Sports and superstitions

I have a confession. Even though I feel that "sophisticated scientists" such as myself should be spending their free time analyzing their environment or reading philosophy or something else that is just so intellectual, I cannot help the fact that I love football (or soccer if you are an American).

Since I was four years old and my role model at the time, Peter Schmeichel played at the club I have been a loyal Manchester United supporter. I probably watch at least ninety percent of their games live on TV and have seen them once in real life. Much to my wife's distaste, the perfect Saturday for me involves crisps, beer, feet on the table and Manchester United performing one of their amazing comebacks in Fergie time against a rival such as Manchester City.

I acknowledge that there are many things you could potentially dislike about sports in general and football in particular. The extremely childish supporters is the first thing that comes to mind. Though Manchester City is of course a despicable and arrogant team that would be nobodies had it not been for oil money (;)), I would never dream of starting a fight or a brawl because another person were supporting them. I really don't see the point of that. Yet many people apparently do not see it that way and gladly put themselves in harms way to get a chance to best supporters from the other team. My own hypothesis is that such people merely use sports as am excuse to be able to do stupid things they would have done anyway.

The gambling aspect of the sports world is perhaps equally ugly. Gambling is of course intrinsically attractive to the human mind and winning a bet feels rewarding in the same way that taking drugs is rewarding. I am confident that people would gamble independent of sports but I still get a bad taste when I think of the way that sports and soccer in particular gets associated with gambling. This actually takes me to what I really wanted to write about here. Sports association with gambling and violence is very is unfortunate even if sports may only be the current outlet for basic human instincts.

What annoys me most however is all the superstitious sport stars out there. Today, when Bayern München take on Barcelona in the champions league semi final it is a fair bet that Lionel Messi will score a goal, because that is what he does. Who will get the credit if he does indeed manage to dance past 10 german goliats? You can be assured that Messi will point to the sky as if to say that it is God who awarded him the goal. If we grant for  a moment that God really does exist, would he really care who won the game and if so would he use his divine powers to interfere in a game and award one team a goal. If he is prepared to let innocent children starve to death every day, would he really use his powers to interfere in a soccer game? Messi is not the worst though. Javier Hernandez flamboyant religious displays makes Messi seem discrete. Before every game, Hernandez goes down on his knees on the midline, closes his eyes, raises his arms and brings his thump and index finger together. He sits there for about half a minute, then gets up and plays. Now if I was a soccer player I would feel quite odd at this sight, and judging by the look of his Manchester United team mates, they do too (a feeling that is probably shared by the other 70.000 people attending the game, plus another 50 million people at home). Thankfully, Hernandez is a so called super-sub which means that he only starts a minority of all the games (is this because Fergie thinks it is stupid too?).

Why do so many sport stars continue believing that they are benefactors of divine intervention? Apart from not having thought it through, my guess is that they are victims of schedules of random reinforcements. If a rat is rewarded with sweet tasking food every time he/she presses a lever, it get boring quite soon. If the rat gets a reward after a specified number of lever presses, he or she will keep going a bit longer. However, if the rat is rewarded after a randomized number of lever presses they will keep pressing that lever for a very long time.

For anyone who is giggling, thinking "silly rats", I want to immediately point out that humans are the same. If you go to Las Vegas or Macao (which I learned have casinos that earn six times as much as Las Vegas), you will see many people pressing levers for rewards that come after a randomized number of trials. Oftentimes, these rats... no I mean... humans, will spend all their money to perform these lever presses.

So back to sport stars. On some occasions Hernandez prayers will coincide with scoring a goal or even two goals. It does evidently not happen on every occasion, but sometimes. In other words Hernandez is really just like a rat pressing a lever... Whenever he gets the reward (such as a goal), it will be hugely rewarding, thus reinforcing the behavior. This explains all sorts of superstitions in sports (I only used Hernandez as an example). For instance, swedish hockey player usually don't shave throughout the end-season, and I have even heard rumors that they don't wash their underwear, which makes me look like a pretty good husband despite my love for football

.

Review of The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford

Why is coffee so expensive on train stations? Which type of illegal activity gives the best profit? What are the benefits and the downsides of free markets? Is natinal health insurance good or bad? Should you feel bad when purchasing products made in countries where workers do not enjoy the same rights as in your own country?

In The Undercover Economist Tim Harford deals with these as well as other economic issues that we encounter on a daily basis, often without being aware of it. The book is generally easy to understand and have a subtle humorous tone which keeps you engaged. Like almost all economist (that I have encountered anyway), Harford favors a more or less free market. Whether this should be seen as a bias or if this is because free markets are intrinsically good is a question I cannot answer. In any case the book is definitely pro free market which may be a dealbreaker for some potential readers.

Harford begins by introducing the concept of scarcity power. He claims that the scarcity of a product or any type of asset will determine the price of that asset. In the case of a coffee stand on a busy London train station the price can get very high indeed which ultimately results in high coffee prices. In my mind scarcity is simply part of the supply and demand equation. If the supply is very small, and demand very high prices will be high. Perhaps there is something I do not understand...

Harford moves on to discuss the implications of this principle in the society. For instance, if you own a maffia, one of the most lucrative paths to take is to start a legit business and then threaten competition to increase scarcity power (reduce supply). With the competition gone you can charge what you want and make a nice profit.

