Psychology

A recent review finds that over 97% of scientists believe that human activity is contributing to climate change. That is a very solid consensus of scientific opinion. This, of course, does not mean that the consensus must be correct, but (along with other data) it makes it unreasonable to claim that there is no consensus, or that there is significant scientific controversy on this topic. In fact, the 97% figure exactly matches prior surveys. Many scientific organizations have also officially endorsed this consensus. One of the common methods of deniers is to pretend as if there is a raging scientific controversy when in fact there is a solid consensus. Creationists, for example are constantly trying to portray evolution as a “theory in crisis,” when in fact it is doing quit well, thank you. The study employed an interesting methods. They reviewed 12,000 peer-reviewed published papers on topics relevant to climate change. They then tabulated, for those papers in which the researchers expressed a clear opinion about climate change, whether or not they supported the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming. In over 97% of cases they did. From the abstract: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. No survey is ever perfect – whenever you evaluate a subset of people in order to draw conclusions about the larger group, there is the possibility of selection bias. In this case one might argue that scientists who reject anthropogenic global warming are less likely to express those views in a peer-reviewed paper, or to have such views published. This method, however, is reasonable. They also backed this up with another phase of the study in which they invited authors to rate their own research and opinions, and 97.2% endorsed the consensus of global warming. While it’s possible to quibble about this number, given the strong agreements among various methods around the 97% figure, it’s difficult to argue that the true figure is significantly different. Why do we care about the consensus? Isn’t this just an argument from authority? Well, yes and no. It seems reasonable, especially for those who consider themselves skeptics, to argue that facts and logic should determine a scientific question, not authority. Or that we should “let the fact speak for themselves.” Unfortunately, facts cannot speak for themselves. Scientific evidence needs to be examined, rated for quality, interpreted, and put into a broader context. There is often no simple connect from facts to conclusions in science – background knowledge, knowledge of the processes of science, familiarity with critical thinking, logical pitfalls, and the effects of bias on interpretation are all necessary to come to a reliable conclusion about what those facts are telling us. Different individuals are likely to have different biases and knowledge bases, and therefore may come to different conclusions about the same set of data. No individual, therefore, can be the ultimate authority on any scientific question. The power of consensus is that individual quirks and biases will tend to average out. The consensus of scientific opinion, therefore, is a way to gauge the agreement and power of the scientific evidence. The only other alternative is to evaluate all the scientific evidence first hand and come to your own conclusion. The potential pitfall here, however, is that individuals who are not experts in the relevant field believe

Discrimination originates in prejudice. It most often takes the form of social rejection, with racial- and gender-based discrimination being two of the most common types. A curious phenomenon about the effects of discrimination is reported in the journal Psychological Science by the team of Wendy Mendes — a senior psychologist at the University of California, San Francisco. It is suggested that we divide the world into them (out-group) and us (in-group), by placing people into social groups. The Wendes study suggests that individuals are more sensitive to discrimination by out-group members than in-group members. In-group discrimination leads to feelings of threat and shame, whereas discrimination by out-group members is perceived as a challenge situation, leading instead to anger. In-group discrimination is also linked to cortisol increase, short term memory impairments, and increased vascular resistance which, if experienced over the long-term, can lead to disorders with severe cognitive impairments. However, the study reports that out-group discrimination has more immediate results: expressions of anger, increased vigilance for danger, and more risk-taking behaviors. So, out-group discrimination is more likely to lead to dangerous behavior patterns compared to in-group discrimination. Discrimination seems to be a very powerful social weapon. The effects described above do not necessarily need a face-to-face situation. In the study by Mendes and colleagues, participants at the receiving end of social rejection showed distinct emotional and physiological profiles when merely informed that their on-line negative interaction was with either an in-group or an out-group member. Social rejection from an out-group partner — even in an on-line interaction — is enough to trigger anger and risk-taking behaviors. The research described above focused only on racial discrimination. The participants were simply told that the person spewing negativity through chat was either a person of the same race or from a different race as the participant. Despite the anonymity and one-off interaction, the effect of social rejection was strong enough to elicit both affective and physiological responses. The effects could possibly be much stronger if the interactions are prolonged or with known ‘friends’. It is also highly possible that the strong and negative reaction to discrimination is not limited to racial discrimination alone. People form out-groups and in-groups based on the current social situation they are in. Affective and physiological responses similar to that observed in the study discussed above could be triggered in reaction to any form of out-group discrimination. Hate blogs, discriminatory social networking groups and posts may therefore have a tremendous impact on our social lives. Consider how many times we run across discriminatory posts while on a random scrawl through our news feeds. This study might be reason enough to stop you sharing apparently harmless, but potentially discriminatory messages on your Facebook wall. Reference Jamieson JP, Koslov K, Nock MK, & Mendes WB (2013). Experiencing discrimination increases risk taking. Psychological science, 24 (2), 131-9 PMID: 23257767 Image via Mary_L / Shutterstock. Related Articles: Why So Serious About The Self? Smell Your Age Cults and Terrorism, Part 5 – Features of Destructive Cults Genotypes, Stress and Emotions. Oh My! Social Isolation and Mental Illness The Brain Rejects Inequality Motivation for Mental Health Care – All it Takes is a Phone Call

