Captain's Quarters -

Saletan Dismantles The Nature Neuroscience Conclusions

Progressive bloggers delighted in the news that a study in Nature Neuroscience "proved" that liberals had better cognitive and analytical skills than conservatives. The lead author wrote that liberals "tend to be more sensitive and responsive to information," which allowed them more flexibility in their thinking. They also supposedly tend to deal better with informational complexity and more open to change when provided with the necessary cues for it.

William Saletan had a look at the study, and at Slate, he rips the wide-ranging conclusions taken from very narrow experiments:

Let's take the claims one by one.

1. Habitual ways of thinking. Here's what the experiment actually entailed, according to the authors' supplementary document:

[E]ither the letter "M" or "W" was presented in the center of a computer monitor screen. … Half of the participants were instructed to make a "Go" response when they saw "M" but to make no response when they saw "W"; the remaining participants completed a version in which "W" was the Go stimulus and "M" was the No–Go stimulus. … Responses were registered on a computer keyboard placed in the participants' laps. … Participants received a two-minute break halfway through the task, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Fifteen minutes is a habit? Tapping a keyboard is a way of thinking? Come on. You can make a case for conservative inflexibility, but not with this study. ...

3. Complexity and ambiguity. Go back and look at the first word of the excerpt from the supplementary document. The word is either. Participants were shown an M or a W. No complexity, no ambiguity. You could argue that showing them a series of M's and then surprising them with a W injects some complexity and ambiguity. But that complexity is crushed by the simplicity of the letter choice and the split-second deadline. As Amodio explained to the Sacramento Bee, "It's too quick for you to think consciously about what you're doing." So, why did he impose such a brutal deadline? "It needs to be hard enough that people make a lot of errors," he argued, since—in the Bee's paraphrase of his remarks—"the errors are the most interesting thing to study."

In other words, complexity and ambiguity weren't tested; they were excluded. The study was designed to prevent them—and conscious thought in general—because, for the authors' purposes, such lifelike complications would have made the results less interesting.

Once again, a study appears to have been used for purposes outside of its design, and meaning extrapolated from unconnected and pointless exercises. While choosing between M and W may make for an interesting cognitive exercise, it doesn't follow that it has much application to conservatives, liberals, or independents. From Saletan's description, it creates an antiseptic world where all change is good and indicative -- and gives no indication whatsoever of its application to the real world.

Saletan concludes:

The conservative case against this study is easy to make. Sure, we're fonder of old ways than you are. That's in our definition. Some of our people are obtuse; so are some of yours. If you studied the rest of us in real life, you'd find that while we second-guess the status quo less than you do, we second-guess putative reforms more than you do, so in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and critical thinking, it's probably a wash. Also, our standard of "information" is a bit tougher than the blips and fads you fall for. Sometimes, these inclinations lead us astray. But over the long run, they've served us and society pretty well. It's just that you notice all the times we were wrong and ignore all the times we were right.

In fact, that's exactly what you've done in this study: You've manufactured a tiny world of letters, half-seconds, and button-pushing, so you can catch us in clear errors and keep out the part of life where our tendencies correct yours. And now you feel great about yourselves. Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.

Exactly. And the fact that people used the specious applications of this study to political thought tells us even more about the value of these studies, and the mindset of the media that amplifies them.

Saletan Dismantles The Nature Neuroscience Conclusions

Progressive bloggers delighted in the news that a study in Nature Neuroscience "proved" that liberals had better cognitive and analytical skills than conservatives. The lead author wrote that liberals "tend to be more sensitive and responsive to information," which allowed them more flexibility in their thinking. They also supposedly tend to deal better with informational complexity and more open to change when provided with the necessary cues for it.

William Saletan had a look at the study, and at Slate, he rips the wide-ranging conclusions taken from very narrow experiments:

Let's take the claims one by one.