One of the most interesting things I learned from this book was that sales, rebates, special prizes for students and seniors, class seating on trains and airplanes etc, are often just ways for a business to charge customers as much as they are willing to pay for any particular product. A coffee stand may earn a profit by selling coffee quite cheap but would of course like people with a lot of money to pay as much as possible. To get rich people to pay allot while not scaring off poor people or students you can offer large cups or alternative types of coffee such as coffee mocha coco bozo with cream, ice cream etc etc. Such fancy product are really not much more expensive to produce but you can charge much more for it (and if you check out the prizes at your local cafe this is exactly what they do).




Similarly if you own an airline company it makes sense to have different types of seating because then you can charge insane amounts of money for a little bit more leg space and a little better service which many people are willing to pay to feel just a little bit more special. To increase the gap you can also consciously make standard seating slightly uncomfortable.

While being a free market proponent Harford acknowledges that markets can run into trouble. For example, the insurance industry is very susceptible to the problem of imperfect information. If people only get insurance once they are sick, or if insurance companies only offer insurance to those who are completely healthy and have a tiny risk of getitng sick, then the market will not work. As Tim puts it, insurance industry is dependent on mutual ignorance. In the case of health insurance one practical solution is to have universal health insurance, which erases these issues. The only problem with this is that people are likely to consume more health care than they really need...

Harford also offers an analysis of what makes poor countries poor. The short answer is high tariffs (which reduces trade with the rest of the world), and corruption. These two factors can be particularly detrimental in small countries which are extremely dependent on international trade. There is nothing preventing poor countries from developing into richer countries and there are in fact many examples of such a transition. One particularly striking example which is discussed in the book is South Korea which used to have many “sweat shops” where working conditionins were poor compared to the rest of the world. However, because they could offer cheap products they achieved impressive growth and a rapid switch from an agricultural to a manufacture economy. Today, South Korea is a highly technological society with a high standard of living and sweat shops have moved to other countries, because today there are better jobs available to Koreans. Harford makes it clear that boycotting a county’s products because their workers do not have the same job security or pay as our own workers does not help that country, even though it people think they are doing a good deed.

To illustrate what freer markets can achieve Harford looks to China, a country which has seen an improbable economic growth in recent decades. As a result of this development, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in China. This number is so high that it is difficult to comprehend what it really stands for. When a natural disasters kills tens of thousands of people it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that every person is an individual with his or her own personality, feelings, food preferences, etc etc. Similarly when hearing that that 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty it means a very significant improvement in the lives of these individuals and that is something worth remembering!

Review of Radiation by Robert Gale and Eric Lax - and why we should probably build more nuclear power plants.

Since the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima radiation has achieved an even worse reputation than it had previously. To what extent is this reputation deserved? Speaking more broadly, how great a risk does radition pose to us, and in what ways does it help us?

Robert Gale and Eric Lac, the authors of Radition, starts by stating a few facts that everyone should know but which many people probably do not know. First, radiation is present everywhere. It is in the ground, in the air, in the food that we eat, and in ourselves. There is no way you can avoid radiation (this holds true for non-ionizing as well as ionizing radiation). Second, raditation can kill you. Depending on the type of radiation and the dose received radiation may cause a cell to turn into a cancer cell if mutations occur to an “unlucky” set of genes. If a higher dose is received radiation can kill cells and induce radiation sickness. The powers of radioactive material can also be used to cause substantial explosions as with the atom and hydrogen bombs. What I suspect many people don’t know is that radiation can also save you. Radiation therapy have saved millions of people, and emergency exit signs which shine even when there is no electricity have save many more people still. CT scans allows us to detect cancers and other things inside the human body which helps doctors enormously.

Radiation is generally categorized as either ionizing or non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation have enough energy to rip away charged particles or molecules. If that molecule happens to be in the DNA in one of our cells, that cell may become a cancer cell. Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves form cell phones, or the visual part of the spectrum that we can actually detect with our eyes, cannot cause this type of damage to cells. Ultraviolet is right on the border between these two, with some ultraviolet rays containing enough energy to rip apart molecules which is why you can get skin cancer from overexposure to the sun. This also means that there is no plausible scientific theory explaning how microwave radiation, which has less energy than ultraviolet rays, from cell phones cause cancer. Togehter with the fact that brain cancer has not increased since cell phones came into use is why I have no problem with letting my children use cell phones. The authors however, focus mostly on ionizing radiation

Gale and Lax starts with the basics, desrcibing what alpha, beta, and gamma radiaiton is and then going into depth about the amount of radation that an average person receives and the interesting discussion on whether exposure to small amount of radiaiton is bad, neutral or even good for you (hormesis). Regarding exposure the authors note that people are quite inconsistent in their fears. For instance, taking a CT scan which many people even demand will give you the same does of radiation as being 6km from ground zero in Hiroshima. Also people tend to be skeptical about being scanned with x-rays on airports, forgetting that they will receive much more radiation during the upcoming flight...

But what do the authors say about the hot topic of nuclear energy. In short they say, while there are of course safety issues, it is better than coal generated power in pretty much every aspect. Renewable sources (sun, wind, water) also have problems associated with them, mainly that they are expensive and that they cannot provide a steady stream of electricity without which our economy cannot function.

What about nuclear accidents though? Lets start with the most recent accident, Fukushima. It is certainly interesting to note that, though some people did receive a large dosis of radiation not a single person have died from radiation expsure till this day. According to wikipedia, the predicted number of Fukushima related cancers range from 0-100, many of which will be possible to treat. The tsunami on the other hand killed approximately 20.000 people. The media coverage often suggets that the Fukushima accident was the big news. This simply reaffirms that people (and the media) have substantial biases in their fears. It is of course more or less impossible to tell people to stop being afraid of shark attacks or flying or anything that has radiation in its name, but lets not base public policy on irrational fears...

