Posts Tagged ‘Washington Post’

Calls for Racial Justice Gained Steam with Empathy

June 30, 2020

The title of this piece is identical to the title of an article by Jamil Zaki in the Health & Science Section of the 23 June 2020 issue of The Washington Post. The subtitle asks the question, what kept people from supporting these movements before?

A key answer to this question comes from research on the perverse relationship between power and empathy. Empathy is people’s ability to share and understand each other’s experience. Empathy is not a hard-wired trait, but a skill . The right experiences, habits and practices can increase our empathic capacity, the same way we can get stronger by going to the gym. But there is s dark side to this idea: Other experiences can cause our empathy to atrophy, similar to a muscle we don’t use.

Power and privilege can sap our ability to understand others. In a series of studies, psychologist Michael Kraus and his colleagues measured people’s socio-economic status, as well as their ability to decipher emotions in pictures and in-person interactions. People higher in status were less accurate about other people’s feelings. Recent work has replicated these results and also found that high-status individuals make more errors when trying to take other people’s perspective.

Kraus and his colleagues have documented the empathic failures that come with privilege. Higher-status individuals display less interest when talking with strangers and report less concern for the suffering of others. These gaps play out in racial contexts as well. In another study, Kraus found that high-income white Americans overestimate racial economic equality more than black Americans or low -income white Americans.

These findings were bleak enough to make one journalist conclude, “power causes brain damage.” But powerful people are not incapable of empathy and should not be let off the hook from working at it. Like other skills, empathy takes practice, and people practice it when they are motivated to do so. Individuals who are relatively underprivileged realize they need others to succeed whereas people with power often deicide they can go it alone. Consistent with this idea, lower-status individuals pay more attention to faces, people and social cues than those with high status.

People without power often have to understand the perspective of high-power groups, which is the default in media, culture and work. By contrast, high-status individuals don’t have to understand others perspective to survive. This is one way privilege works its way into our minds. Not only are privileged people exempt from material struggles, they can comfortably ignore everyone else’s.

In some cases, powerful individuals have incentives not to understand. Genuinely peering into others’ worlds might force them into ugly realizations that they contribute to and benefit from injustice. To avoid that discomfort, they might turn down their empathy even further. In one series of studies, psychologists reminded members of high-power groups—such as white Americans—of their group’s responsibility for past violence—for instance, against Native Americans. Participants responded by dehumanizing victims to avoid guilt.

This is one irony of power: It expands the change a person could make while narrowing the aperture of whom they truly see. But this is not inevitable. When powerful people choose to empathize, they become more cooperative and more invested in justice. In one particularly relevant series of studies, Emile Bruneau and his colleagues asked members of low-power groups to “perspective give,” sharing their stories, and high-power individuals to perspective, paraphrasing what they’d heard. These dialogues increased connection and positive regard between groups—not by ignoring existing power structures but by reversing them.

In the past few weeks, many people have opened their eyes to suffering they had previously ignored. Much credit for this should go to activists and organizers who have made it harder to look away. Can increase in concern about racial injustice last? Empathy is a powerful psychological spark, but it often extinguishes quickly to support long-term change. As emotional stories leave our collective consciousness, people move on. Suffering continues, but those in power no longer see it.

Rather than depending on empathy to last, another strategy would be to leverage the care and energy of this moment into structural change—for instance, commitments to diversity leadership in education, business, and government. Rather than depending on people in power to listen more intently, change might come when we ensure the people who have previously been kept out of power have more chances to speak and be heard.

There are other posts on the work of Jamil Zaki.
Go to healthymemory.wordpress.com
and enter Zaki into the search block

In Dark Days, Kindness Can Help All of Us

June 16, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Steven Petrow in the Health & Science section of the 9 June 2020 issue of the Washington Post. As the title implies, especially in these current times kindness towards others, and ourselves, has been shown to help balance seesawing emotions, which we all have these days, and even possibly improve some health outcomes. Actually there is ample evidence that kindness is beneficial to both psychological and physiological health.

Petrol writes, “ even as it feels like darkness and struggle are ratcheting up, people are reaching out to others to help, even if they don’t dominate the news. For example, in Atlanta fraternity men from historically black colleges cleaned up neighborhood streets after a night of protest and violence. The day before the city’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said, “We are better than this.”

In Columbus, Ohio, the local newspaper reported, “Random acts of kindness break out amid protests, with individuals who’d just met on Facebook providing masks, protective eyewear ad first-aid kits to protestors.

In Cleveland, Ricky Smith, the founder of Random Acts of Kindness Everywhere brought his “message of positivity” to help “people think outside of themselves and help others.”

A man on the street in downtown Washington opened his door to dozens of marchers fleeing as riot police bore down firing chemicals. He provided a refuge through the night so they wouldn’t be arrested for violating curfew.

Petrol also writes of the “viral nature of kindness” Ramona DeFelice Long, who lives in Newark, De told him that when her mother, a former nurse, died of the novel coronavirus in April, she asked that “people perform an act of kindness to a nurse” in lieu of sending flowers. One person sent lunch to the emergency room unit in a small hospital and another sent a gift card to a struggling neighborhood medical professional with a family.

Rose Arce, a Latina documentarian, says she has been deeply affected by the recent turn of events, but she remains an advocate for “kindness, [which] is also about empathy and understanding, about recognizing the plight of the person next to you and offering emotional support and advocacy in a moment of anger or despair.” Kindness builds bridges, two-way bridges.

He writes of his conversations with Jamil Zaki, a Stanford University psychology professor who studies kindness. “There’s lots of evidence that our experiences, our choices, our habits, our practices go a long way to predict how empathetic we become. In researching his book, “The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World,” he says he learned that empathy or kindness is a skill that we can build. “Doing so is a crucial project for us, both as individuals and as a culture.” Now more so than ever.

Petrol notes, “Spreading kindness does not mean ignoring the need to protest injustice and cruelty and demand that the world be made fairer, better. Zaki and other experts say it can be another tool to help create a more just and loving and world, and to keep ourselves from being overcome by anger and despair.