1. Habitual ways of thinking. Here's what the experiment actually entailed, according to the authors' supplementary document:

[E]ither the letter "M" or "W" was presented in the center of a computer monitor screen. … Half of the participants were instructed to make a "Go" response when they saw "M" but to make no response when they saw "W"; the remaining participants completed a version in which "W" was the Go stimulus and "M" was the No–Go stimulus. … Responses were registered on a computer keyboard placed in the participants' laps. … Participants received a two-minute break halfway through the task, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Fifteen minutes is a habit? Tapping a keyboard is a way of thinking? Come on. You can make a case for conservative inflexibility, but not with this study. ...

3. Complexity and ambiguity. Go back and look at the first word of the excerpt from the supplementary document. The word is either. Participants were shown an M or a W. No complexity, no ambiguity. You could argue that showing them a series of M's and then surprising them with a W injects some complexity and ambiguity. But that complexity is crushed by the simplicity of the letter choice and the split-second deadline. As Amodio explained to the Sacramento Bee, "It's too quick for you to think consciously about what you're doing." So, why did he impose such a brutal deadline? "It needs to be hard enough that people make a lot of errors," he argued, since—in the Bee's paraphrase of his remarks—"the errors are the most interesting thing to study."

In other words, complexity and ambiguity weren't tested; they were excluded. The study was designed to prevent them—and conscious thought in general—because, for the authors' purposes, such lifelike complications would have made the results less interesting.

Once again, a study appears to have been used for purposes outside of its design, and meaning extrapolated from unconnected and pointless exercises. While choosing between M and W may make for an interesting cognitive exercise, it doesn't follow that it has much application to conservatives, liberals, or independents. From Saletan's description, it creates an antiseptic world where all change is good and indicative -- and gives no indication whatsoever of its application to the real world.

Saletan concludes:

The conservative case against this study is easy to make. Sure, we're fonder of old ways than you are. That's in our definition. Some of our people are obtuse; so are some of yours. If you studied the rest of us in real life, you'd find that while we second-guess the status quo less than you do, we second-guess putative reforms more than you do, so in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and critical thinking, it's probably a wash. Also, our standard of "information" is a bit tougher than the blips and fads you fall for. Sometimes, these inclinations lead us astray. But over the long run, they've served us and society pretty well. It's just that you notice all the times we were wrong and ignore all the times we were right.

In fact, that's exactly what you've done in this study: You've manufactured a tiny world of letters, half-seconds, and button-pushing, so you can catch us in clear errors and keep out the part of life where our tendencies correct yours. And now you feel great about yourselves. Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.

Exactly. And the fact that people used the specious applications of this study to political thought tells us even more about the value of these studies, and the mindset of the media that amplifies them.

But They're Low In Tar!

Smokers have spent the last few years exiled to the outdoors in order to service their addiction during working hours. A new study in Australia might give them some company -- laser printers and copiers:

The office printer causes frustration when it isn’t working but it may be posing as much danger to staff as smoking a cigarette when it is, scientists in Australia said.

An investigation into 62 laser printers revealed that 17 of them -- almost 30 per cent -- released high amounts of minute toner particles into the air.

Professor Lidia Morawska from the Queensland University of Technology, who led the research, said: “Ultra-fine particles are of most concern because they can penetrate deep into the lungs where they can pose a significant health threat. ...

The study, conducted in a large open-plan office in central Brisbane, showed that particles increased five-fold during working hours.

Emissions were worst when new cartridges were used, and when graphics and images which required larger quantities of toner were being printed.

The American Chemical Society's journal, Environmental Science and Technology, will publish the study later this week. It will reportedly include a list of popular printer brands with an index of emissions for each model. It will allow employers to select the lowest-emission choices for the work environment, as well as launch a million lawsuits around the world.

How did the researchers stumble on this gold mine for the legal profession? They actually wanted to test ventilation systems in offices to see how well they kept outdoor pollutants from nearby roads. When they began testing office environments, they didn't find disturbing levels of outdoor pollutants, but were surprised to see the printer particle levels reach levels "far higher" than anything from outside.

The researchers said that workers who spent months and years exposed to these high particulate levels could be at high risk for pulmonary diseases. Determination of the potential for Laserjet Lung will have to be conducted in further studies. However, don't be terribly surprised to see commercials soon that ask, "Have you worked near a laser printer for more than a few months? You may be owed compensation! Dial 800-SUE-HAPI for more information!"