Wait you say, what about the Thernobyl accident? Well partly because that reactor exploded (due to a clear design flaw), 10 times more radioactivity was released compared to Fukushima. However, this should also be copared with atmospheric atom bomb tests which releases 200 times more radioactivity than the Thernobyl accident did. These are now banned, however, prior nuclear tests have caused high levels of radioactivity in the environment on a global level.

Estimates of the number of casualties following Thernobyl vary widely and largely depends on whether one thinks that exposure to low doses of radiation increases cancer risks, which is a controversial topic. We are also dealing with a very high basal rate of cancers. Since 38% percent of all women and 45% of all men will be diagnosed with cancer sometime in their life, even say a 0.5 percent increase mean thousands, or millions of people... Bottom line, Thernobyl was a bad accident, and similar mistakes should of course be avoided in the future, however, should we abandon a cheap energy source that almost zero pollution because of one poorly designed reactor and one reactor which was only almost able to survive a major natural disaster?

No one who disputes that nuclear power is associated with some risks. However, what are the alternatives? It is striking how many people simply ignores this question. I often hear environmentalist say that they want the entire society to be based on renewable energy. I fully share that ambition, however it is currently not a feasible alternative which means that we have to chose between nuclear energy and burning of fossil fuels to get sufficient energy. If we don't use nuclear then we have to generate or buy fossil fuels. Yet no one talks about what type of pollutants are released from fossil fuel burning power plants. The authors convincingly show that pollutants from coal burning power plants induce much more harm than waste from nuclear power plants. In one year one coal burning power plant releases 720 tons of carbon monoxide, a toxic gas, 50kg of lead which is poisonous to us as well as to the fish in the lakes where a lot of smoke lands, 80kg of mercury, 10.000 tons of sulfur dioxide which results in acid rain, and 3.7 million tons of CO2. This waste is released directly out into the environment, not burried in a mountain like nuclear fuel. In addition, coal plant workers as well as coal miners develop lethal lung cancer much more often than other people.

 

To sum up the argument for building more nuclear power plants; Yes, there are risks associated with nuclear power but taking into account energy costs and the waste produced nuclear power is currently the best feasible alternative available.

The authors also discusses another controversial issue, namely whether or not we should radiate food to kill of pathogens. In a single year there are 2 billion cases of food poisoning in the world, mainly in the developing world. This number could be drastically reduced by radiating the food which would kill of the bacteria. Yes, some nutrients would be lost but food lose more nutrients when you cook it and that is not controversial. The bottom line is that radiating food can save many lives, particularly in the developing world and there seem top be no rational argument against doing this, if there is I hope that someone will enlighten me.

All in all, radiation is a great and accessible introduction to the field of radiation, a field associated with a substantial lack of knowledge and as a result many irrational fears among the public.

The vaccination debate

Sometimes I wonder how the anti-vaccination movement have managed to move the debate to the extent they have. Today the debate in the media tends to be about whether a certain vaccine have barely measurable side effects or not. 

What tends to be forgotten or not mentioned is that vaccinations saves millions of lives and could save millions more if everyone had access to and used vaccines. The World Health Association estimates that vaccinations saves 3 million people every year and that if vaccination was available (and used) world wide, another 3 million people could be saved. In the US there has been a 99% decrease in deaths from vaccine preventable diseases, such as diphtheria, mumps, pertussis and tetanus since the vaccines have been introduced. Smallpox used to kill 400.000 people annually, until a vaccination was discovered. Now this disease is extinct.

The bottom line is that vaccinations save lives, many many lives. Still people in Sweden are now raging over the suggested link between the swine-flu vaccine and narcolepsy, in which less than a hundred extra cases may have occurred due to vaccination. Of course I sincerely sympathise but no sane human being should question the value of vaccination in general because of this potential misfortune. 

Review of "At Home" by Bill Bryson

I am a big fan of Bill Bryson. His writing has caused me to laugh out loud in inappropriate situations time and time again. All his travel books are absolutely amazing and I recommend them to anyone. I also liked his short history of nearly everything, which provides an enjoyable introduction to science history, albeit not as funny as his travel books.

At Home sounded like it would be a book both funny and educational at the same time. In addition I feel that there is a bias in my historical knowledge towards war and despair and I hoped that this book might remedy that.

So maybe my disappointment with this book, in part, stems from my high expectations. While I did indeed learn quite a lot about things that you don't get from traditional history books, the book seemed rather disorganized, which was frustrating. In addition only rarely did Bryon flex his fantastic humor. Why Bill? It is like having Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio in a movie wearing Burkas...

Right at the start of the book Bill rightly points out that history generally ignores all the things we do most of the time such as eating, sleeping, socializing, having sex, etc. With this introduction, Bill goes on to tell the story of the Paxton's Crystal Palace and the great exhibition for which it was built. The great exhibition is a good starting point because so many new inventions, which changed our lives but rarely makes it to the history books, were shown there for the first time.

Bryson then takes us on a 700 page tour of a house, with each room leading to different histories. For instance, you will hear about the construction of the Eifel tower, a completely useless construction, which still was deemed a better project than another proposition - a 70m high guillotine. We learn about Magellan's voyage across the pacific where his crew (those few that survived) ate rat droppings and sawdust. We learn that burial grounds were lacking and that corpses were more or less piled on top of each other. The place where the national gallery stands, 70.000 bodies are estimated to have been buried.  