There have been many healthymemory position Zaki and his book. Just enter
“Jamil Zaki” into the search block at healthymemory.wordpress.com.

Tattoo Regret

June 4, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Katherine Ellison in the Health and Science Section of the 2 June 2020 issue of the Washington Post. The author is writing about her son when she writes that his tattoo took less than 20 minutes, but that regret set in within hours.

HM is a baby boomer and getting tattoos was rare for his generation, with the exception of some extreme groups. But for some strange reason, it has been growing in popularity. A 2015 Harris Poll found that a nearly half of millennials and more than one-third of the Gen Xers had at least one tattoo compared to 13 percent of the baby boomers.

Getting rid of tattoos is both painful and expensive. The author’s son needed several sessions of laser treatments at a cost of $1,000 a treatment.

As a general rule, the higher the level of the job or profession, the larger the barrier a tattoo will have to winning that position. As a former employer, HM will explain why he would not want to hire someone with a tattoo.

The question that HM asks himself is that although the applicant may like the tattoo and the tattoo might be “cool” in today’s environment, why does this individual not think that this tattoo is something he might regret in the future. From his perspective, the here and now is all important, and the future is only a marginal consideration, if one at all.

HM is looking for a candidate who is future oriented, both in terms of the candidate and the organization in which he is seeking employment. Readers of the healthymemory blog should be aware of the heavy emphasis placed on growth mindsets for the memory health of the individual. Growth mindsets are also important for the growth of the organization to which the candidate aspires.

So HM would interview the candidate as a courtesy and would try to keep an open mind. But the possibility of him giving a favorable review to this candidate is virtually nil.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2020. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Five Myths of Fear

June 3, 2020

The title of this post is the same as the title of an article by Eva Holland in the Outlook section of the 31 May 2020 issue of the Washington Post.

Myth No. 1 is Phobias stem from traumatic incidents.
Although it is possible that traumatic incidents can produce phobias, it is no longer the dominant explanation. One study in Behavior Research and Therapy suggested that the children who experienced “significant injury’ from childhood falls are less likely to develop a fear of heights later in life. Now researchers trace phobias to a complex interplay of nature and nurture. Our genetics can predispose us to anxiety disorders, and the behavior of people around us can condition us into fearfulness. According to a 2016 study by researchers at York University parental behavior before and during their children’s vaccinations was the biggest contributor to preschooler’s “needle fear.”

Myth No. 2 is Nightmares can’t hurt you.
Although the Mayo Clinic in its advice on “nightmare disorder,” tells parents to “remind your child that nightmares aren’t real and can’t hurt you” and the Stanford Children’s Health calls night terrors “harmless,” there is evidence to the contrary.

Nightmares were implicated in an incident of a mysterious illness, later called “sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome” that killed more than 100 people in the United States in the 1980s. The victims, mostly young, male, and healthy, and many of them Hmong refugees who had fled the war in Southeast Asia, all died in their sleep. A medical examiner at the time said, “In each case we asked ourselves what they had died from and the answer was ‘nothing.’ Some scholars believe that a deep belief in the power of nightmares, combined with trauma, caused psychological distress that had a physical effect.

Other research has documented nightmares’ other, less dramatic ramifications. When we have a bad dream in which a family member or a spouse wrongs us, for instance, our newly negative perceptions of them can linger into waking hours, according to a 2013 study in Social Psychological Science. Nightmares, and the stress response to them, have also been linked to flare-ups of migraines and asthma attacks.

Myth No. 3 is Predators can smell your fear.
In spite of some statements from presumably authoritative sources, the answer is clearly “no.” Prey animals like deer and rodents (as well as colony-based creatures like bees and ants) emit “alarm pheromones,” airborne chemical cues that warn others of a threat. However, this communication only works within species. Humans have this ability too, emitting fear chemicals in our perspiration. By studying test subjects’ responses to sweat from people running on a treadmill, and from those skydiving for the first time, Stony Brook University researchers found that the fear-response system in our brains unconsciously gears up when it detects the fear pheromone. This enhances our vigilance, and serves as a silent, invisible warning system. In that sense, we can detect fear on one another—but we can’t distinguish between fear sweat and exercise sweat.

Myth No. 4 Fear is a weakness.
Our culture teaches us to despise cowardice and to see acts driven by fear as evidence of some larger character flaw. “Fear is the path to the dark side,” says Yoda. Self-help guides, such as Goop’s “How Fear Holds Us Back (and How to Conquer It),” insist that fear is to be resisted and opposed.

But fear is natural and necessary, a vital tool for survival. The proof is in the experience of a truly fearless woman, known as Patient S.M., whose amygdala, a structure in the brain that triggers our fear response, was destroyed by a rare genetic disease. Researchers reported that she handled snakes without trepidation and didn’t startle at sudden noises. Her lack of fear was an obstacle for self-preservation or learning from negative experiences. After she was attacked at knifepoint on a walk one evening, she returned to the same park the very next day. When in 1968 a UCLA psychiatrist removed the amygdalae from a group of monkeys and then released them into the wild, they were all dead within two weeks—from drowning, starvation or attacks by other monkeys. Fear can sometimes be irrational, embarrassing or inconvenient— but it is also a necessity.
HM adds that fear is a weakness only if it disrupts your normal life. For instance, there is no reason for a city dweller to be concerned about a fear of snakes. Moreover, should he ever find himself in an environment containing snakes, a fear of snakes could provide a reasonable precaution.

Myth No. 5. We must face our fears to defeat them.
For some individuals, this could take a considerable amount of time. The only fears we need to face are those that impact our daily lives or professions. When such is the case the fears should be confronted and there are treatments and procedures for dealing with these fears.

Otherwise, it is a waste of time and mental energy to deal with irrelevant fears. HM suggests that this mental energy could be better spent meditating or developing growth mindsets.

Love Shows Its Resilience

May 28, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the first part of a title of an article by Lisa Bonos in the Style section of the 26 May 2020 issue of the Washington Post. The remainder of the title is “study finds.” A recent Monmouth University poll found that most people in relationships are satisfied with them, despite the expected stresses that might come from, say, working from home together, losing a job, managing kids at home or preventing your family from getting the virus.