A Long Term Investment?

After researchers found a beneficial side effect while testing the blood pressure medicine Sildenafil -- better known as Viagra -- the pharmaceuticals have discovered the vast market for sexual-enhacement medications. They tend to play on the insecurities men and women have had for millenia about performance. Now Johnson & Johnson want to tackle the Great White Whale of male insecurity, but the Food and Drug Administration questions the need to medicate men into having more staying power:

In the hunt for a new sex pill for men, Johnson & Johnson has staying power.

The health-products giant hasn't given up on what it hopes will become the first drug approved for premature ejaculation, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected it in 2005. Regulators questioned whether helping men last longer during sex was a clear medical benefit, and may have had concerns about side effects of the drug, dapoxetine.

Other companies -- including New York-based Pfizer Inc., the maker of Viagra -- have scrapped experimental drugs for the condition since the FDA's thumbs down for Johnson & Johnson's.

Now, Johnson & Johnson will test its luck with dapoxetine outside the U.S. The New Brunswick, N.J., company plans to file for regulatory approval of dapoxetine in some European countries later this year, and also plans to submit it for approval in Canada. Johnson & Johnson hasn't ruled out a second try for FDA approval to sell the drug to American men.

The FDA rejected the drug earlier, not because of any significant issues or side effects, but because they rejected the notion that premature ejaculation qualifies as a disease. Some men may differ, but the FDA took the position that the issue does not require medication at all. They may have been reacting to the backlash against Viagra and Cialis, which created some controversy over the investment of pharmaceuticals into what was seen as less-than-serious issues when other more serious but less marketable conditions escape their attention. Erectile dysfunction at least qualifies as an obstacle to procreation, while this doesn't qualify at all.

It's a losing battle, at least on two fronts. First, J&J will take the drug to Europe. It's been proven effective, although the trials use an amusing method: the women use stopwatches during coitus. European administrators will not likely block its production, simply based on the economics. Many people don't realize that Viagra primarily got produced in Ireland, where Pfizer's investment helped contribute to the Celtic Tiger. Europe won't mind another boost in economic fortunes, especially if the US hands them the manufacturing market.

Second, if it does get manufactured in Europe, it will be sold in the US whether the FDA likes it or not. The global market in pharmaceuticals will ensure that American men can access the drug, and spammers will facilitate those transactions. It will take less time than the announced performance improvement between the European launch of the drug and the first American purchase. The only effect the FDA's rejection will have on the drug will be to increase the price.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the FDA, as some conservatives and libertarians are. It does good work in forcing pharmaceuticals to do the proper testing before selling potentially dangerous chemicals to sick people. Some, like Vioxx, still make it through, but we would have hundreds of Vioxx stories if the FDA closed up shop. In this case, though, they are making essentially a consumer choice rather than a safety choice, and they should reconsider their decision.

Addendum: I've always wanted to remark on this, but never had a post in which I could do so -- but isn't it more than a little ironic that so many web sites try to sell Viagra in the form of soft tabs?

Putting The Green In Greenland

Researchers have found the DNA of beetles, moths, and flies as well as traces of plant life in ice core samples from Greenland, the Los Angeles Times reports today. It demonstrates that the world was significantly warmer than previously thought, and that the glaciers of Greenland may have been a more recent development:

Ice-covered Greenland really was green a half-million or so years ago, covered with forests in a climate much like that of Sweden and eastern Canada today.

An international team of researchers recovered ancient DNA from the bottom of an ice core that indicates the presence of pine, yew and alder trees as well as insects.

The researchers, led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, say this is the first proof that there was forest in southern Greenland.

Included were genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles, they report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Historians have long known that Vikings established colonies on coastal Greenland over a thousand years ago, but that it disappeared as the Little Ice Age waxed. The creep of the glaciers killed the agricultural efforts of the colonists, and they eventually abandoned Greenland. Researchers had assumed that the colony took advantage of an exceptionally warm temporary weather pattern that freed the land from its norm