Yet another fascinating story is the one about lighting and how people used to walk streets in complete darkness which was convenient for criminals but not for ordinary persons. Then came the time of the oil lamps which caused innumerable fires as well as wide spread whale deaths. At last electricity was discovered and the light bulb was invented, with one light bulb providing lighting equivalent to numerous candles. What fantastic progress! I think it is difficult to imagine what life must have been like before. Of course there were the all to common anti-progress people who said that electricity was dangerous and would spell our surmise, when Edison assistant accidentally electrocuted himself they became even surer of them selves. One does not have to look far to find comparative situations today.

Bryson will provide the reader with many more snippets of interesting information, which may come in handy at the next cocktail party, here are a few of my favorites…

·      In the past chairs were always placed up against the wall (to avoid tripping over them in the dark) and therefore chair manufacturer did not paint the back of chairs.

·      Peppercorn is actually a dried wine, which used to be an immensely valuable commodity.

·      Mice can squeeze through 10mm cracks and are everywhere humans are

·      Rats do enter houses via the toilet

·      Before the invention of synthetic fertilizer, bird droppings were the favored product, and Peru’s export largely consisted of bird shit.

·      George Washington determined the location of Washington DC – near his plantation

·      Approximately 300.000 people in the UK are seriously injured from falling in the stairs each year.

·      Selling corpses to anatomists used to be a lucrative business

·      Smallpox used to kill 400.000 individuals each year before a vaccine was made

·      Queen Anne was so fat she had to be lifted out of Windsor castle using a crane

This list could of course be much longer, and if you decide to read the book you will get a lot of this. However, as already hinted at I think that the book lack a structure or a thread which is easily followed. The connection between the room that a chapter is focused on and what Bill writes about is sometimes… elusive

One of the things I found a bit disappointing was that the book is very centered on the UK and US, which I suppose I should have expected, but I really would like to know more about the everyday life of people in different cultures.

All in all, while this book may be a hit for some people it is not one that I would recommend to my friend. Rather go for one of Bill Bryson’s other books, which are frequently unforgettable. 

Thinking about doing something is almost the same as doing it

Would you believe that just thinking about doing something can improve actual performance? While this may seem far fetched, a lot of research is actually pointing in this direction. This is because imagining/visualizing something, to the brain, is the same thing as actually doing something minus the motor output. So for instance when I imagine myself scoring a long distance free kick at home in my couch my brain will do approximately the same things as it would if had been standing there on the pitch. Similarly, remembering a certain event in ones life will activate the same set of neurons that was active when that event was experienced, but this time the visualization is generated without the help of external sensory systems (eyes, touch, hearing taste etc etc).

This set up has many, many implications. One recent and interesting implication is that simply thinking about eating will cause a feeling of satiety, which in turn will result in reduced calorie intake (see reference below). So one way to loose those extra pounds is to think a lot about eating... 

Also related to this are the so called mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are neurons that fire both when you are doing something, say moving your hand, and when you are observing someone else doing the same thing. Upon hearing this many people immediately jump to conclusions that brains must be communicating via quantum entanglement vibrations at dark energy frequencies. A much more plausible explanation for the phenomenon is that when you see someone else do something, you typically imagine yourself doing the same thing. If brain A and brain B are fairly similar then the same sets of neurons in the same locations in the brain are probably involved in planning the action -  hence the mirror neuron effect...

I am obviously just touching the tip of the iceberg of this interesting field of research and philosophical thinking, and all I can do is to encourage all readers to go check it out for yourselves.

Morewedge CK, Huh YE, & Vosgerau J (2010). Thought for food: imagined consumption reduces actual consumption. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330 (6010), 1530-3 PMID: 21148388

The Amalekite Genocide

In the old testament God says (1 Samuel 15) "... Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

It is absolutely incomprehensible for me how anyone want to even claim that books containing passages (plural), such as the one above, can be a source of moral authority. Even we assume that this is not what literally happened, I still think that it disqualifies the bible as a source of morality... Also listen to the unbelievable discussion about the Amalekite genocide between christian John Allister, and atheist Justin Schieber from Reasonable doubts.

Book review: The Demon Haunted world by Carl Sagan

What would the world be like if it was not for science and the technologies science have provided us with? While some may feel nostalgic in a “back to the jungle” kind of way, the truth is that science have allowed us to live healthier, more comfortable, more enlightened, and longer lives compared to any other time in history. On average we live 20-30 years longer than a hunter gatherer, and because of new technologies, children today grow up with an awareness of what happens, not just in their own neighbourhood, but in the whole world. A King in the 19th century would come nowhere near the living standard of a peasant in the west today. Though we do not live in utopia, I feel lucky to live in this age rather than say a hundred or two hundred years ago.

With this backround Carl Sagan goes on to explain the difference between science and pseudoscience and religion, providing us with many examples of pseudoscience along the way.
People often ask if science is not just another religion, pointing out that scientist, like priests, are merely human beings, and that they are (like priests), not immune to corruption or emotions such as pride. It is indeed undeniable that scientists can be corrupt, hold on to ideas for too long, and even on rare occasions, fabricate data. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience and religion however is that everyone who calls him or herself a scientist accept the basic idea that we do not know anything for certain, that we should test all ideas and theories to see if they fit the available evidence, and if a certain theory does not fit the data we should throw away the theory, not the data. This basic mindset is the reason that scientic theory have progressed while religious ideology stands still, why we now have replaced the Newtonian model of the universe, which was a quite good description of the universe, with Einstein even better model. Pseudoscience on the other hand puts forth theories that often cannot be tested and when they can be tested logical fallacies are used to disregard the data - throwing out the pseudoscientific theory is not an option.

