as to the conclusions we draw based on fMRI research. After all, if it shows that even dead salmons contemplate the emotions of people..

The presents or presence of a Theory of Mind

During my years as a Ph.D. student I have been reading (and writing) about Theory of Mind, aka the ability to attribute mental states (desires, beliefs and feelings) to oneself and others, an ability which seems to be lacking in many children with autism spectrum disorders. I'm not a huge fan of the Theory of Mind concept, as it is ill defined and ever expanding. In addition, many of the so called Theory of Mind tasks seem to hinge on language abilities as much as a Theory of Mind. And although there have been some successes to test Theory of Mind abilities in apes, Theory of Mind and language seem connected on many levels.

But this week I saw the rudimentary workings of the infamous Theory of Mind in my eldest son Lucas (3 yrs). He knows his birthday is coming up in about two months, and his little brother will have his a mere three days later. But way before that, my husband will turn.... well, that isn't really important for this story. So, I asked Lucas what he thought his dad would like to get as a present. He came up with.... a frog. Yes, a frog. No, no clue. My husband is not particularly interested in frogs, we don't keep any frogs or plan to do so in the near future, and Lucas has never displayed an avid interest in them either. So, to understand his trail of thought, I asked whether he could come up with another present. Some serious thinking happened, after which he was absolutely sure of the complete and utter bliss of his dad  if he got some bones. But not just any bones, T-rex bones. No question marks about the nature of that idea, since Lucas is very interested into that himself. But he didn't take another round of questioning as his final resolve was a bunch of flowers. Typical male instinct kicking in there, probably.

So how does this prove his developing Theory of Mind? It doesn't. But you know what, even I am unable to come up with a decent idea for my husband. So, instead we contemplated presents for his baby brother Kwint. And it didn't take Lucas long to come up with two ideas: penguins and cars. Spot on, and to his credit, Lucas does like penguins, but it's Kwint who's seriously obsessed with them. So, there you have it, Lucas has a Theory of Mind, and a diagnosis of autism is getting more unlikely every day. 

Kwint, on the other hand, is a different story. At a regular visit to the pediatrician (the American consultatiebureau), some eyebrows were raised on the subject of him not using the pronouns 'I' or 'me'. Never mind the pediatrician used a schedule for children aged 2, or the fact that Kwint is having to cope with the challenge of being raised bilingual, or even the fact that he does say words as 'mine' and doesn't meet any other criteria that would merit concerns for a possible developmental disorder. She offered us the opportunity to fill out a huge questionnaire which would be checked by specialists to see if there would be any reason for further checkups. We respectfully declined and went home only to find that the Dutch Van Wiechenschema (used at the Dutch consultatiebureau) considers it a skill for 2,5 year-olds. There still is time...

Frown Baby Frown

Every now and again I get invited to a full-blown stick-it-in-and-have-some-cake Botox party. I try not to take it personally, which isn't that hard when the invitations arrive via email and are send out to virtually every mom in the Bay area. But it helps that I actually know I don't need any Botox injections. Why would I, when people look shocked when I tell them I have two children. I usually add 'but they're still very small', as if I that would justify it, but maybe I should start every conversation by stating that I am not a teenage mom. Because I'm not, you know. But jokes aside, even if my face would warrant Botox injections to rejuvenate myself (because I'm worth it), I'd decline. And now I have scientific proof that the use of Botox should be frowned upon. 

As you probably know, Botox paralyzes facial muscles. It is especially popular to deactivate those pesky frown muscles that show up when we're angry or sad. But a recent study shows that being able to frown is a necessary evil to understand said emotions. Patients scheduled for a first Botox injection were subjected to a reading task involving sentences with an angry, sad or happy component. After the patients had their treatment, reading time increased for the angry and sad sentences, but not for the happy sentences. Apparently, we need to be able to activate our frown muscles to be able to get in to the feeling and thus understand the sentences.

