Why We Believe

"For if you have never had a paranormal experience such as these, and believe in none of the things that science says do not exist excepts as tricks played on the gullible or - as neuroscientists are now beginning to see - by the normal workings of the mind carried to an extreme, well, then you are in a lonely minority." - Newsweek, November 3rd, 2008.

I know that I was thinking about other things during the week before the November elections. Which is probably why I didn't notice this article well before tonight's long-overdue cleaning of the abode brought it to my attention. I'll comment on it here, as a follow-up to my recent post.

I'll start with a brief run-down of some of my internal comments while reading the article...

"Here we go again with 'psychic phenomena = alien abduction'."
"Shermer, Shermer, oh Shermer again." (I personally think that Shermer is a reasonable, though overly-invested, skeptic. But no wonder parts of this article read like some of his recent columns in Scientific American.)
"Crap, this is long."
"Who decided that the week before the election was a good time to run this piece? And why?"

For those of you who won't bother to read the article, let me just present a list of the proposed explanations for paranormal beliefs...

• People see more patterns in noise when they feel a loss of control. Our current social and political turmoil predicts the current rise of interest in the paranormal. (I can't in good conscience touch that.)
• An inability to think scientifically, as demonstrated by self-professed alien abductees who wouldn't accept an alternative hypothetical explanation for their experiences. (Hey, if I woke up on the floor, I'd believe I had fallen out of the bed.)
• Loneliness. Apparently telling people that they will end up lonely and socially-isolated is enough to make them more likely to confess a belief in the paranormal. (Shit! I should be out partying tonight instead of at home cleaning...)
• Our brain wasn't evolved for actual reality. We sometimes shut down the part of the brain ("a bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe") that distinguishes where our body begins and the material world ends. (Sweet! All I have to do is turn these neurons off and I'll have a built-in trip?! How do I patent that?)
• Your brain is filling in the blanks with regards to sensory information. It's all in the interpretation. We use our "existing cognitive structures to make sense of an ambiguous or amorphous stimuli." (That's true, but it's funny how we never invoked that excuse to explain how people perceive something that science agrees is actually there...)
• It's all your imagination because "the regions that become active when people imagine seeing or hearing something are identical to those that become active they really do see or hear something in the outside world." (It's a miracle that we can distinguish one from the other at all!)
• It's all the mind reinforcing itself with that good ol' psychological glitch called the confirmation bias - "the mind better recalls events and experiences that validate what we believe than those that refute those beliefs." (Until someone explains to you that 'he's just not that into you.')
• We evolved to have a brain that protects us by signalling false positives for threatening phenomena. (Theoretically though, this should be cancelled out by the 'it's all your imagination', right?)

Ah, and now the list of proposed explanations for extreme skepticism...

• A feeling of intellectual superiority. "It is rewarding to look at the vast hordes of believers, conclude that they are idiots and delight in the fact that you aren't." (The academic counterpart to 'holier than thou'.)
• It allows one to belong to a community, which is what we all crave. (Can't I just join a book club? Or a volleyball league? Seriously - why do we need to create community around our respective beliefs in the paranormal?)

That's it. End of list.

Just remember - if you have the impression that this article has a clear bias, it's probably all in your imagination because your brain is wired to confirm its belief that journalism is unbiased. Maybe you're stressed and therefore you're seeing a pattern that really isn't there. Maybe you should go find some friends, or take a course in logical thinking. Maybe your brain is trying to protect you by alerting you to the possible threat of media indoctrination.

Dude, seriously.

The Meeting of Science and Spirit

"Knowledge of our spirits and knowledge of the world are mutually enlightening and empowering. The ultimate aim of both is to dissipate suffering."

The other day I had a fairly engaged conversation with Skeptical Friend. By 'fairly engaged', I mean that I was actively trying to avoid the reduction of the conversation to the level of rhetoric and dogma. When pressed, Skeptical Friend's concerns were these...

1) Belief in one paranormal/New Age phenomenon leads to a widespread embracing of other phenomena, without the appropriate skepticism to each claim. Embracing claims without the appropriate skepticism is tantamount to being a target for every charlatan who wishes to prey upon your ignorance.