Emerging research shows that exergaming – using active console video games that track player movement to control the game (e.g., Xbox-Kinect, Wii) — can increase physical activity in kids. While technology is often blamed for increasing levels of physical inactivity and obesity, researchers are learning that innovative use of technology can allow students to burn calories while having fun. Unfortunately, levels of physical inactivity and obesity are very high in children, with fewer than 50 percent of primary school-aged boys and fewer than 28 percent of girls meeting the minimum levels of physical activity required to maintain health. In the study, scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, researchers from The University of Western Australia, and Swansea University evaluated 15 children, 9-11 years of age. Participants performed 15 minutes each of high intensity exergaming (Kinect Sports – 200m Hurdles), low intensity exergaming (Kinect Sports – Ten Pin Bowling), and a graded exercise test (treadmill). The researchers measured energy expenditure and an individual’s vascular response to each activity using flow-mediated dilation (FMD) — a validated measure of vascular function and health in children. They found that high intensity exergaming elicited an energy expenditure equivalent to moderate intensity exercise; low intensity exergaming resulted in an energy expenditure equivalent to low intensity exercise. While the low intensity exergaming did not have an impact on vascular health, high intensity exergaming did significantly decrease FMD, suggesting that the latter may improve vascular health in children. High intensity exergaming also increased heart rate and the amount of energy burned. Participants reported similar enjoyment levels with both intensities of exergaming, which indicates that children may be equally likely to continue playing the high intensity games. According to lead investigator Louise Naylor,Ph.D., “Higher intensity exergaming may be a good form of activity for children to use to gain long-term and sustained health benefits.” These findings also support the growing notion that high-intensity activity is beneficial for children’s health, and high-intensity exergaming should be considered a means of encouraging children to become more active. Perhaps the most important aspect of this technological solution is that exergaming is just fun — and thus encourages participation and long-term behavioral change. Source: Elsevier Girl playing Wii game photo by shutterstock.