The moral of this study can be summarized by a quote from the Bible (or an African proverb, depending where you look):

'Sorrow is better than laughter; it may sadden your face, but it sharpens your understanding.'

But personally, I like this one better:

'The frowning face of a goat doesn't prevent it being taken to market.' Unfortunately, I am in the dark as to the meaning of this proverb.

Crafty Warcraft

World War II. Definitely a nasty war by all standards. A war requiring brilliant minds and creative ideas as one can read from this news item. Welcome to the mind of some of history's most important war strategists. Putting female hormones into Hitler's food in an attempt to make him less aggressive? Drop glue on German troops? I figure if these suggestions are considered valid and smart, I may as well throw some ideas of my own. So here are some alternative suggestions that just sprang from my wandering mind. A bit late to bring about Hitler's demise, but they might come in handy for other bad-ass world leaders during wartime:

Frankincense bombing:
Guaranteed mellowness for an entire country.
Warcraft games:
Virtual reality to replace or deflect the need for complete annihilation.
Planking attacks:
Because a stiff enemy just ain't no fun.
Hallmark cards:
Nothing speaks as much as a Hallmark card.
Glamour makeover:
Because looking good equals feeling good.
Free lottery tickets:
Winning price, a ticket to the moon. One-way, non-refundable. No correspondence possible concerning the outcome.
Broadcasting Reggae music:
'Don't worry be happy', 'simmer down', and 'judge not' to induce the feeling of love. Admittedly, the songs 'no woman, no cry' and 'stir it up' might not be suitable in this case, stringent selection is imperative.
Feathers and tar:
It has been known to work throughout history. Worst thing that can happen is that it makes the enemy more fluffy.
Pet presents:
After all, pets help to reduce stress and loneliness, as well as enhance socialization and attitudes.
Vuvuzela precision bombarding:
If it drove people insane at the 2010 World Cup matches, it just might do the trick for an army.

And should all these methods fail, we can always rely on the classical time-out. Hey, I figure if it works for my son, it might work for the Hitlers of the world too.

The truth is out there, so lie to me

While conducting a literature search on the development of cohesion in children I stumbled upon an interesting paper on lying and the use of 'um'. Even though it didn't have any relation whatsoever to the things I was looking for, I couldn't resist the urge to read the paper. But who wouldn't be interested in a paper with the title: 'Use of "um" in the deceptive speech of a convicted murderer', or  'Lies, lies and more lies' for that matter (both by Villar and colleagues). I have always thought that the use of um was a filler, used in order to organize one's thoughts. With this idea in mind, you would expect 'umming' all over the place in case of a lie. But the research by Villar and colleagues shows that umming is actually reduced when people lie compared to when they tell the truth. Their results are based on an experiment in which they told subjects to either lie or tell the truth about an opinion they held, but also based on a comprehensive analysis of truths and lies in police transcripts of a convicted murderer. How's that for a subject? In view of their results, Villar and colleagues argue that the use of um should be regarded as part of authentic, natural communication, which is lacking when one is lying.

Now, when we just moved to the United States we found an interesting television series 'Lie to me' in which Dr. Cal Lightman uses microexpressions (involuntary facial expressions of emotions that last about 1/25 to 1/15 of a second) and body gestures to investigate criminal cases. Wouldn't he be thrilled to be able to use umming as a lie detector?

Suspect: Well, ummm...
Dr. Cal: That's a LIE!
Suspect: but, ummm...
Dr. Cal: Another lie!
Suspect: could you at least let me finish it?

In addition, it also reminded me of a game often played on radio shows in which a person has to talk for one minute without saying 'um'. Apparently, the solution for winning the game is lying.

While on the subject of bad behavior, today I had to reprimand Lucas for refusing to get into the car which was followed by a screaming fit. Once I managed to get him into his car seat: "Sorry mommy. I won't scream anymore, mommy, and I won't yell anymore. And I won't... I won't... Mommy, what else did I do?"