2) Belief in paranormal/New Age ideas is equivalent to belief in God, or some other equally-unprovable idea. Belief in an idea for which the evidence is tenuous at best puts you at the mercy of 'representatives' of that idea who claim special knowledge and/or abilities, unless your knowledge happens to exceed theirs. Again you are a target for those who would shape your behavior according to their ideals.

3) Somehow those who are not so gullible will end up paying for the actions of those who were not appropriately skeptical.

(I'm being generous. SF wasn't so concise or articulate.)

My response to this (in part) was that the line in the sand that lumps the anomalous psychic experience with ghost and UFO abduction on one side, and 'hard science' like physics and chemistry on the other, is part of the problem. Scientists who loudly denounced a 'psychic' or 'spiritual' experience as impossible and therefore hallucination or hoax do not convince people who believe that they have had such an experience that nothing happened. Rather, they suggest or reinforce the notion that the person must go elsewhere (somewhere other than science) for an explanation.

Where else do you go if you are a person who has had an experience or series of experiences that you cannot dismiss? You look for 1) someone who will acknowledge your experience, and 2) someone who will offer an explanation for what happened. Perhaps the best that mainstream science (and I use the term 'science' loosely) can do at this point is the psychoanalyst who tells you that your subconscious is trying to tell you something important, and who then works with you to deal with any problems you are having in your life. But the psychoanalyst is in fierce competition with the priest and New Age section at the local bookstore. Science is in a competition for the minds of the masses as long as it continues to deny the experiences of rational, intelligent people that it cannot yet explain. As long as scientists perpetuate this kind of arrogant denial, they leave open the gate that allows people to go elsewhere for explanations. Science doesn't have to have complete understanding of the world in order to be useful, but it will only be useful to people if it acknowledges its incompleteness.

Until science can explain the natural laws that give rise to these mental and 'spiritual' phenomena that are consistently experienced by people of every age, level of education, and cultural background, it would be wise to do the following...

1) Encourage scientific investigation into these phenomena. Ridicule and isolation of those scientists who do investigate these areas only slows our ultimate progress towards a complete understanding the source of these experiences.

2) Educate our children in basic psychology and self-awareness. Nothing engenders a healthy skepticism like seeing your own vulnerability to illusions of memory and perception exposed. Nothing protects a person from being taken advantage of like an understanding of the social and psychological motivations for behavior.

3) Avoid the dogma that science is all-knowing, and that what does not fall under its current understanding must not exist. Chastise scientists whose claims exceed the boundaries of their actual knowledge. No scientist should be able to state that God does not exist, and for exactly the same reasons as no scientist should be able to state that God does exist.

4) Understand the needs that are currently being met by religion and/or metaphysical beliefs. It is not the place of science to address these needs, but science can play a vital role in identifying how to meet these needs without introducing any unnecessary beliefs or behaviors.

The Passing of Henry Gustav Molaison

"He left a legacy in science that cannot be erased." - New York Times, December 5, 2008.

Known to the world as H.M., Molaison spent the better part of 50 years under the scrutiny of scientists. Thankfully, it was beyond his ability to remember the indignity of such an existence. Molaison suffered from a type of anterograde amnesia as the result of an experimental brain surgery in 1953, and was unable to create new long-term episodic memories.

Molaison's unique impairment fueled the development of the field of cognitive neuroscience. Unlike other patients with traumatic brain injury, Molaison's brain damage had been surgically induced in an attempt to alleviate seizures. The unexpected memory impairment he also suffered as a result of the surgery provided some of the first clues as to the neuroscience of memory, the different types of memory, and memory encoding and retrieval processes.

His impairment left him unable to hold a job, and following the surgery (at age 27) he did not or could not live alone. As Molaison was cut off from the one cognitive function that enables us to learn, reflect, grow and make judgments, it is hard to know exactly how he felt about his life as the object of intense research. Was it a life he would have chosen for himself had he the capacity to remember even a year of such an existence?

