Postcards from the Id

Your Poker Face May Need Work

Science Daily reviews an article published in Current Biology that indicates people give away the size of the number they are thinking about through their eyes.   According to the researchers, we tend to look down and to the left when the number we are thinking of is smaller than the previous number, while we look up and to the right if the number is larger.  From the article, here is the explanation:

When we think of numbers we automatically code them in space, with smaller number falling to the left and larger numbers to the right. That is, we think of them along a left-to-right oriented mental number line -- often without even noticing this number-space association ourselves."

"This study shows that shifts along the mental number line are accompanied by systematic eye movements. We suggest that when we navigate through mental representations -- as for example numbers -- we re-use brain processes that primarily evolved for interacting and navigating in the outside world."

It's interesting that our eyes shift in response to what we are "looking at" in our mental representations, at least for the majority of us.  I wonder what the researchers hypothesize regarding the outcome if they were to assess individuals who cannot read, are blind, etc.  I also wonder (as many of the professional poker players probably do, as well) if this can be corrected or altered if an individual is aware of this reflex, or if we are unable to prevent our eyes from acting this way...

Experimental "Error" May Not Be An Error At All

There is a fantastic article in the latest issue of Wired entitled, "Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up."  The article discusses, in a very readable way, the real-world problems of scientific research, and provides a neurological explanation for why researchers often make very-human mistakes when considering data and results that do not conform to their pre-existing expectations.  Several historical examples are offered, ans research by psychologist Kevin Dunbar into the process of research illuminates how preconceived notions about what "should" happen often negatively impact the interpretation of unexpected results - often leading to a conclusion that there must have been a mistake, rather than considering alternatives.  From the article:

Dunbar came away from his in vivo studies with an unsettling insight: Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.” Perhaps they hoped to see a specific protein but it wasn’t there. Or maybe their DNA sample showed the presence of an aberrant gene. The details always changed, but the story remained the same: The scientists were looking for X, but they found Y.

One suggestion for avoiding non-inquisitive thinking: diversity, primarily of attitude and scientific background.  That is, individuals who don't already "know" the material at hand may well bring a fresh perspective.  In addition, outsiders are often less constrained by what is "settled" in the field in question, and might be more willing to challenge orthodoxy.  I recall in When Life Nearly Died, it took several non-paleontologists (I believe their background was physics, though I can't recall for sure) to break down the century-old taboo against suggesting a meteor might have caused a mass extinction of the dinosaurs. 

I highly recommend you read the whole thing, both for the discussion of the research into the scientific processes of research, as well as the neurological discussion into how the brain handles disparate data.  Great stuff, and one of the best articles I've read in Wired in some time.

Cracking the CIA Code

Neat article in this month's Wired about a code the CIA (and others) have been unable to crack.  For twenty years.  On a sculpture outside of their building.  That they comissioned.

Actually, three of the portions have been solved, but the forth is obviously a bear.  The article discusses how all osrts of professional and amateur cryptologists have been taking cracks at solving it, and how the developer (who is still alive) receives all osrts of attention from the would-be code crackers...not all of it positive.  A highly recommended read!

Biggest Moon of 2009 - Check It Out At Sunset

According to this article, the biggest moon of 2009 will be out in full force tonight at dusk.  Normally this would be something I'd tell myself to check out, only to remember 2-3 hours too late.  The other scenario that's typical for me is to read about how cool something was the next day, not knowing it was happening the night before.  One time I did get lucky; about two years ago I was jogging before work, and just happened to notice a lunar eclipse!  I didn't catch the news report, just happened to be out a bit before sunrise - got lucky that time!  Only bummer: I didn't have the camcorder with me.  Anyway, I thought I'd pass this along, in case anyone is interested.  Tonight, I'll be out at that time anyway, so maybe I can actually follow up on my astral plan for once...

A Blood Test for Diagnosing Mental Illness?

This MSNBC article discusses recent research into diagnosing certain mental health issues, such as mood disorders, by examining the gene patterns found in a blood sample.  While the condescension around psychiatry "achieving parity" with other medical disciplines is irritating, the science in the article is interesting.  The article addresses some interesting issues that might possibly arise in these situations, such as a situation where the test says one thing, but the client indicates they are experiencing something different.  Nevertheless, the article does touch on the difficulties sometimes found in trying to accurately diagnose an individual's mental health issues (especially when the presentation is complicated and/or multifaceted), and there is the additional consideration that even the best intentioned individuals often have limited insight into their own issues.  A significantly accurate test that provides direction towards effective treatment would be a welcome advance.

The Science Behind the Movie "Jumper"

I found this NY Times article about a round table discussion between the makers of the movie Jumper, and faculty and students at M.I.T., to be a very interesting read.  The director, Doug Liman, seems to have taken the science of teleportation (the primary focus of the movie) seriously, and the article discusses where the concept of teleportation currently resides in physics, as well as what the potential ramifications of true teleportation could be, were it achieved.  Check it out.

Favorable Antidepressant Research More Likely to Be Published

This NY Times article is likely making the rounds in multiple places, but it is relevant for a couple of reasons.  First, specifically with regard to antidepressant medication, the public has a belief that these medications are much more powerful and effective than they actually are.  Without going into the "he said/she said" arguments, the fact is that the article is correct - people are prescribed these "wonder pills," and automatically expect fantastic results.  They simply do not work this way.  They are effective at addressing certain problems associated with depression, in some people.  That's it.

The larger issue is the ridiculous emphasis placed on "significant findings" when it comes to what gets published in research journals.  This has always been a problem, but I would imagine the explosion in computer technology over the last 10-15 years, which has made conducting studies infinitely easier (I still can't imagine having to write my dissertation 50 years ago, without the benefit of statistical software and a word processor!) has led to even greater competition to get one's study into a journal.  However, what has been consistently lost on the editors of journals is that the lack of statistically significant findings is just as relevant as finding statistical significance. 

This is also an interesting article to have come out, just after this article was released.  While I certainly agree with all of the recommendations (e.g. that therapy should be researched, that only quality therapy ought to be provided, etc.), it seems there may be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here, especially when therapy has been researched for decades, while many of these medications haven't been around 1/10 as long.  However, the point I do most strongly agree with is that, all things being equal, a client experiencing depression is best started on a course of both therapy and medication, as was advised here.

Life on Earth - Against the Odds

I really find stuff like this fascinating.  It seems that there are thousands of conditions necessary for a planet to simply have a chance of supporting life, and the more I think about it, the more mind-boggling it becomes.  The article, from Live Science, discusses just one aspect of it.

I'm also currently reading a book entitled When Life Nearly Died, which is about a mass extinction that occurred at the end of the Permian Era (200 million years ago) and wiped out 90% of life on Earth.  There is also a lot of other interesting facets to the book, including a discussion of both the history of paleontology, and the mass extinction 65 million years ago that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.  I'll do a more thorough review of the book when I finish, but I can already go ahead and recommend it (there's a link in the column on the right), based having read the first half.