Journalistic irony

I do love science. And the media. And the combination is simply hilarious:

On Nu.nl I read about a study on the quality and impartiality of journalistic pieces on science as reported by the BBC. Apparently, BBC journalists have a tendency to want to voice alternative theories or ideas when it comes to reporting on scientific results. So, if some researchers are unable to establish a link between let's say autism and vaccination, BBC journalists tend to overreport on studies and ideas that voice the opposite regardless of the lack of scientific proof of these counter ideas. As Knights of the Principle of Impartiality, I think this is a noble effort that might be applauded if it would not have been so entirely backwards.

You fail to see the humor in this? I understand. But it gets better. The proof is in the pudding, because after reporting on the study on the quality and impartiality of journalistic pieces on science, the journalist of Nu.nl (Mr. A. Nonymous) states: 'At least, this is the conclusion of .....' (dit is althans de conclusie van...) So, in reporting on this study, Mr. Nonymous shows himself to be a minor Knight of the Principe of Impartiality by casting some doubt on the results of the reported study. If only he would have gone all the way...

In my world, everyone's a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies!

(title comes from Dr. Seuss of course)

While I was attending a journalism class during my Ph.D. years, we had these assignments in which we had to translate scientific research into articles for magazines. It was one of the only classes I actually wanted to take, although the choice is made much easier when you have to choose between journalism and 'ethical questions in your research'.

I had fun, although I doubt my teacher approved of the subjects of my writings. One of the most interesting subjects I chose to write about was a study on the relationship between a parasitic infection (Toxoplasmosis Gondii; TG) and schizophrenia*. To summarize, rats are prone to TG. When infected, they become these kamikaze-creatures with a craving for hugging cats. This is great news for TG, because they can only reproduce in the bowels of cats. To make a long story short, rat eat TG, cat eat rat, cat scratch man or man eats cat (depending on the country you live in), man becomes schizophrenic.You still with me?

Now this is all fine and dandy, but we want scientific proof, right? So enter Professor Jaroslav Flegr, who found significant behavioral changes in humans as a consequence of infection with TG. Apparently, women become polygamous with a craving to spend money, whereas an infection in men leads to an increase in aggressive, jealous behavior. Great combination, which would fit neatly in the kamikaze theory I think. How this would be connected to schizophrenia is not clear though.

More 'clear cut' evidence for a link is the finding that schizophrenic people more often hug with cats compared to non schizophrenic people (54 to 42 percent). Although you could argue that the fondness for cat-hugging resulted in schizophrenia for the cat-hugging people, I could easily counter that by claiming that schizophrenic people might feel a fondness for cats precisely because they can relate to the whimsical (schizophrenic) behavior of their pet-of-choice. It's the ancient question of chicken and egg, converted to cat-hugging and schizophrenia.

A final piece of evidence comes from Dr. Torrey, an American psychiatrist and great supporter of the TG-schizophrenia link. He treated infected rats with two types of medicine: medicine against TG, and anti-schizophrenic medicine. Both treatments seemed to cure the rats from their kamikaze-behavior, but the anti-schizophrenic medicine was more effective.


So although your next step might be to dump your cat, you might want to consider the fact that infection with TG is much more likely when eating rare meat.


To end in style with another quote from Dr. Seuss:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
(And I am sure you did get the pun of Dr. Seuss? No? The Cat in the Hat? No? Well, then you are beyond my help)

*It maybe of interest to mention that a similar relationship has been claimed between TG and autism.

Social Networking: the good, the bad, and the ugly

I am on Facebook. And on Linkedin. On Orkut. Hyves. Schoolbank... and on a couple of other social networking sites that I don't even remember myself. And of course I have my personal blog, after all you are reading it. I'd like to say that I'm also on Twitter, but I am too old to understand the terminology on that. But I am digressing.