One of the authors of the study, psychology professor Gary Lewandowski, said, Relationships aren’t perfect—there are always some underlying issues, but on average, the relationships we’re in are pretty good.

The survey was conducted from April 30 to May 4, among a sample of 556 American adults in relationships. Here are the findings:

74% of Americans with a romantic partner say their relationship has not fundamentally changed since the coronavirus outbreak. 10% said it was a lot better, and 7% said it was a little better. Only 4% said it was worse, and 1% a lot worse.

Argument frequency and sex lives have changed for the better, but only slightly. Less that 2 in 10 of those in relationships said they had fewer arguments with their partner, while 1 in 10 said they got into more of them—and 7 in 10 said there has been no difference. Only 9% said that their sex life had improved. 5% said it has gotten worse, with 77% saying it is about the same.

About half said their relationships would get stronger by the time the outbreak is over, and just 1% said their relationship will be worse. 46% said their relationship will not have changed at all.

About three-quarters of married couples said their relationship has not changed for better or worse since the coronavirus outbreak began, while just under two-thirds of unmarried couples said the same.

59% said their relationship has had no impact on their daily stress level.

The authors of the study concluded, “Overall, these results suggest that the global pandemic may not be as bad for relationships as many have feared. Our relationships may become stronger and even more important than they already were.”

HM thinks this is especially good news as it really is not known how long this pandemic will last, and that additional waves of this pandemic are expected.

Note: Astute readers will note that percentages do not add up to 100%. Unfortunately, HM is constrained by what is in the article. Fortunately any discrepancies do not discredit the conclusions from this survey.

Potpourri; or a Toddler Sampler

May 25, 2020

The title of this post is the identical to the title of a chapter in a timely book by Daniel W. Dreszner, The Toddler in Chief. It begins with a selection from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child: Preschoolers are very eager to take control. They want to be more independent than their skills and safety allow, and they don’t appreciate their limits. They want to make decisions, but they don’t know how to compromise, and they don’t deal well with disappointment or restraint.

The following is from an article by Devlin Barrett,Josh Dawsey, and Rosalind S. Helderman in the Washington Post, February 28, 2018: “Behind the scenes, Trump derisively referred to Sessions as “Mr. Magoo,” a cartoon character who is elderly, myopic and bumbling, according to people with whom he has spoken.”

The following is from a piece by Gabriel Sherman in Vanity Fair, October 9, 2017: “Kelly has developed a Mar-a-Logo strategy to prevent Trump from soliciting advice from members and friends. (In February 2017 Trump turned his dinner table into an open-air Situation Room when North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile). Sources briefed on Kelly’s plans said he will attempt to keep Trump “out of he dining room.”

The following piece is by Steve Benen on MSNBC, June 14, 2019: “It appears the president, according to his own version of events, has helped choose design elements of the new Air Force One.
The natural question, of course,is, ‘How does he find the time?’ The answer, by all appearances, is that Trump isn’t as busy as he probably should be, so he tackles tasks like these in between consuming hours of television.
And perhaps that’s for the best. White House aides have told a variety of reporters that the key to keeping Trump out of trouble is keeping him busy and distracted. The more he is focused on paint colors, the less time he’ll have for more dangerous pursuits.”

The following pieces are from an article by Juliet Elperin, Josh Dawson, and Dan Lamothe in the Washington Post, July 1, 2019: “Trump, who had already ordered up a flyover by military aircraft including Air Force One and the Navy’s Blue Angels has pressed to expand his “Salute to America” event further with an F-35 stealth fighter and the involvement of Marine Helicopter Squadron One, which flied the presidential helicopter, according to government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly. He also pushed to bring military tanks to the site of his planned speech at the Lincoln Memorial, prompting National Park Service officials to warn that such a deployment could damage the site, these individuals said…
Trump has demonstrated an unusual level of interest in this year’s Independence Day observance, according to three senior administration officials. He has received regular briefings about it from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and has weighed in on how the pyrotechnics should be launched, how the military should be honored and more, according to people briefed on the discussions.”

The following is from an article by Peter Nicholas in the Atlantic, July 3, 2019: “Trump has pined for a national military parade since at least July 2017, when he watched French soldiers marching in Paris on Bastille Day. Speaking privately with French President Emmanuel Macron a couple of months later in New York at a United Nations General Assembly meeting, Trump mentioned the display, turned to his delegation, and said, ‘I want horses”! I want horses! a former French official tole me, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the conversation”

Poor Impulse Control

May 22, 2020

The title of this post is the identical to the title of a chapter in a timely book by Daniel W. Dreszner, The Toddler in Chief. It begins with a selection from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child: From the child’s perspective, these are the terrific twos because they are so excited about all the new things they are able to do developmentally. It’s as if they are saying, ‘Look what I can do!’ As a result, all toddlers get frustrated at anyone or anything limiting their ability to do what they wish to do, even if they are not capable of it. This lack of independence leads to immediate and intense frustration and loss of control.

The following is from an article by Ashley Parker, Seung Min Kim, and Philip Rucker in the Washington Post, April 12, 2018: Senior U.S. officials describe a president who is operating largely in impulse, with little patience for the advice of his top aides. “A decision or statement is made by the president, and then the principals—Mattis or Pompeo or Kelly, come in and tell him we can’t do it,” said one senior administration official. “When it fails, we reverse-engender a policy process to match whatever the president said.”

The following is from an article by Josh Dawsey in Politico, October 9,2017: Trump would impulsively want to fire someone like Attorney General Jeff Sessions; create a new, wide-ranging policy with far-flung implications, like increasing tariffs on Chinese steel imports; or end a decades-old deal like the North American Free Trade Agreement. Enraged with a TV segment or frustrated after a meandering meeting, the president would order it done immediately.
Delaying the decision would give Priebus and others a chance to change his mind or bring in an adviser to speak with Trump—and in some cases, to ensure Trump would drop the idea altogether and move on…
Trump would sometimes lash out at Priebus for not doing what he wanted immediately though, several officials said.”

