Archive for April, 2014

An Apology and an Explanation

April 30, 2014

Some time has passed since my last post.  So, I apologize, but here is the explanation.  I had ordered a renewal of my security software for my XP.   I was able to download it, but I received an error message so I could not install it.  So I clicked on help.  That provided a phone contact to the help desk.  They offered to scan my computer to see what the problem was.  This was an interesting procedure.  I allowed them to gain remote access to my computer while I watched.  They reported that my computer was in sad shape and needed to be cleaned.  They offered to do this for a price and also sold me a multi-year support contract.  I did this because the promised to keep my XP computer going for years,and I dreaded moving on to Windows 8.  I watched while the cleaned my computer remotely.  I should say that they supposedly cleaned my computer.  This took close to an hour and then the moment of truth came.  They tried to restart my computer.  Of course shutting done is a prerequisite to restarting the computer.  It never shut down.  I had to force it down.  Then when I tried to restart the computer it kept trying to boot up and never succeeded.  I had watched them destroy my XP!  Moreover, they had the temerity to bill me for destroying my computer.  Of course, I am going to refuse these charges.

Now came the dreaded problem of getting a new computer.  I thought I might be able to cope with Windows 8 if I had a touch screen.  I was wrong.  So I returned the computer and bought a Mac.  Now I am in the process of learning its “intuitive” interface.

I am furious that Microsoft can force us into these upgrades.  We go through these periodically at the office.  Days are lost learning to cope with the so-called upgrade.  Moreover, I always fail to see any benefits from the upgrade.  When one’s personal computer needs to be upgraded, it is even more traumatic.

I don’t think Microsoft should be allowed to do this.  They should not be allowed to discontinue the support of an operating system.  Moreover, everything needs to be backwards compatible.  Before an individual, company, or the government agrees to an upgrade, the benefits of the upgrade need to be made explicit.  There should be warnings regarding time lost as a result of changes resulting from the upgrade.  And individuals, private companies, and the government should be allowed to sue for unanticipated losses in time, money, and in mental anguish.

Mindful Awareness Practices (MAPS)

April 19, 2014

This post is based largely on entry point 25 (Time-In and Mindful Awareness Practices) of the Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology by Daniel J. Siegel. William James, who is regarded by many as the father of modern psychology, proposed more than one hundred years ago that the exercise of returning a wandering attention again and again would be the “education par excellence” for the mind. I remember reading his words when I was a student many years ago thinking “right on.” My mind wandering during my studies was a constant source of frustration. Later in my life I read James’ Varieties of Religious Experience. If memory serves me correctly, eastern religions were not among the varieties of religious experience discussed. Unfortunately there is an anti-eastern/pro-western bias in western education. Had James reviewed these eastern religions, he would have discovered practices in meditation and mindfulness that addressed this very problem.
The UCLA Mindfulness Awareness Research Center (MARC) uses the term mindful awareness practices (MAPS) to the many approaches for developing the skill of being mindfully aware. These strategies focus attention on the present moment. They focus attention on intention and also create awareness of awareness. When the breath is supposed to be the object of attention, the focus of the mind usually wanders and becomes distracted, the intended goal is to redirect attention back to the breath again and again. If the intention of the practice, to focus on the breath, is forgotten, then the exercise will not be performed well. Stabilizing attention requires being aware of awareness, and paying attention to intention. These are the keys to mindful awareness that strengthens the mind itself.
Time-in is a term used to refer to the ways in which we can take time to focus inward, to pay attention to our sensations, images, feelings, and thoughts (SIFT). That is, we SIFT the mind’s inner experience. Doing this each day can promote improvements in emotion regulation, attention, and empathy. Increasing the capacity to be aware of awareness and pay attention to intention strengthens the brain’s circuits for executive functions. These executive functions include the ability to sustain attention, to avoid distractions, to selectively change attention and then focus on the designated target, and to allocate the resources necessary to complete a task successfully. Research done at MARC found as much executive function improvement as is found using stimulant medication in adolescents and adults with attention deficit challenges. Other research at the University of California has found that sustaining mindful awareness can increase telomerase, the enzyme needed to maintain the telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes that sustain the life of the cell.
There is some debate regarding whether being mindful is primarily a way of focusing attention on the present-moment experience or whether it also entails a state of positive regard for self and for others. COAL is an acronym for the notion of being aware that is imbued with kindness. COAL stands for curiosity, openness, acceptance, and love. One kind regard it as either ironic or justified, but being concerned for others also benefits one’s personal health.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Importance of a Growth Mindset