As an example of a pseudo-scientific claim, Carl Sagan analyzes in detail, the claim of extra-terrestial abductions, which two percent of Americans claim to have been subjected to. This would means that (unless the aliens specifically target Americans) one hundred million people have been abducted world wide. How is it possible that all evidence we have is a few blurry unconvincing pictures? Is it not more likely that our evidently imaginative, hallucinogenic minds that dream and daydream, see patterns where there are non, have made up aliens? Would it be more of a miracle if no one ever thought they saw an alien? Also, why do people who have never heard of aliens (in the media) never see them, and why did people in the middle ages see demons but never the aliens that are described by believers today?

Sagan also discusses the phenomenon of repressed memories. Despite the fact that there was no evidence to support their existence, nor any good evolutionary reason why we should have them (it generally aids fitness to remember when you have been hurt), it was a prominent view among psychoanalysts that people who had experienced abuse as children repressed these memories which only surfaced during psychoanalysis years later. Particularly worrying was the fact that therapist, following the guidelines in various therapy handbooks, often persuaded their patients that they had experienced abuse even when there was no other evidence available. One troublesome example is Paul Ingram whose daughter, during therapy, started to retrieve memories of her father killing and eating babies. Though he intitially denied the claims he too eventually started retrieving repressed memories of sexual abuse, and later he confessed to being part of a satanic cult that had murdered 25 babies. Only when a skeptical scientist (Ofshe) implanted memories that were demonstrably false in Ingram did people start to question the theory in general.

What can we learn from examples such as this. One fundamental lesson is that it is good to be skeptical or as Carl Sagan has said elsewhere, be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out (or something like that). We should be especially skeptical, and require substantial evidence when hearing seemingly amazing claims such there is a person who can live without eating (which was actually, amazingly, told to one of my daughter at her school), or that homeopathy (disease causing agents diluted to the extent that there are no molecules left) can cure something. Another important lesson from Sagan is that it is ok to reserve judgement. Do aliens exist? Will global warming become a disaster for human kind? I don’t know this and it is ok to be on the fence and wait for more data to arrive

In the remaining part of the book Sagan discusses various ways that society could increase, curiosity, skepticism, and scientific literacy. To what extent can we rely on the free market to finance science, given that short term payoff is often small? How does the media profile in the modern society affect peoples belief and scientific literacy? How can schoold be transformed to encourage skeptical inquiry? Personally I have tried to follow his advice to always take my children's question seriously (even though they are sometimes tedious questions). If there is one lesson I want my children to bring with them it is that asking questions is a good thing, and I do not want to kill their astonishing ability to come up with new questions all the time.

Though I like this type of book and though I am a big fan of Carl Sagan I did walk away from this book feeling that it was a little bit unorganized. Sagan jumped around between different subject a little too much and it was hard to find a thread to hold on to (much like this review I suspect). Still allll in all, The Demon haunted world is a book that gives its reader a comprehensive introduction to scientific and skeptical thinking. It is written in an engaging, passionate style.

Book review: Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman

I generally dislike self help books (especially the ridiculous ones claiming that the universe or quantum laws are doing the job for you). However, if a book at least aspires to be science based then I am willing to give it a try. In addition positive psychology i.e., the scientific study of what makes happy people happy, is a hot topic within psychology today and Martin Seligman is one of the founders of this field.

For these reasons I was able to overcome my fear of being pursuaded to change my life by a silly self help book. It was a nice surprise when early on Seligman acknowledged that happiness is not everything. One can find meaning in life without being extraordinarily happy. Interestingly, happy/optimistic people are actually quite inaccurate in their beliefs about the world when compared with depressed people. For instance, happy people thought they were in control of completely random events much longer than depressed people who acknowledged their inability to affect events much earlier.

Still happiness, at least statistically, is correlated with many beneficial effects. Happiness and optimism correlates with longevity, income, and ability to endure pain, and whether or not someone would end up in a happy marriage correlated with the type of smile (genuine or fake panam smiles) people had on photos from their youth.

So how do you become happy? Having the right genes helps but at least according to Seligman (who does quote a lot of studies), there are thing you can do to become happier. Be warned though, it requires an effort. Up to a rather low limit, money makes you happier. Having friends and a wife is also correlated with happiness.

Another strategy if you do not fancy wives and friends but would still like to be happy is to engage in gratifying activities. Gratifying activities (e.g. hiking) are the one that make you feel good about yourself for a “long” time after you have done them (often they require you to work in some way). This should be contrasted with pleasurable activities (e.g. eating chocolate) that make you feel good when you do them but not afterwards. Seligman (thankfully) does not say that you should never engage in pleasurable activities, only that to achieve happiness we should really focus on gratifying activities.

Seligman further argues that it is important to use your “signature strengths”. Signature strengths are essentially the positive parts of your personality. This includes things such as passion, curiosity, openness, integrity, sense of justice humour etc etc. In other words, the things that others value in you. Try to steer towards situations that let you use your signature strengths and you will become a happier person...

Have this book changes my life? Not really, no. It was interesting and it has made me think more about what type of activities I find gratifying which include training and doing research, and I try to do more of this. All in all “Authentic Happiness” is a good interesting book that I would recommend it to people interested in positive psychology, and who would like a science based understanding of happiness and its consequences.