The following is from an article by Sonam Sheth in Business Insider, September 6, 2019: “No one knows what to expect from him anymore, one former White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations about the predisent, told Insider.
They added: His mood changes from one minute to the next based on some headline or tweet, and the next thing you know his entire schedule gets tossed out the window because he’s losing his s—-.”

The following is from an article by Josh Dawsey in Politico, May 1, 2017: “Trump’s advisers have at times tried to curb his media appearances, worried he will step on his message. ‘They were not helpful to us,’ one senior administration official said. ‘There was no point to do all of them.’
White House officials siad privately were was no broader strategy behind the interviews. GOP strategists and Capitol Hill aides were puzzled by it all. ‘I have no idea what they view as a successful media hit,’ said one senior GOP consultant with close ties to the administration. ‘He just seemed to go crazy today,’ a senior GOP aide said.”

The following article is by Josh Dawsey, Eliana Jonson, and Josh Meyer in Politico, May 15, 2017: Several advisers and others close to Trump said they wouldn’t be surprised if Trump gave information he shouldn’t have [to Russia dignitaries in the Oval Office].
One adviser who often speaks to the president said the conversation was likely freewheeling in the Oval Office, and he probably wanted to impress the officials.
“He doesn’t really know any boundaries. He doesn’t think the implications of what he’s saying.”

The Toddler in Chief

May 18, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of a timely book by Daniel W. Dreszner. The subtitle of this book is What Donald Trump Teaches Us About the Modern Presidency. The introduction to this book begins with a quote from American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child:
At the age of two, children view the world almost exclusively through their own needs and desires. Because they can’t yet understand how others might feel in the same situation, they assume that everyone thinks and feels exactly as they do. And on those occasions when they realize they’re out of line, they may not be able to control themselves.

There will be a series of posts on this book. It follows the posts on narcissism nicely, for narcissists are essentially exhibiting the behavior of a two year old child. It should be noted that the “twos” are known as the terrible twos, since at this age the child is virtually exclusively self-centered, and lashes out when frustrated. The author writes, “On television, commentators ranging from Don Lemon to P.J. O’Rourke have characterized the President as a two-year-old brat. Protestors and editorial cartoonists depict Trump as a giant man-baby. Within the first few months of his presidency, even conservative columnists such as David Brooks and Ross Dothan were explicitly comparing Trump to a child. In the fall of 2017, the Atlantic’s David Graham wrote, ‘How does the presidency work when the President’s aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well.’”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote, “‘Though we often hear the mantra ‘this is not normal,’ what the President is doing actually is normal. For a 2-year-old.” The author writes, “If you want to understand this White House, turn off Wolf Blitzer and pick up Benjamin Spock.”

The author writes, “President Trump, his family and biographers have all made it clear that the 45th President is not the most mature of individuals. Trump himself told his biographer, ‘When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different.’ Trump’s sister Maryanne told the Washington Post during the 2016 campaign that a her brother was ‘still a simple boy from Queens.’ Admittedly, a fourth-grader is older than a toddler, but the fact remains that Trump and his family agree that his psychological makeup has remained unchanged from when he was a very small boy. Most of the biographers and biographies of Trump make a similar point: Trump has experienced little emotional or psychological development since he was a toddler. Tim O’Brien, the author of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, warned Politico after Trump’s election that ‘we now have somebody who’s going to sit in the Oval Office who is lacking in a lot of adult restraints and in mature emotions.’

Continuing the author writes, “The last and most powerful argument supporting the Toddler-in-Chief thesis, however, is laid out in the rest of this book. It is not only Trump’s political opponents who frequently liken him to an immature child. His closest political allies and subordinates draw the same comparison. This is the strongest rebuttal to the claim that those comparing Trump to a toddler are simply partisan hacks. Individuals with a vested interest in the success of Donald Trump’s presidency nonetheless describe him as a small boy in desperate need of a time-out. They have done so repeatedly and persistently since his inauguration.”

Many more healthy memory blog posts will be based on this important book. They timely follow the many posts on narcissism. In reading Drezner’s book the similarity between two year olds and narcissists is striking. Like two-year olds, narcissists also want to be the center of attention, praised and admired, and have all their needs and wants catered to. So the narcissist-in-chief can readily serve as the toddler-in-chief.

For Alzheimer’s, An Elusive Cure

April 30, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Christie Aschwanden in The Health & Science Section of The Washington Post. The article states, “For a decade over 200 leads have failed. Today, experts say the disease is more complex than first believed.” The defining features for a diagnose of Alzheimer’s are neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaque. The cure they are seeking are drugs that prevent or remove these substances from the brain.

What is not mentioned in this article, and is rarely mentioned in any article, is that autopsies have revealed many people with brains full of these defining features, but who never exhibited any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms. Now it is these behavioral and cognitive symptoms that are what is important, not the defining features of plaques and tangles. These people, who clearly would be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, never suffered any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms.

The reason provided for these people was that they had built up cognitive reserves that defended them from adverse effects of the defining features of Alzheimer’s. There are previous healthy memory blog posts on this important finding. Alzheimer’s and Amyloid Plaques was posted on July 6, 2011. That article stated that amyloid plaque was a necessary but not a sufficient factor for Alzheimer’s. On May 8, 2011 a second healthy memory blog post titled Glial Cells and Alzheimer’s Disease addressed this issue.

But the single, most important post was on August 28, 2011, The Myth of Alzheimer’s. The Myth of Alzheimer’s is a book by Peter J. Whitehouse, M.D. & Ph.D., and Daniel George, M.Sci. Dr. Whithouse had spent many years looking for a medicinal cure or preventative for Alzheimer’s. He was highly compensated for his work, and could have continued working on this topic. But he became convinced that this research would never yield fruit. He continued researching Alzheimer’s, but stopped his research looking for a medicinal prevention or cure. It is nine years later and researchers are continuing research, but have realized that the disease is more complex than first believed, so they are pursuing multiple medicines. It is clear why this research is continuing as financial rewards would be enormous, especially if multiple medications are needed.