April 16, 2014

Carol S. Dweck, the recipient of a James McKeen Fellow Award from the Association for Psychological Science, has developed the concept of and proven the importance of a growth mindset. This research has shown how praise for intelligence can undermine motivation and learning.
When we see ourselves as possessing fixed attributes, such as intelligence, we can blind ourselves to our potential for growth and prematurely give up on engaging in constructive self-improving behaviors. However, if we see the self as a development work in progress (the growth mindset) can lead to the acquisition of new skills and capabilities.
Her work has shown that victims of negative stereotypes who have (or are taught to adopt) a growth mindset then take a mastery-oriented stance to achieve their goals even in unfavorable learning environments. Consequently, they can excel despite the obstacles they face.
The impact of Dweck’s work has spread to domains other than academic achievement, to include willpower, conflict resolution in the Middle East, racial prejudice, and adolescent aggression. Her research has been applied extensively in both schools and organizations to empower children and adults throughout the world.
So the message to healthymemory blog posts is clear, should you not already have a growth mindset, adopt one ASAP.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

REST, Epigenesis, Neuroplasticity, Cognitive Reserve, & Alzheimer’s

April 8, 2014

The March 19 Washington Post published an article written by Angela Zimm, “Fetal brain protein reactivates in old age, may fight dementia.” The research was conducted by scientists at Harvard University and published in the journal Nature. It reported that a protein called REST is depleted in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. It was found at a level three times as high in people who did not experience dementia even when their brains had indications of the disease. According to Yanker, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, “There’s a long-standing puzzle in neurology why a large percentage of the aging population when they die have enough abnormalities in the brain to classify as Alzheimer’s, though they don’t develop the dementia.”
This is a rarely publicized fact about Alzheimer’s, that there are many people who do not exhibit the symptoms of dementia even though their brains at autopsy are found to have the so-called tell tale neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques. These are the only signs that allow a conclusive diagnosis of Alzheimer’s . So it appears that these tangles and plaques might be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for Alzheimer’s disease. Most research on Alzheimer’s has been on attacking the tangles and plaques.
The only explanation that has been offered is that the people with the tangles and plaques, but not Alzheimer’s have built up a cognitive reserve to fend off this disease. Indeed, this is one of the exhortations of the healthymemory blog, to build up a cognitive reserve/. However, what has been lacking to this point is an explanation as to how this cognitive reserve is built up. The process of epigenesis is one possible mechanism for the release and maintenance of the REST protein. Possible mechanisms for building a cognitive reserve can be found in the healthymemory blog, “What is Neuroplasticity and How Does it Work”, and include, in addition to epigenesis, synaptogenesis, myleinogenesis, and neurogenesis. The healthymemory blog post, “Supporting Neuroplasticity” lists some specific practices that could aid in building a cognitive reserve.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Evolution vs. Creationism

April 5, 2014

The previous post was on the stupidity pandemic. A specific example of this pandemic is on whether evolution or creationism should be taught in the public schools. The Scopes Trial, commonly called the Scopes Monkey Trial, and technically termed The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes took place in 1925. The state claimed that Scopes had violated Tennessee law by teaching evolution is a state-funded school. Inherit the Wind is a movie on the Scopes trial. Scopes was found guilty, but his conviction was overturned on a technicality. Nevertheless, the debate has continued. Some argue that evolution should not be taught, or that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, or that both evolution and creationism should be taught. Frankly I am strongly in favor of the final option. My friends tell me that I am wrong, that creationists would use this option to legitimatize their position or perhaps, with biased teaching, to discredit evolution.
What my friends fail to realize is that they are advocating teaching evolution as dogma, which is the very thing that creationists are doing. What is important is that students understand what science is and how it is conducted. The evolution vs. creationism debate provides an ideal means to do this. However, the following points need to be made.
The first point is that scientific theories can be disproved. So, however unlikely it might be, evolution could be disproved on the basis of overwhelming new evidence. In fact evolutionary theory is constantly undergoing refinement. Creationists regard this as a refutation of evolution, but this fine tuning process is a vital part of science. So creationists need to be asked, if there were significant evidence to the contrary, could creationism be disproved? If it cannot be disproved, then creationism is most definitely not a science.
The second point regards the scientific method as well as a bias in the way we humans process information. The human tendency is to look for information that confirm one’s beliefs or hypotheses. However, in the scientific enterprise it is important to look for disconfirming information. In the case of creationism, one can find evidence of an intelligent creator, but looking at the historical record, an enormous number of species have failed and become extinct. True, if the creator were seriously flawed, this could be a reasonable result. But isn’t it more reasonable to propose a random selective process?
The third point is that science does express beliefs, and in probabilistic terms in statistics, but they are based on data and logic. So consider the relevant geologic information. That is based on theory and data. What is the basis for what is presented in the religious source? Arguments based on authority, regardless of the presumed status of that authority, are not acceptable.
Students should be free to draw their own conclusions. But these are the points it is important for students to understand about science.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Stupidity Pandemic