Except for my blog, I'm not really active on these sites. But I do like to follow my 'friends', 'colleagues', 'classmates', 'friends of friends' or even 'complete strangers'. Reading their posts gives me a sense of snooping in their lives, since they don't actually know I'm reading their posts. But I do have permission of course, nothing illegal there. Now, reading the posts of other people I can't help but wonder what the effects are of these networking sites. I'm not thinking about the obvious repercussions of time spent in a virtual world instead of a real world. I'm also not thinking about the new people you can meet, old people you can re-meet, the career advancing opportunities or the upgrade in your 'cool' factor when you reach 1000+ friends.

No, I'm thinking more in lines of the effect specific remarks can have on existing friendships with those you are writing about. We all know that the absence of face-to-face contact in the virtual world makes it easier for people to be direct (open, frank, honest or downright blunt and nasty). What happens when you write something about somebody, which is in turn read by many others, including the very person you wrote about? Does that affect your friendship? Does that affect the friendship you have with other social networkers that read your posts and think about the possibility of a(n) unwanted guest appearance on your wall? How do you react to these posts when you read them? You can't just 'like' it, right? Or do you just ignore the post?

If you expected to find an answer to these questions, I have to disappoint you. I didn't have time yet to find whether it has been researched, which I will be doing as soon as I can stop reading the posts on all the networking sites I'm connected to. And if I don't find an answer in existing research, I'm thinking about conducting my very own research. Will you participate? I will put up a 'like button' for you if you like. Making my very own social networking site as it were.

(S)melancholy

Do you know that melancholic feeling whenever you smell something that reminds you of your past? Our five senses seem to have strong ties with our emotions, especially our sense of smell. It's this sense that is phyiscally closest to the limbic system which in turn is connected to both memory and emotion. So there you go, I've yet another pseudo-scientific blog for you. Apparently, connections between smell, emotions and memory go back to before you were born. So that must mean that my mom loved dingy cellars, for I love the smell of those. I say this lovingly, for I've had many feelings of melancholy last month, upon smelling her laundry detergent in my clothes. There's just one problem....no more clothes that have been washed by her.

Pavlovian baby

Today I have witnessed what I believe to be a Pavlovian reaction in one of my children. Should I be worried? For those of you unfamiliar with the ideas of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, he's the guy who invented 'the conditional reflex', which consists of the idea of conditioning as an automatic form of learning. Two things should be mentioned though:

1.
Common knowledge tells us that Pavlov signalled the occurence of food by ringing a bell and thus bringing about the conditional reflex of saliva production in a dog who believed dinnertime was nigh. However, it seems that Pavlov also used other instruments among which were metronomes, visual stimuli and electric shocks. Where was the ethical committee when that last one entered his mind, eh?
2.

Apparently he had an assistent (also Ivan) who worked with him. Ivan Tolochinov did not nearly get as much publicity as Pavlov did upon presenting the results. Does this sound familiar to any of my old junior research fellas?

But my writings are wandering from the actual subject of this blog, which is my youngest son of 9 months. He is always full of energy, playing and prancing about. However, I KNOW he gets tired around 2,5 hours after waking. Not that it really shows, because at this time he's still crawling about like a cute ant on acid (or just a regular ant for that matter, because ants always look peculiarly busy to me). So I take him to his bed, and as soon as I hit the music-button of the babyphone-type-apparatus, he starts yawning and hangs in my arms. Hello Pavlov!

To end this pseudo-scientific blog, I'll give you a quote from my all-time favorite comedian Eddie Izzard, who talked about the results of Pavlov's cat experiment. Of course the results of this study have never been published, since it did not result in significant effects (which is something for another blog):

Day 1:                 Rang bell, cat fucked off.
Day 2:                 Rang bell, cat went and answered door.
Day 3:                 Rang bell, cat said he had eaten earlier.
Day 4:                 Went to ring bell, but cat had stolen batteries.
Final day-day 5:   Went and rang bell with new batteries, but cat put his paw on bell so it only made a
                           thunk noise. Then cat rang his own bell. I ate food.