Although cures are not in the offing, it appears that the preventive measures are clear. The preventive measures involve developing a cognitive reserve. People who have developed a cognitive reserve have been mentally active throughout their lives. This blog has many citations of Kahneman’s Two System Theory of Cognitive Processing. System 1 is our most common mode of processing. It is fast and efficient. Unfortunately, this speed is paid for at a cost. The failure to think critically can be disastrous in more important decisions. Cognitive neuroscience, which conducts brain imaging studies, has a term for mental activity which is the typical norm, called accordingly default mode processing. This mode can be identified in brain images. The default network of interacting brain regions is known to have activity highly correlated with each other and distinct from other networks in the brain. These regions are negatively correlated with attention networks in the brain. Normal conversation and well performed tasks are System 1 activities. Thinking and learning are System 2 processes and they involve cognitive effort. Most of the time spent on social media involves System 1 processing primarily.

The healthy memory blog recommends growth mindsets throughout one’s lifetime. Continue to think critically, and learn. In addition to increasing the odds against Alzheimer’s or dementia, it also provides for a richer, fuller life with a healthy memory. A healthy memory among the citizenry is important to a democracy.

The Post article does mention that some of the most promising approaches to addressing Alzheimer’s are nonpharmaceutical. The NIA is sponsoring 86 studies of non drug interventions that may help, including exercising, diet, cognitive training and sleep.

A study conducted in Finland and published in 2015, found that a program of physical activity, cognitive stimulation, a Mediterranean diet including fish offered some protection against cognitive decline. Participants were at a risk for dementia, but none had it. After two years, the risk of exhibiting cognitive decline was his 30% higher in the control group than in the one assigned to the lifestyle interventions. But what is needed is a lifestyle change, not just an intervention, although an intervention apparently does achieve some benefit.

It should be clear that System 2 cognitive processes are essential, but a healthy lifestyle is also essential. HM has a personal friend who, on the basis of his cognitive activity, one would think would be the last person to suffer Alzheimer’s. However, he had trained himself to sleep only 4 hours a night, so he could enjoy more waking time. But it appears that this was a poor tradeoff.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2020. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Wealth Tax

March 15, 2020

This post is motivated by an article by Michael Birnbaum titled, “Warren, Sanders want a wealth tax. Swiss suggest their model for America” in the 4 March 2020 issue of the Washington Post. Economists advising Sanders and Warren point to Switzerland’s wealth tax as a successful one. And some deep-pocketed Swiss say their wealthy American peers should consider Switzerland’s system.

Peter Kurer, a former chairman of UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, and now head of the country’s second-largest phone and Internet provider, said, “Rich people can live with a wealth tax. There are many wealthy people in the United States who don’t pay any taxes at all, and this spoils social peace.”

“Hitting the wealthy based on their assets is an old practice here, dating to Switzerland’s origins as a unified confederation in the mid-19th century. In the country’s highly decentralized system, where most tax decisions are put directly to voters, wealth taxes have reaffirmed again and again by citizens, a sign of broad support.”

“Here in Solothurn, a German-speaking state about 50 miles west of Zurich, the wealth tax is so popular that residents opted to increase it by nearly a third in a Feb. 9 referendum, while also trimming corporate rates in a kind of compromise. Each of Switzerland’s 29 states gets to to pick its own tax rates, though all must have a wealth tax.”

Roland Helm, Solothurn’s top finance official, who presided over the tax compromise as a state councilor from the center-right Christian Democratic party said, “For the people, it’s normal that those who have more rich than others have to pay more than others. It’s a part of justice.”

In Europe, only Spain, Norway, Belgium, and Switzerland impose wealth taxes. France scrapped its wealth tax in 2018, after tens of thousand of millionaires were estimated to have left. But Americans are liable for US taxes regardless of where they reside. So the wealthy who left the United States could, along with their offspring, be prohibited from re-entering the US. They would be in permanent exile until they paid their taxes. There are many Russian billionaires affiliated with Russian mobs, who would like to enter the United States, but are prohibited. The US is a highly desirable country in which to reside or visit, so precluding tax owing citizens from reentering the country would provide a strong disincentive for owing taxes.

It important to make a distinction between earned wealth and inherited wealth. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have amassed fortunes by generating new businesses that benefited the economy. Warren Buffet generated a fortune through wise investing. These fortunes can be justified. It is interesting that Warrant Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates do not believe in leaving their wealth to their children. They believe that doing so would not be in the general interest of their children. Bill and Melinda Gates work developing a charitable corporation that uses operations research to find those populations and areas of the globe that are most needing of assistance. Warren Buffet is transferring his wealth to their foundation. Inherited wealth can be, and frequently is, pernicious.

At this point, please allow a digression to the royalty and peerage of Great Britain. At one time the King or Queen and the peerage controlled virtually all the wealth in the country. Over time, that has greatly decreased. But what was the justification for royalty and the peerage? It was by thuggish acquisition and warfare. Their aires inherited their wealth and power.

One can make an analogy between British royalty and the peerage to Americans who inherit wealth. This introduces distortions and inequities into the countries. In the United States

In 2010 the Top 1% had 35.4% of the wealth
The top 5% had 63% of the wealth
The top 20% had 88,9% of the wealth
And the bottom 80% had 11.1 % of the wealth

And the situation has become more unequal in 2020.

So why should this be a concern? As the share of the nation’s wealth going to the wealthy rises, the share going to everyone else falls. What else falls? The freedom that wealth can buy, and the power that wealth can buy. Technically, we may still have one person, one vote (but given the menacing Electoral College, not for Presidential elections). But the effect of one person on elections has gone way down.

Thomas Piketty makes a distinction between productive wealth and reinvestment wealth. Productive wealth is the wealth generated by work, by producing and selling things or services, and the kind of wealth Adam Smith talked about.

Reinvestment wealth is generated by receiving returns on investments and then reinvesting the returns over and over. This kind of wealth grows exponentially, like compound interest. The more you have, the more you invest, and the more you invest, the more you have.