April 1, 2014

Picking up from the previous blog that left with the exhortation not to follow the Krell to extinction it would be well to ask, where do we stand now? We are at the peak of scientific knowledge, but too much of the world lives at a subsistence level, and there are numerous wars and conflicts. Millions of people are displaced and have neither homes nor prospects. Terrorists are preoccupied with jihad. Even in the so-called advanced countries stupidity reigns. Many people cling to discredited dogmas and reject scientific findings. I find it quite annoying that many people enjoy the benefits of medicine and technology that result from science, yet reject the scientific basis on which these benefits depend. Worse yet, these individuals’ beliefs risk further advancements in science, technology, and medicine. Moreover, they prevent or hinder responding to problems with a strong scientific basis that need to be addressed. There is a member of the U.S. Congress who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and enforces his beliefs in his legislative actions. What is even more depressing is that citizens of a presumably advanced country elected such a man to office.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson proposed that Congress double funds for medical science, but to cut the entire social and behavioral sciences budget of the National Science Foundation. Although she is to be applauded for doubling funds for medical science, it is regrettable that she fails to see the relevance of the social sciences. One can well argue that most of our problems need to be addressed by the social and behavioral sciences, (To read more on this topic, enter “STEM’ into the search block of the healthymemory blog).
Debates in the United States center on whether someone is for or against Big Government. This is a meaningless question and a meaningless topic for debate. What is Big Government? Perhaps it could be defined in terms of the percentage of the GNP spent by the government, but that would still be a pointless basis for debate. The debate should be on what services should be provided by government and which by the private sector. Moreover, this debate should not be on the basis of what people believe, but on the basis of reasoning and evidence. Public policy should be evidence-based. Sometimes the evidence is there for the asking, but often experiments need to be done. When this happens, there is some evidence of intelligence. Unsupported beliefs indicate stupidity. To put this in Kahnman’s terms, we need System 2 processes, not System 1 processes (if this is not understood, enter “Kahneman” into the search block of the healthymemory blog.).
Too often a false dichotomy is made between science and religion; that you follow one or the other. Science and religion are not incompatible. First of all, it needs to be appreciated that science and religion are alternative, not competitive, means of knowing. The Dali Lama is a strong proponent of this point of view and also a strong believer in science. Next, a distinction needs to be made between religions and God. Religions are constituted of and by human beings, and religious promulgations and texts are from men. It is up to us individuals to decide whether they are the word of God. A belief in God should begin with an appreciation of our brains. If you believe in God, then the brain is a gift that came through evolution, and we need to make the most of this gift. This brain is the vehicle by which we work to understand the world. Science is a rigorous means of gaining this understanding. It is clear that this understanding comes gradually.
For a long time, the advancement of human knowledge proceeded at a glacial pace. I would argue that true scientific advancement began with Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and their use of the scientific method. Copernicus formulated the heliocentric theory of our solar system with the earth at its center. Galileo’s research putt him at odds with the Roman Catholic Church who saw his research as an assault on the Church’s monopoly on truth. They placed him on trial. Fortunately, others followed in their footsteps. As more engaged in these pursuits, knowledge advanced at an increasingly rapid rate. One of the ironic features of this advancement of scientific knowledge is that we have become more aware of what we don’t know. Dark matter is just one of these areas.
Unfortunately religious dogmas have had a depressing effect on the advancement of knowledge. This should never be allowed. What we learn through science, which is, or should be, the antithesis of dogma. Scientific knowledge is always subject to change subject to new information and new theories. Although we can never be certain, scientific knowledge provides us the best available information regarding what to believe and how to act. Science requires heavy use of System 2 processes, thinking. Dogmas allow us to rely on System 1 processes so we don’t have to think.

© Douglas Griffith and, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.