Caught in a perpetual 'now', Molaison was at the mercy of the intentions of others. What informed consent he was able to give for his participation in the ongoing series of studies was limited to his feelings and perceptions at the moment. While his participation is these studies undoubtedly made a profound contribution to the field of cognitive neuroscience, reading his obituary in the New York Times left me pondering what principles guided the decisions about his participation. Can any of us say we would have chosen his life if we retained the ability to remember each day as a test subject? Is the argument then that he did not suffer because he was unable to remember the endless series of tasks in which his role may have been more akin to that of a lab rat than an equal collaborative partner?

Molaison's obituary alternatively refers to him as 'Mr. Molaison' and 'H.M.', in roughly equal measure. 'H.M.' was his identity in the community of science. Myself a student of memory, I did not know his given name until today. Was his status as a person somehow diminished by the reduction of his attributes to a set of data that bore the label 'H.M.'? Was this level of impersonalization necessary for the scientific enterprise to operate in an unbiased manner, or did it create and fuel an atmosphere that permitted Molaison to be unnecessarily objectified?

We live in an era that is increasingly concerned with issues of cognitive liberty (and rightfully so), and we must make sure that cognitive differences become neither an excuse to dehumanize, nor exploit any individual. Sovereignty of self should not be limited by how a person thinks. When we choose what another should experience, or how they should spend their time, we are shaping the future state of their brain and mind. This is nowhere more apparent than in the experience of parenting, but it applies as well to those who bears the responsibility of care for a person who is cognitively impaired. The impact of a single event may be greatly reduced in a person with certain cognitive impairments, or it may be greatly exaggerated. Therefore there is no catch-all answer as to the best way to ensure that such a person's sovereignty is held in responsible trust by its guardians. As a society, we are beginning to make inroads in recognizing these issues, and they require our ongoing willingness to tackle questions about individual identity and autonomy, such as those faced by Molaison, and the larger questions about how we treat those whose internal experience we can only begin to understand.

The Perils of Maverickhood

(I'm cleaning out the files. As it is no longer election season, I can post this and still be politically neutral.)

Maverick: " ... a bullock or heifer that has not been branded, and is unclaimed or wild; -- said to be from Maverick, the name of a cattle owner in Texas who neglected to brand his cattle."

I used to like the word 'maverick'. "Has not been branded... unclaimed ... wild" has a mystique to it that's hard to beat. But it really just means 'fell through the cracks', and/or 'got away when no one was looking'. And while 'wild' and 'unclaimed' are now synonymous with 'rebel' and 'independent', the word 'maverick' doesn't mean that you are particularly good at anything, or that you are superior to those who didn't escape the branding process. It doesn't even mean that you had to fight to escape being branded.

But somewhere along the way the idea of a 'maverick' began to evoke connotations of competence and effectiveness, presumably because being outside/above/beyond 'the system' meant a greater freedom to act in a way that could accomplish the desired (presumably good) ends. This certainly seems to be what we are supposed to think when we hear certain persons self-label as 'mavericks'. But "a person who thinks independently; a lone dissenter; a non-conformist or rebel" must be able to function within any system s/he hopes to influence. This holds true for the systems of science, as well as those of politics. While both systems benefit from people who aren't afraid to voice a new or unpopular opinion, the mantle of maverickhood sets a person upon a perilous path.

The perils of maverickhood are these...

1) Using 'non-conformity' as a shield for ineptitude and/or failure to understand the mainstream positions, or simply as a strategy to win attention.

2) Thinking that when/if you win points for independent thinking, the game gets easier. In reality, it gets harder.

3) Assuming that validated independent thinking in one area means that your wisdom in all areas is superior.

4) Assuming that having been noticed for rogue thought or action means that all of your subsequent thoughts/actions must be equally rogue in nature. After all, you have a reputation to maintain.

5) Listening to people who, when you successfully rebel and accomplish one thing, often expect that you can accomplish many more things that fall outside of your area(s) of expertise. (If you're smart, you don't lose your perspective. If not...)

(Interestingly enough, the use of the word 'maverick' by certain high-profile persons dropped off sharply just after I wrote (but did not post) this. Perhaps the incredulity was more widespread...)

The next time you hear or are tempted to use the word 'maverick', remember that it really just means 'got away when no one was looking.' ;)

On Thankfulness

"All our discontents about what we want appeared to spring from the want of thankfulness for what we have."