Most inherited wealth is reinvestment wealth. Read the healthy memory blog post “The Piketty Insight on the Accelerating Wealth Gap” to understand why this is undesirable.

The most effective way and addressing this glaring inequality is to gradually chip away the inequality with a wealth tax.

Before Science, Meditation

February 26, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Hannah Natanson in the Metro Section of the 23 Feb 2020 issue of the Washington Post. The benefits of meditation and mindfulness are a common theme in the healthy memory blog. And, as the title indicates, meditation and mindfulness is highly beneficial in the schools. Self-reflective exercises such as meditation give students tools to handle stressful situations. If children can expend less energy to stay calm, they’ll have more gusto for learning.

Teachers report, “You can see the change in kids: They cool down, they relax, and they’re just a little bit more open to learning. Meditation and especially mindfulness exercises reduce behavioral problems in the classroom. Kids become kinder. After meditation students offer to help one another with assignments unprompted, tease their peers less and say “please” and “thank you” more often. Some even request good-morning hugs.

Other research has found that sometimes these meditation and mindfulness exercises in the classroom find their way back into their homes and interactions at home are less-stressed, happier and more beneficial.

There is also rigorous research showing that these activities are effective and beneficial to learning. Brain imaging research has found evidence for this in changes in the brains. So the evidence comes not only from behavioral science, but also from neuroscience.

Unfortunately, over the past five years some Christian conservative groups have begun speaking out against practices such as meditation in the schools. These activists argue mindfulness programs violate the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state because they expose students to Buddhists or Hindu ideologies.

This assertion is blatantly false. Although these practices emerged from Buddhist and Hindu ideologies, none of the teachings or beliefs of these ideologies are involved. The benefits of these practices are briefly outlined above. If these Christian groups have any practices that might have beneficial effects to education that have been documented in science, then they should offer them for evaluation.

It is useful to consider Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition here. This was reviewed in the immediately preceding post and has been reviewed many times in previous healthy memory blog posts. System 1 is fast and involves little, if any, mental effort. System 2 is slow, requires mental effort, and is commonly referred to as thinking. Thinking requires mental effort and many people, and these protesting conservative Christians in particular, do not like thinking. Believing is much easier. Unfortunately, these conservative Christians prefer believing, as it requires virtually no mental effort. They do not appreciate that God gave them brains for thinking and that he wants them to use them. Unfortunately, too many religious leaders do not like their members thinking. They want them to believe what they tell them to believe.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2020. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

New York has the Nation’s Lowest Suicide Rate

February 5, 2020

This post is based on an article by Michelle Andrews in the Health & Science section of the 4 February 2020 issue of the Washington Post. To be more precise, it is the entire state of New York, not just New York City.

Compared with the national rate of 14 suicides per 100,000 people in 2017, New York’s was just 8.1, the lowest suicide rate in the nation. Many are surprised that New York has the lowest suicide rate. New York City is all hustle and stress, tiny apartments and crowds of strangers. Upstate New York is often portrayed as bleak and cold.

Although there are a number of factors contributing to this result, the most conspicuous being access to guns. Low rates of gun ownership are likely key. According to the Annals of Internal Medicine guns are used in about half of suicide deaths, and having access to a gun triples the risk that someone will die by suicide . Someone who attempts suicide with a gun will succeed about 85% of the time, compared with a 2% fatality rated if some opt for pills, according to a study by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Catherine Barber who co-wrote the study and is a senior researcher at the Harvard Center wrote, “The scientific evidence is pretty darn good that having easy access to guns makes the difference whether a suicidal crisis ends up being a fatal or nonfatal event.” New York as some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.

People who own guns to protect themselves should consider the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, their reality is colored by what they see on television. There is a virtual guarantee that someone killed by gun violence will make the news. Add to this all the police shows and all the shooting that occurs on these police shows.

The reality is that the majority of police retire without ever having fired their weapons in the course of their duty. There are more suicides by guns than murders. As for intruders, it is likely that some innocent party or family member is being shot.

So except for a few extreme, unfortunate cases, personal safety does not provide justification for owning a gun. So people who own guns for this reason are not just fools, they are damn fools.

It is possible that people own guns and like hunting and shooting competitions. The United States is a free county so why should there be prohibitions against owning guns?

One argument is personal safety. Guns are lethal weapons. HM has previously related this incident which occurred in a friend’s family. On New Year’s Eve his son and a friend were playing around with a gun in the house. The friend of his son accidentally shot his son and killed him. My friend, who was a politician, said he was sure that justice would be done. HM asks, what justice? His son was dead and his son’s friend has to live the remainder of his life knowing that he killed his friend. There was no justice here, only stupidity. HM is sure that his friend instructed his progeny on gun safety and kept guns locked up.

Should HM ever decide that it was time to cast off his mortal coil, he will use a gun, as that is by far the most effective means of committing suicide. He will write a letter to the NRA thanking them for their efforts that allowed him to destroy himself. He will also send copies of this letter to the Washington Post and post this letter on his blog.

A Career Built on Distortion, Exaggeration

January 28, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Will Hobson on the front page of The Washington Post, 26 Jan ‘20. The article was on the science and selling of CTE. The subtitle was, “Omalu, of ‘Concussion’ fame, has claimed he discovered the disease, He didn’t.

There have been many healthy memory posts on chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and on the extreme damages that can occur to the brain in playing contact sports. In the case of soccer the contact is not between individuals but of the ball contacting the head.

The article makes a very good argument that Omalu did not discover the disease and some of his diagnoses of CTE were questionable. It is important to understand that this criticism is technical and is being made by neurosurgeons and other neuroscientists. So they are arguing that some of his diagnosis of CTE were incorrect, not that serious brain damage had occurred that was at best lowering the quality of life or at worst risking life.

These criticisms of Omalu are valid and should be made. He is an absolute genius at self promotion. Yet he still deserves both attention and praise for drawing attention to the damage that can occur to the brain from contact sports. So previous warnings in the blog on CTE should be extended to brain images in general that occur during contact sports. Injuries that are below the concussion level can still cause damage due to cumulative effects of these insults. And research needs to continue on not only active athletes, but also on the effects during childhood that may manifest themselves during adulthood.