Book review: Complications by Atul Gawande

Would you let a young inexperienced surgeon operate on your child or yourself, even if it involved a greater risk of complications, so that they could become better surgeons? Almost everyone would answer no to this question and indeed when the authors own son experienced a complication, he insisted on an experienced surgeon. Despite this it is an unavoidable fact that surgeon need practice and if they are not allowed to practice there will be no good surgeons in the future.

The reader of this book will receive an insight into the dilemmas faced by surgeons. It is a book that acknowledges the fantastic benefits of surgery while simultaneously acknowledging the fact that doctors are merely human beings and that even with the best of intentions mistakes are frequently made.

Some questions discussed (without aspiring to provide a definite solution):

• How can you provide young surgeons with practice opportunities without compromising the care of patients (and on how many animals do you let them practice before allowing them to operate on humans)? 
• How much should you trust a doctors “intuition” - and how does it compare to neural networks and machine algorithms? 
• How should you deal with bad doctors - doctors who compromise the care of their patients because they have a depression, are stressed out or have a drinking problem (again doctors are just human beings and are affected by such things too)? 

Gawande takes on these and other questions. He is consistently honest about the limitations as well as the benefits that surgery involves and it seems that he does not hide unpleasant truths. All in all, Complications is a good intriguing book which I would recommend to anyone interested in surgery or medicine in general.

Book review - Science of Evil by Simon Baron Cohen

Simon Baron Cohen’s fundamental idea is that in order to prevent evil we must first understand its causes. How was Josef Fritzl capable of locking up his own daugter in his basement and then rape her on a daily basis for more than a decade? The typical reaction to this type of story is that Josef Fritzl is an evil man, and he did what he did because he was evil. But what does it mean when you say that someone is evil, and does deeming someone as an evil person have any positive side effects?

These are of course difficult questions and I don’t think that Baron Cohen provides a complete answer to them (which would have been a lot to hope for). What Baron Cohen does claim is that if we want to prevent evil we must first understand it. He further suggests that individuals, such as Fritzl, who commit horrendous acts probably suffers from a lack of empathy, that is a lacking ability to see the world from another persons perspective. Borderline patients, psychopaths and narcissists are three mental disorders that have a common feature, namely zero empathy. In other words they are more or less incapable of seeing the world from another persons perspective and therefore they may not get the same “gut response” when they hear about Fritzl.

Many people lack empathy, but not all of them endorse in “evil”. Other factors such as upbringing and attachments to caregivers can influence whether a person born with deficient empathy becomes an offender or learns how to follow the rules of society despite lacking some of the intuitions that derives from having empathy.

Simon Baron Cohen’s expertize lies in the field of autism which is another mental dissorders characterized by a lack of empathy. Individuals that have a autism spectrum dissorder (this category includes those with asperger syndrome), also behave in ways that reveal a lack of empathy, however, they are often good at systematizing, that is seeing relationships between various variables in the world. Because of this special ability they have benefited the world in many ways
Rather than deeming individuals evil, we should try to understand why evil acts are committed. To look at people with a severe lack of empathy is a good and plausibly fruitful starting point for such an endeavour.

Simon Baron Cohen, is a terrific writer with the ability to convey complex ideas and complex research findings in an accessible and easy to understand way. This book as well as “The essential difference” show that this is indeed the case.

Manchester United starting lineup vs Everton

Tomorrow the premier league starts again which I am really looking forward to. I am extra encouraged this year because my team (Manchester United) have signed to world class players over the summer. Kagawa from Japan was one of the best players in Bundesliga last year, and won the title for the second time in a row and then there is Van Persie, top scorer in the premier league last year. Vidic is also back which will certainly improve the defense. 

Here is my suggested line-up vs Everton on sunday, very offensive I know, but it seems to me that you cannot leave out neither Kagawa or Van Persie... Also both Rooney and Kagawa are responsible defensively...

  

Misconceptions about sceince

A colleague at my University who also writes a blog called "Åse fixes Science" recently linked to an excellent resource where common misconceptions about science are straightened out.

If you believe in any of the following statements I recommend that you take a look at the site. My personal experience as a scientist confirms everything that is written on the page.

Science is complete! - No it's not
Science is not a creative process! - It is
Scientists are always objective! - No, they are people
There is one scientific method that all scientists use! - No there are many methods

On two points I would have added some information to the page however. First, when the author discusses whether all scientists are atheists it is stated and statistics are provided to show that this is not the case. It is stated for instance that 75% of scientist believe that religions convey important truths. I think that it would have been appropriate to add that compared to the population at large there are more atheists among scientists than in the population at large.

The second point which I agree with but would like to add to is whether there is one scientific method. Anyone who knows the slightest bit of information about science knows that scientists use an almost limitless number of methods - anything that will allow them to get a better model of reality. However, I think that in another sense there is a scientific method. All scientific methods (or "The scientific method") are systematic, it does not have logical inconsistencies, and any method used should possible to try again to confirm the results. Good scientists follow such basic principles...

The world is getting better

I recently finished Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's most recent book called "The better angels of our human nature: Why violence has declined". This 1000 page book Pinker argues convincingly that all categories of violence (war, murder, assaults, and rape) has decreased substantially throughout history. What about the 2WW with 50 million plus deaths. While this was indeed the most destructive war in terms of the absolute number of dead people, it is not the most destructive if you look at the percentage. Genghis Khan for instance, in his raids reached a 40 million figure almost a thousand years ago, a huge proportion of the people around at that time. In other words, for the average individual it was way more dangerous in Genghis Khans time than when Hitler was alive.