It's difficult to find something new to say on this topic. So instead I'll tell this story...

Thanksgiving has been a 'portable' holiday for me for quite some years now. I've often been far from family at Thanksgiving, and unable to make it home for this holiday. Rather than forgo the celebration of Thanksgiving altogether, I've attempted to celebrate it with friends wherever I happen to be living. This has left me with a wonderful collection of memories.

It's a different celebration every year, depending on where I'm living and who is available. Occasionally I've been invited to spend Thanksgiving with a friend's family, but some of the best memories are those where a group of friends came together to create our own Thanksgiving. One year all the friends were travelling to be with family, so we held Practice Thanksgiving Dinner the weekend before Thanksgiving. Another year a different group of friends held Thanksgiving dinner at the apartment of a recently-divorced friend, and spent the latter part of Thanksgiving Day shopping for all new Christmas decorations for her. One of the best memories is from one of the first times I spent Thanksgiving away from family, and with my friend Jimmy. Neither of us had much experience making Thanksgiving dinner, but we went at it with much gusto, from shopping for the food to decorating the table, and had a wonderful time.

If it sounds like I'm missing the point about Thanksgiving, rest assured that thankfulness is multiplied when it is celebrated with others. Each of these events created stronger bonds of friendship for which I am still thankful, though over the years I've lost touch with some of these people. For a time we were important to each other, and we gave thanks and celebrated that together.

A few days ago I won a turkey, and though I already have plans for Thanksgiving Day, I couldn't help but try to use that turkey as an excuse to catalyze another group of friends to come together for a dinner. Not really enough notice to pull off a whole holiday dinner, but I had to try. So this year I think there will be a 'Meat and Greet' event wherein the cooking of the turkey and the distribution of the meat will be cause for a get-together.

And speaking of events, I'd better get moving! Happy Thanksgiving!

A Welfare Magnet

"[Our Fair State] is more attractive to low income individuals than high wage earners." - cited today in local newspaper.

Not long ago I ranted about people who take advantage of state-funded health insurance. Since that post, I have heard other stories that make me crazy in that special way I get crazy when I hear you say that it's someone else's responsibility to take care of you. If you don't pay for your own health insurance, food, and daycare, then you have no business spending money on cable and high-speed internet.

And now a recent study conducted at Princeton University pegs Our Fair State as a state where the people who fund such attractive (and, apparently, easily-obtainable) welfare programs (with substantially higher benefit levels than those of neighboring states) are leaving the state, while those who drain those resources are flocking to it. Apparently this isn't news, as a 'welfare migration' to our Our Fair State from Neighboring Large City was reported over a decade ago in the New York Times.

Our Fair State is also facing a $5 billion dollar budget deficit. So what is the solution?

1) Cut benefits. If you are able to work, then it is your responsibility to support yourself and your children. It won't necessarily be pleasant, but you are also entitled to start your own business doing whatever it is that you want to do. Non-custodial parents with child support obligations should be last on the list to receive certain benefits (or not on it at all) if they are able to work but simply choose not to do so. Unemployment or underemployment should not be attractive in any way to a person with children to support. If you have screwed around with your life and have a lousy employment history, then accept the fact that you will have to work at less than desirable jobs to repair that history until you can get hired for a more satisfactory position. You are not too good to work at McDonald's, and you are not too good to work two or more jobs at the same time.

I've heard people complain that if they make more money, their benefits go down and that money is gone anyway, or they end up with a net loss when the benefits are taken away. (Yes, that's you with the cable and high-speed internet.) The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's not the state's responsibility to feed your children, enable you to put them in daycare, and pay for your health insurance when you are perfectly capable of paying for these things yourself.

Our Fair State has higher benefit level than most of the neighboring states. We also have one of the highest rates of migration of lower-income individuals into our state. Whether the goal is to stop the influx of a potential drain on Our Fair State's resources, or to reduce the existing state budget deficit, it makes sense to bring our state's benefit levels in line with those of neighboring states with similar costs of living by cutting benefits.

2) Tighten residency restrictions on who is eligible for benefits. If there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not a student) in order to receive in-state tuition at public universities, then there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not unemployed) in order to qualify for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps and state-sponsored health insurance.