So no previous warnings or claims made on this blog, with the distinction of misclassifications at the technical level, are withdrawn. And HM still finds it ironic that educational institutions promote sports that risk injury to the brain.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2020. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Our Dangerous Fear of Pain

January 10, 2020

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by James D. Hudson in the Outlook section of the 1 December 2019 issue of the Washington Post. He writes, “It’s good to have a healthy fear of pain. It protects us from injury and reminds us to allow time for healing. Acute pain can be made more tolerable by a short course of opioid medication (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends only three to seven days, even after surgery or injury). And there is a good case for opioids over longer periods to treat end-stage cancer and other terminal ailments that can bring unbearable suffering. Palliative care in those situations is almost always necessary and compassionate.”

Dr, Hudson continues, but otherwise, the fear of pain, and the belief that a pain-free existence is optimal or even possible, has been a catastrophe for patients. Before the opioid revolution, doctors understood that pain was important to keeping us safe, to be lived with and managed. Even if this meant we bore frequent episodes of discomfort, that was better than the nationwide crisis America faces today. “Life isn’t ‘pain free.’ If we want to end the epidemic of addiction, we need to relearn that lesson.”

The opioid industry bears the ultimate responsibility for this epidemic. It did heavy lobbying of legislatures and of physicians. According to a study in the journal JAMA Network Open, this marketing correlated with overdose deaths. The CDC has thoroughly-documented the rapid rise in opioid prescriptions and deaths since 1999.

Dr. Hudson writes, “many doctors listened to the marketing campaign. In our hubris, we began to think we had the capacity to banish chronic pain. Pharmaceutical companies were developing ever stronger and longer-lasting opioids, and surgeons were replacing more and more worn-out joints. New techniques meant the pain anesthesiologists could block nerves, sever the signals to the brain, and insert catheters or electrodes into spinal columns and brains. Pain was to become a thing of the past, conquered by modern medicine.” This could have been true, but they ignored the addiction problem.

Obviously patients did not benefit. So who benefited besides the drug companies? “Physician experts” compensated by drugmakers hawked these medications at conferences, telling doctors that new and more potent analgesics were not addictive when prescribed for pain. They said that there was no upper limit on dosing, that patients would develop tolerance to medication and that some would need extremely high doses for their pain. But they said that physicians were not to worry, that this was normal. A new unsubstantiated ailment called “pseudo addiction” was offered as an explanation for patients who ran out of pills early and borrowed more from friends and family or got their drugs on the street. There is no such thing as pseudo addiction, only real addiction.

In addition to the drug companies, many got rich. There were new business opportunities. Physicians and health systems benefited from an explosion of diagnostic testing with CT and MRI scans. Unethical medical practioners were opening “pill mills,” often taking only cash for almost unlimited amounts of addictive medications with no real attempt to make a diagnosis or assess the need for such prescriptions.

The Medical Group Management Association, reported that anesthesiologists who specialize in pain management earn almost $530,000 on average annually, making this a lucrative speciality. By comparison, primary-care providers make less than half this (while the average physician makes $300,000).

Fortunately, the medical profession is maturing in educating patients about pain management However, the article makes no mention of hypnotism or meditation.

One of the most impressive surgeries HM has read about is the surgical removal of a scrotal tumor while the patient was under hypnotism.

Some research on pain perception has used buckets of ice water. This is called the cold presser task. It becomes extremely painful fairly quickly, and participants feel a need to pull their arm out of the ice water. During these experiments the participants make ratings of their pain. While hypnotized, participants were able to provide consistent ratings of their pain perception and they were able to keep their hands in the ice water at ratings they would have felt forced to pull their arms out. In fact, the experimenter had to tell them to remove their arms before tissue damage occurred.

Highly skilled meditators actually focus on the pain, but reinterpret it. Most of us deal with pain by trying to ignore it and think of something else. But if one is an experienced meditator they are likely to focus on the pain and reinterpret their perception as not being of pain.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

When tiredness, sleepiness can be warning signs

January 9, 2020

The title of this post is the same as the title of an article by Emily Sohn in the Health and Science section of the 17 December 2019 issue of the Washington Post. In conversation, people use the terms sleepiness, fatigue, and tiredness interchangeably. But their definitions do differ medically. Sleepiness is a need of sleep that makes it difficult to stay awake, even while driving, working, or watching a movie, and even after ingesting caffeine.

On the other hand, fatigue is a deeper sort of an inability, either physical or mental, to do what you want to do, such as get to the grocery store. In the middle is tiredness, a desire to rest that is less debilitative than fatigue and less dramatic than sleepiness. One can still be productive while tired.

In a 2014 survey by the nonprofit National Sleep Foundation, 45% of adults said they had been affected by poor sleep or not enough sleep in the previous week. As many as 20% of people report excessives sleepiness on a regular basis. A National Safety Council survey reported in 2017 that 76% of people felt tired at work. If you’re bothered by how tired you feel, there might be some simple explanations. The most basic is not enough sleep. A third of Americans don’t get the recommended seven or more hours a night, according toe the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And as needs very widely, even seven hours isn’t enough sleep for many people. And one should not set their alarm for exactly seven hours of sleep, because nobody sleeps 100% of the time that they’re in bed. So it might take eight hours of pillow time to get seven hours of sleep.

Should tiredness be making it hard for you to get through most days or otherwise getting in your way, experts recommend visiting a primary-care clinic first to be evaluated for common causes of fatigue or tiredness, including depression, autoimmune diseases, vitamin levels, and thyroid issues. The article warns that this appointment might be frustrating because many doctors lack training in sleep medicine. Primary-care physicians don’t routinely ask patients about sleep. They also often miss the signs of insomnia, or they suggest ineffective treatments for it, a 2017 study found. Insomnia affects up to 15% of adults and studies show that behavioral therapies work better than medication. Primary-care physicians can identify problems such as iron deficiency, fibromyalgia, celiac disease, encephalitis, plus others.