Importantly the number of wars have decreased throughout history and since the 2WW there have been fewer wars than ever before (despite serious tensions during the cold war I may add). It is of course easy to think that there are a lot of wars because almost every war is covered in the media in a way that is quite new.

Likewise the murder rate has gone from 50-100 persons per 100.000 per year in the middle ages to an average that is lower than 10 persons per 100.000 per year in the west today (in Sweden where I live the rate is more like 1 person in 100.000 per year).

Why has violence decreased so much? Pinker argues, and after reading his book I agree, that the main historical factor is the development of states i.e. an uninterested third party that can settle disputes that would previously spark violence. To call a state "uninterested" may be an overstatement since in order to flourish it is in the states interest that its subjects do not fight. Apart from this rationale Pinker also presents a large amount of data showing that the establishment of a state is correlated with a strong decrease in violence.

The other main factor Pinker argues is responsible for the decline of violence is rational-abstract thinking. Today we live in a global world, and like never before we get to peek into other peoples lives, even if they live on the other side of the globe. It is almost impossible and it is definitely not socially acceptable to dismiss other peoples suffering just because they live in another country.

If this sounds interesting, listen to the TED lecture with Pinker where he gives you a short outline.
Another authors who has similar ideas although his explanation is somewhat different is Matt Ridley, listen to him below.



References:
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature. Viking Adult.

The important peer review comes after the peer review.

It is not a secret among scientists that the peer review system which is used as a sort of quality control prior to publication is flawed. When a scientists thinks that he or she has made a discovery the general procedure is to write up a paper containing an introduction to the questions addressed, the methods used (the "scientific method" should really be plural as in "scientific methods" because in science a wealth of different methods are used to create ever improving models of the "real world"), the results found and then a discussion in which you discuss your work and how it relates to other scientists results.

The paper is then sent to a journal. If the scientist thinks his or her paper is groundbreaking it may be sent to nature or science, but there are many other options as well. The editor of the journal may then decide whether the paper is rejected immediately (editors have a lot of power), or whether it will be sent out for a review (notice that editors cannot just go ahead and accept a paper, however fantastic it seems.).

What people refer to as "peer review" is when a paper is sent to a few scientists (usually 2-3) in the same field, who will carefully read the paper and give their opinion on it. They may say the article lacks in news-value, that the method used has flaws or that one has forgotten to discuss a certain relevant paper (often their own...). Based on the reviews from these experts the editor makes a choice, will the article be published, rejected or they encourage you to do some changes and then send it in again.

So lets say you got through all this and managed to get your paper accepted by a top-notch scientific journal. Is your conclusions now established dogma, or scientific fact. Is it written into the holy bible of science never to be changed? No! When your article has been published the real peer review process starts, your article will now be discussed by other scientists in the field. When it is published it is open for everyone (with a subscription to the journal) to read and comment upon. It may be that after a few years a fatal flaw is found in the paper and no-one will believe in it anymore.

A good example is the faster than light neutrinos where the authors did not believe in faster than light neutrinos themselves but they still published their data allowing other scientists to add their interpretations/suggestions. Pretty fast someone figured out that the results was merely caused by a measuring error in so and so, which was later confirmed. Now no-one believes in faster than light neutrinos. The lesson is that although scientists are often stubborn and stick with their theories to the bitter end, science at large has proven to be extremely flexible, and almost on a daily basis theories and hypothesizes are questioned or modified to describe reality a bit more accurately.

For those who think that science is just another religion it is also interesting to compare how often you make changes in the bible (next to never), and how often you make changes to science textbooks, the foundation of what we teach new students in a field. In neuroscience may textbooks come out with new editions every 2-4 years to keep up with all the new facts.

Video games and violence

A big and important question in our society is whether playing video games, which people of all ages do more and more, causes more violence/aggression. Popular videogames such as Grand Theft Auto (GTA) often involves a lot of violence/murder and it would not be an unreasonable hypothesis that this could affect the person playing the game through observational learning.

I will not argue that there is definitely no effect of video game playing on violence, however, if there is such an effect it is being overshadowed by the significant decline in all types of violence that we have been through history. This trend towards a more peaceful society have in fact been particularly pronounced in the last couple of decades, that is, since video games became popular. In short, while people are playing more videogames, our society is getting increasingly peaceful i.e. there is a negative correlation between the amount of time people playing video games and violence. This pattern is more consistent with the idea that video games makes people more peaceful although I do not think data would support that idea either.

I don't think anyone will question that people are playing more videogames today but if you do take a look at these charts. If you don't believe that violence has decreased in modern times (maybe you even think that it is increasing), then you should read this excellent book by Harvard Professor Steven Pinker where he gives you all the data

Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature. Why Violence Has Declined (p. 832). Viking Adult.. 

Doves commuting to work

Sometimes animals do surprising things. There is the chimp Santino who, in his zoo cage, gathered a pile of rocks that he later tried to hit tourists with. What is impressive here is not the throwing (I believe that monkeys are quite good at that), but rather the fact that Santino gathered the stones before the tourists arrived.

Another example that many people have probably heard about is the crows in Australia who like nuts (see video below). The problem for the crows is getting the nuts open - they cannot do it themselves so instead they have developed a very clever strategy to achieve their goal. They fly to an intersection with traffic-lights and then wait until the cars stop (red light on), at this point they place their nut in their intersection and then fly up to a light-post of wire and wait for the cars to start driving. The cars then crack the nut and next time when the traffic light are red the crows fly down to the road and get their reward. Very clever indeed!