I have never had any type of mental issue until randomly about a week ago. I am a very mellow person and have not been dealing with much stress or any other problems and up until now I have been completely normal. All of a sudden last Tuesday my life has drastically changed mentally. All of a sudden I became extremely dazed and light headed to the point where I feel like nothing is real. I thought this was from sleep deprivation or a feeling that would pass but days later it hasn’t gone away. For some reason I am just constantly questioning my existence and what’s been going on and its freaking me out. Basically its as if nothing feels real. I want so desperately for this feeling to go away and I don’t know what to do. I’m not sure if its anxiety and if I need to go to the doctor or what but any advice would help thanks! A. You may be experiencing derealization or depersonalization. Derealization is often associated with anxiety. People who experience derealization say they feel as though the external world is unreal. Depersonalization is also associated with anxiety disorders. People who experience derealization describe feeling as though they’re living in an “unreality” or that they are disconnected from their own feelings. You also mentioned sleep problems. It’s possible that your symptoms are associated with sleep deprivation, depending on how much sleep you have lost. However, you stated that even after catching up on sleep these odd feelings remain. Drug use is also associated with derealization and depersonalization. Marijuana in particular is often associated with the aforementioned symptoms. You did not mention any drug use but it may have been omitted from your letter. The fact that you continue to experience these symptoms suggests that intervention is necessary. Your symptoms may be due to anxiety and if that is in fact the case, your anxiety requires treatment. Meet with a mental health professional and report your symptoms. A mental health professional will collect a full psychosocial history and determine the best treatment for your symptoms. Medication might also be helpful in elevating your symptoms. Please take care. Dr. Kristina Randle Mental Health & Criminal Justice Blog

I am frequently asked “What is mindfulness?” I start by saying something poignant like “It’s being aware and in the present moment” or “It’s about allowing each experience to wash over us like a cool spring rain, without attachment or judgments.” I love these answers and they generally tend to spawn a lively conversation about experiences, judgment and simply allowing ourselves to be present. Mindfulness, though, is also about perception and reaction. Here’s what I mean… I love Viktor Frankl, the Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who survived a World War II concentration camp. He is a genuine hero of mine. While he never labeled it “mindfulness,” he practiced it daily while a prisoner of the Nazis. He spoke eloquently in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, about gaining control over our reactions and our perceptions of reality. What you think or perceive, you then become or behave. Frankl talked about times when all those around him gave up the notion of ever being rescued or reunited with their families. In doing so, their spirit began to give way to the daily horrors they endured. Frankl, however, spent his days knowing that if he gave into his anger and rage for what his captors were perpetrating against him and countless others, it would eat him alive, and then they truly would have taken over his soul. Their mission certainly would have been accomplished. He spoke about sitting silently, staring at the sunset, capturing glimpses of the past in memories and long-lost laughter, even telling jokes or stories of the old days with fellow inmates. It was a trying time, to put it mildly. Frankl knew, though that his captors could do anything they wanted to his physical body, they could never capture his perceptions or reactions. His mind and spirit were his own. He chose to tend to this part of his character by seeing the good in his horrendous situation, seeing the hope that others had lost and feeling optimistic for the good in humanity. This is a rather extreme example of finding the good in an otherwise awful situation, but it is meant to evoke a sense of ownership. I believe that we all have ownership over our perceptions and our reactions. If you feel that you continually get a raw deal in life, then you are probably accurate in your assumption — not because life is out to get you, but because you “perceive” it to be. Your reaction to anything good in life, if you believe that you are truly getting the short end of the stick, will likely be one of anxiety for the bad that must be just around the corner. I see this in action daily basis with clients and family members. Sadly, my father has spent his entire life waiting for the other shoe to drop, as they say. His accomplishments, which I view as many, he merely sees as catalysts for the next awful dose of reality. My father came to live with my husband and me almost five years ago because of illness and financial hardship. To him, his life lost all meaning, but to me it seemed like an amazing do-over. To my father, his presence in our home is a burden and an embarrassment for a man who has been self-sufficient since his early teens, but to me it’s been a gift. Sure, I would have loved to at least have more than 900 square feet of space for three adults and three four-legged children, but to be able to take my father from a situation of struggle and strife to one of ease and unconditional love has been a wonderful present from life. My father’s perception and mine are vastly different — precisely my point. One man’s trash is definitely another man’s treasure. That is the essence of mindfulness: living mindfully, fully aware, fully present and actively knowing that whatever your situation is, it is merely that, a situation. It does not define you, unless you allow it to. It may be hard. It may be a struggle. Life is hard and life can be a struggle. Suffering is completely optional. Perceiving and reacting out of love and mindful awareness can