We complain that Our Fair State loses too many of its best college graduates upon graduation. If retention of individuals who contribute more positively to the tax base is a goal, then perhaps in-state tuition at public universities could be traded for a residency requirement to be fulfilled after graduation.

3) Make working a more attractive option than not working.

Apparently Our Fair State has one of the most generous state earned income tax credit programs in the United States. This is a refundable tax credit that is available even to those who owe no taxes. The credit has three 'phases', which describe how the credit is calculated based on differing levels of qualifying incomes. One you hit a certain point within the qualifying income range, your tax credit begins to shrink. This tax credit can represent a significant amount of money, but it is not counted as income when judging eligibility for food stamps or low income housing. It is also possible to receive advance payments of your projected credit during the year.

So how about increasing EIC qualifying income ranges to allow the working taxpayer to take home more money, while decreasing the benefits available in programs, such as food stamps, that do not require or promote employment as a condition of assistance? How about adding new rules for obtaining EIC that stipulate higher payments and/or higher upper income limits for those who pay their own health care and daycare costs?

If handled correctly, these ideas might put barriers in place that stem the tide of welfare migrants (and their associated costs) into Our Fair State, and reform the existing system of payouts so that it's impossible to have so much 'assistance' that you can also afford to have cable and high-speed internet.

Democracy in Action

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."

Ow. Ow.

This is me, the day after I voted about a hundred times. Yep, I spent a good 13 hours yesterday going through the voting process again and again. And again.

In my assigned district, approximately one-third of the eligible voters chose to cast an absentee ballot. And all of those absentee ballots had to processed on Election Day, at the district polling place. So my job as a poll worker was to run the 'voting loop' processing those ballots. All day long, and for another hour after the polls closed.

Here's the 'voting loop' for absentee ballots...

1) Pick up voter number tickets. (From the guy at the head of the line of voters. People were quite generous to us polls workers who repeatedly held up various lines in order to process absentee ballots.)

2) Open and inspect absentee ballots. (Ballots that were filled out in crayon, for example, would need to be remade, as the optical scanners cannot read crayon.)

3) Stand in line to register absentee ballots in the books. (In case the voter tries to vote in person on Election Day. Actually, if the voter shows up in person before his/her absentee ballot is processed, s/he can vote in person and the absentee ballot will not be processed. If the absentee ballot has already been processed, the voter cannot vote again in person.)

4) Run ballots through tabulator. Turn in very precious voter number tickets. (Big headaches if voter number ticket is lost.)

The entire day went surprisingly smoothly. Props to the City Clerk! Props also to the judges in Our Fair State who threw out the lawsuit brought by Our Elected Official that could have made the day much more tense and chaotic. We had only one poll observer of note, whom I christened (in my head) Tightly Wound, and while he was a noticeable presence, he obeyed the rules governing poll observers. It was almost anticlimactic, but in a good way.

All in all I spent 15 1/2 hours at the polls yesterday. By the time I got home and took a shower, McCain was making his concession speech. By the time Obama gave his speech, I was asleep. (Sorry to have missed it, but didn't sleep much the night before and had to be back at work today.)

Here are a few other observations from yesterday...

• Our fearless section leader, Mr. Bob, rocks! A pleasure working with you, sir!
• Poll workers were almost entirely over the age of 55, excepting a small group of high school students. There were just a few of us between the ages of 18-55.
• A body in motion should stay in motion. Seriously, if you have been in motion for four hours, don't sit down for lunch (even for 15 minutes) if you are going to have to be in motion for another 9 hours.
• The fatigued brain is an amazing thing. The output can bear absolutely no resemblance to the input. (This is why we worked in pairs.)
• 'No Sleep Til Brooklyn' makes absolutely no sense, given the context, yet is readily adopted by the aforementioned fatigued brain as a mantra.
• Everybody worries that they are going to be the one to make some hideous mistake while working. (Including me. Hence the no sleep the night before.) I was amazed at how many of the poll workers were working for the first time, and confessed to being kept awake by this fear.

It was a great experience. I'm glad I did it. I'd gladly do it again.