A third example that I only heard about yesterday, even though it was in our own Capital (Stockholm), is the doves who commute to work. In Stockholm there is a train network which is partially below ground and partially above. Doves have regularly been seen to board these trains, drive one station and then exit the train again. It seems that their rendezvous is "Farsta Strand" where there is plenty of cafes and restaurants where they find their food. The doves typically fly home however, sometimes they commute back from their work as well.

In some of the articles writing about this they say that the doves in London are even cleveler... They sometimes travel more than one stop.... My guess is that these behaviors (maybe with the exception of the chimp) are all extreme cases of operant conditioning. For some unlikely reasons the birds more or less accidentally dropped a nut or entered a train and then received a significant reward (either a nut or a lot of saved energy), which increased the likelihood that the behavior would occur again.

The secret: The Law of Attraction and Einstein

Rhonda Byrne, author of "The Secret" is an expert when it comes to grabbing quotes from dead scientists to make it sound as if their quotes support her crazy idea that what you are thinking affects the universe. By the way, Byrne when stating her "Law of Attraction" doesn't just mean that what you think changes how you behave which changes the way people interact with you (a statement even I would agree with). Rather Byrne wants us to think that there is a fundamental, universal law (like the law of gravity), which entails that everything that has ever happened to you (at least that is how I interpret it), came about because of what you thought - happy thought lead to good things and negative thought lead to bad things...

Byrne writes that: 

"The law of attraction is a law of nature. It is as impartial as the law

of gravity."

"Nothing can come into your experience unless you summon it through persistent thoughts. "

"Often when people first hear this part of the Secret they recall

events in history where masses of lives were lost, and they find

it incomprehensible that so many people could have attracted

themselves to the event. By the law of attraction, they had to be on

the same frequency as the event. It doesn't necessarily mean they

thought of that exact event, but the frequency of their thoughts

matched the frequency of the event. (p.28)"

Anyways, back to quoting dead scientist turning and twitching in their grave. On page 40 Byrne writes that:

"Marci Shimoff shared a wonderful quote from the great Albert

Einstein: "The most important question any human being can ask

themselves is, 'Is this a friendly Universe?'"

Knowing the law of attraction, the only answer to give is, "Yes,

the Universe is friendly." Why? Because when you answer in this

way, by the law of attraction you must experience that. Albert Einstein

posed this powerful question because he knew The Secret.

He knew by asking the question it would force us to think and

make a choice. He gave us a great opportunity, just by posing the

question."

To take Einstein's intention even further, you can affirm and proclaim,

"This is a magnificent Universe. The Universe is bringing all

good things to me. The Universe is conspiring for me in all things.

The Universe is supporting me in everything I do. The Universe

meets all my needs immediately." Know that this is a friendly Universe!

Seriously? Does asking whether we have a friendly/magnificent universe mean that you believe in the (crazy) law of attraction. Of course not! What Einstein likely meant is how easy/difficult it is for us humans to live in this universe. Why have we not been blown up by a supernova already? For how many more millennia will we be able to live on earth like we do today?

Besides, I hardly think that the Universe Byrne is describing in The secret is a "friendly universe", rather it is a universe which gives back what you think. Those African children in Darfur must really have some nasty thoughts...




The next quote can be found on pp. 62-63:

"Time is just an illusion. Einstein told us that. If this is the first time

you have heard it, you may find it a hard concept to get your head

around, because you see everything happening—one thing after

the other. What quantum physicists and Einstein tell us is that everything

is happening simultaneously. If you can understand that

there is no time, and accept that concept, then you will see that

whatever you want in the future already exists. If everything is

happening at the one time, then the parallel version of you with

what you want already exists!

It takes no time for the Universe to manifest what you want. Any

time delay you experience is due to your delay in getting to the

place of believing, knowing, and feeling that you already have it. It

is you getting yourself on the frequency of what you want When

you are on that frequency, then what you want will appear."

I guess that the only real quote here from Einstein is that "time is an illusion", and there is actually some truth to this, although Einstein would not agree with the conclusions. What Einstein showed was that "the constant" in the Universe was "c" which is the speed of light in vacuum. The faster something moves the slower time will go. From this idea there is a theoretical, mathematical possibility that time travel will be possible but that idea is also associated with many difficulties. Why have we not been visited by someone from the future yet? Furthermore, even if time is relative, that says nothing about "The law of attraction". Does Byrne suggest that you need many parallel universes for the law to work?



The last Einstein quote associated with Einstein is on page 79-80 in The Secret:

"The great scientist Albert Einstein revolutionized the way we view

time, space, and gravity. From his poor background and poor beginnings,

you would have thought it impossible for him to achieve

all that he did. Einstein knew a great deal of The Secret, and he

said, "Thank you" hundreds of times each day. He thanked all

the great scientists who had preceded him for their contributions,

which had enabled him to learn and achieve even more in his

work, and eventually become one of the greatest scientists who

has ever lived."

Right... I invite anyone to show me that Einstein literally said thank you "hundreds of times" everyday. That sounds like a lot to me. However, even if Einstein did say thank you often, maybe he was just a positive dude who thanked people when appropriate. Regarding his thanks to his predecessors, it is clear for scientists that the work done by scientists through the ages is a very important foundation for modern science and we should be thankful for their contribution. Also, if we go by "The Secret" why not just wish for and think positive thoughts and then let the universe bring you a fantastic scientific theory, why all the hard work?