Good afternoon, I am 21 years old youngest of three. My mother had two children before she met my dad. Then she fell in love with my dad then I came along. I come from a very strict Hispanic family. My older siblings being my sister still lives with us, my brother recently got married. I just started my first year in college and Im doing well. But I feel like my family still controls me, when I go out they expect a phone call from the time of my arrival and departure, to who Im with and where Im going. Im in a relationship but my sister tends to threaten me of ending the relationship, yet I only see my boyfriend a day out of the week, two if we’re lucky. My older sister tends to dominate my mother’s authority sometimes and I believe it’s not fair. I plan on discussing this issue with my therapist to see what advice she can give me. I also plan on getting a job and moving out soon but my mother has told/ warned me if I leave that the financial support shall be gone. Im scared yet willing to take the risk but I do need help please. Im willing to provide more information if necessary, thank you and have a good day. A: I do understand how difficult this is. You want the independence you see other American women your age having at college. But you come from a traditional Hispanic family that is more protective. You want to be able to make your own decisions but it’s hard to cut loose from the financial and emotional support that your family offers. It can look like there is a big cost to whatever you do. I’m impressed that you are willing to work hard and perhaps move out. That shows courage and strength. I hope it doesn’t have to come to a blowup with your family for you to be with your boyfriend and to pursue your own dreams. I’m very glad you found a therapist to help you. That’s the person you should be talking to about these issues. She can learn your whole story, where I only have your short letter. She can provide you with ongoing advice and support. I’m sure the two of you can figure out how you can gain more independence and still be connected to the people you love. You may even want to invite them to come to a session or two to help you in the project. I wish you well. Dr. Marie

Publication of US psychiatry's updated diagnostic code has provoked renewed debate in recent weeks over the extent to which mental illness ought to be framed as a psychosocial or a biological problem. The answer of course is that it is both. A new Canadian study captures this interplay, showing how close friendships mitigate the risk for girls whose genes mean they are more vulnerable than average to depression. Mara Brendgen and her colleagues studied 294 pairs of twins aged ten years old (147 girls). Some of the twins were identical (they share the same genes), the others were non-identical (sharing just half their genes). Each twin pair was raised together in the same family. The researchers obtained ratings of the children's signs of depression from their teachers and classmates. They also gauged their close friendships by asking each child to nominate up to three best friends in their class, and to indicate who was their very best friend. Reciprocal nominations were a sign of mutual friendship. The children also answered questions about the quality of their friendships, including whether they do fun things together or get angry with each other. Consistent with past research, there was evidence of the role of genes in depression. That is, correlations in signs of depression were much higher between identical versus non-identical twins. If one of a pair of identical twins had signs of depression, this was taken as an indication that the second twin had genetic vulnerability for the condition. If one of a pair of non-identical twins showed signs of depression, this was also taken to mean the other twin had genetic vulnerability, but less so than in the case of identical twins. Here's the main result. Genetic vulnerability to depression in girls was less likely to manifest if they had at least one close friend. Stated differently, the apparent protective effect of having at least one close friend was magnified in girls who were genetically vulnerable to the condition. This means that for girls there was an interplay between genetic risk and the protective effect of friendship. This was not the case for boys. Friendships did appear to protect boys from depression, but this was not related in any way to their genetic vulnerability. Perhaps, the researchers surmised, there is a gender difference because "girls tend to rely more on social relationships as a source of self-definition and self-validation, and their friendships are also characterised by greater intimacy, self-disclosure, empathy and emotional support." Separate from any issues of genetic vulnerability, another gender difference was that boys, but not girls, showed an additive protective effect against depression of having more friends. The researchers said this may be because girls more often have intimate one-on-one friendships, whereas boys are more often part of friendship groups. Other details to emerge from the study: better quality friendships were more protective against depression (regardless of genetic vulnerability); genetic vulnerability to depression wasn't associated with the likelihood of a child having friends, but it was negatively associated with the perceived quality of their friendships. The study has some limitations, particularly the relatively small sample size, the reliance on observer ratings of depression, and the cross-sectional design, which means a causal role for friendships cannot be assumed. Also, the results may be specific to this age group. Despite these shortcomings, this is an innovative study on an important topic. Children who show signs of depression pre-adolescence are at heightened risk for having problems in their teens and beyond, so the more we understand about mitigating this risk, the better. The researchers said their results "emphasise the importance of teaching social interactional skills that promote positive relations with others to help prevent the development of depressive behaviour in childr

I'm gonna try and be fairly brief in this post on the paper by Valerio Napolioni and colleagues* (open-access) looking at plasma cytokine profiles in cases of autism and their asymptomatic siblings. Brief because (a) the paper is open-access and (b) the participant groups (autism: n=25; sibling controls n=25) were relatively small so one has to be quite careful in extrapolating the findings with any large degree of confidence.Siblings by Paul Klee @ WikiPaintings Just in case you are new to cytokines, we are talking biological signalling and communication, and in particular, the language of inflammation both pro- and anti-inflammatory (see this post).With the autism spectrum conditions in mind, research into cytokines has filled quite a few peer-reviewed papers** from lots of different perspectives (see here and here for example). The main message so far is that it is complicated as per everything about autism and immune function.Despite the quite small participant group, the Napolioni paper does seem to be an important paper for a few reasons:They report no overall difference in cytokine profiles - measuring 40 cytokines - between cases of autism and their asymptomatic siblings. This despite the fact that autism symptoms and total IQ measures were different. That was the paper's headline.But.... "the cytokine/chemokine levels in our subjects did correlate with the quantitative clinical traits" or in other words, certain analysed parameters seemed to match with level of severity of autistic traits as measured by schedules such as VABS and SRS. "IL-1? appears to be the cytokine most involved in the quantitative traits".When looking at the children with autism according to various clinical subgroups - non-verbal, functional gastrointestinal (GI) issues, history of regression, history of allergies - a few correlations were noted. So, children who were non-verbal seemed to show higher levels of cytokines such as IL-10, one of the more anti-inflammatory cytokines. Children with accompanying GI issues seemed to show higher levels of more pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-1? and IL-6 compared with those without GI problems. Reported regression as part and parcel of symptom onset also seemed to show some correlation with specific cytokines too.As the authors point out correlation does not imply causation. Such that just because they reported connections between cytokines and functioning and other factors does not necessarily mean that these observations are causative of autism (or anything else). That being said, as I hinted before, this is not the first time that cytokines and their connection to immune function have been discussed in the autism research literature (see yet another example of this here***); many correlations in similar directions makes for some interesting discussions at least.That headline that children with autism and their siblings did not significantly differ in their cytokine profile carries a few possibilities for interpretation. The authors suggest that this could be evidence of "an ‘autism endophenotype’ that expands immune dysfunction to family members who are seemingly unaffected by the core symptoms of autism". One might also say the same thing about the Gondalia paper**** on gut bacteria in cases of autism and siblings (see here).Assuming that the broader autism phenotype (BAP) does not come into play here, one might speculate that (a) cytokine profiles are not related to the presence of autism, or (b) that the manifestation of autism, some autism, is representative of cytokine involvement but in addition to other factors in terms of the affected sibling - "when an environmental stress (for example, prenatal exposure to environmental toxins, viral and bacterial infections, parental microchimerism, etc.) occurs during development". This last point takes me back to that 1971 John Money study on the appearance of familial autoimmune related conditions 'round about' the presence of autism and a similar cor

Apartments Back doors below the fold.

Director of the National Institute for Mental Health Thomas Insel gives a TED Talk on the new domain criteria research direction, and how an important first step is to reframe mental illness as brain disorders. By doing so, diverse fields like psychology, cognitive science, molecular neuroscience, genetics, psychiatry, and more can work together toward a new understanding of the mind.