If none of these causes turn up in the regular clinic, the article recommends seeing a sleep specialist, whose evaluation is likely to include screening for sleep apnea. This disorder, which causes people to periodically stop breathing in their sleep, affects up to 10% of adults. The rates are higher for people who are overweight. About 85% of people who have sleep apnea are undiagnosed and untreated.

The Use of Unproven Supplements

November 30, 2019

This post is based on an article titled “Study shows half of middle-aged Americans fear they’ll get dementia, use unproven supplements, in the Health & Science section of the 26 November 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The article begins, “About half of middle-aged Americans believe that they’re “very likely” to develop dementia a survey suggests, and many try to beat the odds with supplements such as ginkgo biloba and vitamins that aren’t proven to help.”

Data from the University of Michigan’s 2018 National Poll on Healthy Aging consists of a nationally representative survey of adults 50 to 80. 44.3% of the respondents said they were at lease somewhat likely to develop dementia, and 4.2% said they were very likely to develop dementia. Just 5.2% of the respondents said they had discussed dementia prevention with their doctors.

Regardless, 31.6% said they took fish oil or omega-3 fatty acids hoping that it would help lower the risk, and 39.2% took other vitamins or supplements. More than half of participants also believe doing crossword puzzles could help stave off dementia.

Study leader Donovan Maust of the University of Michigan wrote in the journal JAMA Neurology, “Given repeated failures of disease-preventing or disease modifying treatments for dementia, interest to treatment and prevention have shifted earlier in the disease process.”

These unproven supplements don’t work. Those who are solving crossword puzzles are on the right track, but more, prolonged cognitive effort is needed to stave off the disease. Similarly, certain computer games might be helpful, but playing them alone is insufficient.

The Alzheimer’s Association and drug developers are working on drugs to stop or eliminate the neurofibrally tangles and amyloid plaque, which are the defining characteristics of the disease. A former researcher into these drugs has argued that such drugs will never be discovered or developed. His arguments can be found in the healthy memory blog post titled The Myth of Alzheimer’s as well as in a book by the same title authored by Peter J. Whitehouse, M.D., Ph.D, and and Daniel George, M.Sc.

Moreover, many people have died and their autopsies have shown that their brains with these defining characteristics of the disease, but who never realized they had the disease, because they never had any of the cognitive or behavioral symptoms.

The reason offered for this result is that these individuals had built up a cognitive reserve. Cognitive activity had built up their brains so that, when they had these physical manifestations, their brains were able to work around them.

This is why the healthy memory blog strongly recommends growth mindsets where active reading and learning is maintained throughout one’s lifetime. This must also be supplemented by a healthy lifestyle. The practice of meditation and mindfulness can facilitate this healthy lifestyle.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Mister Rogers

November 26, 2019

A new movie has put Fred Rogers back into the news, along with an article by D.L. Mayfield titled Mister Rogers wasn’t just nice: He also wanted to take down consumerism, in the Metro Section of the 23 November 2019 issue of the Washington Post. According to Rogers’ biography, The Good Neighbor, by Maxwell King, Hallmark asked Rogers to collaborate in decorating their flagship store in midtown Manhattan for Christmastime. Rogers and a friend traveled to New York to check out the scene. Other celebrities and influencers had created garishly festive and over-the-top displays that Rogers found offensive. He wanted to go a different route.

Rogers returned home and developed his design plan. The result was this: a Norfolk Island pine tree, the height of a 3- or 4-foot-tall child. There were no ornaments or decorations, just a simple green tree, planted in a clear Lucite cube so that onlookers could see the roots of the tree. In front of it there was a plaque that simply said, “I like you just the way you are.”

Mayfield writes, “I think about that little tree,and how differently the mind of a pastor and educator and psychologist (for Rogers was all three) works from those of marketeers. At first blush it seems beautiful, because it is: centered on a child, tree just their height, reinforcing the message Rogers most desperately wanted his young neighbors to hear. Working to combat shame, isolation, trauma; working to help build resilience in the lives of kids he could never hope to reach one by one. By creating a tree reminiscent of “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” he reminds us that what is small is good, recognizing that even little trees need good roots to grow tall and strong.”

Rogers wrote, “Until television became such a tool for selling, it was such a fabulous medium for educating. That’s what I had always hoped it would be.” Mayfield continues, “I believe he was angry at how most television companies sponsored the shows treated children, how it dehumanized them, pandered to them and ultimately trained them to become consumers of products they did not need.”

HM remembers how optimistic he was about the potential of the internet when the blog began in October 2009. He saw the potential for building healthy memories through cognitive growth and healthy interactions among internet users. That theme has changed to how the internet has developed to boost consumerism, create divisions among different groups of people, and its use in warfare.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An Extremely Misleading Title

August 27, 2019

And that title would be “Heading off a concussion crisis” in the Sports section of the 21 August 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The author of this article is Roman Stubbs. The article is about Brittni Souder a soccer player who has ruined her health playing soccer. Now she is trying to help girls avoid a similar fate. No evidence is presented and there is no reason to believe that what she is teaching is of any value. That evaluation would need to take place over years to see if there is any evidence of a beneficial effect from Souder’s instructions.

There are about 300,000 adolescents who suffer concussions while participating in organized sports every year. In matched sports, girls are 12.1% more likely to suffer a concussion than boys, a 2017 study by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons found. It was also concluded that female soccer players are more likely to suffer a concussion than male football players—and three times more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury than male soccer players.

Wellington Hsu, an orthopedic surgeon at Northwestern who led the study said, “What was very surprising was that girls’ soccer was just as impactful as boys’ football. Girls who play soccer really need to be aware of these issues. These symptoms plus having a second concussion is sequentially worse than the first one.”

Former U.S. National team members Brandi Chasten and Michelle Akers announced that they would participate in a Boston University study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. No female athlete has been diagnose with CTE, which can only be confirmed through autopsy. Akers and Chasten have publicly expressed concern about memory loss since they retired from soccer.

HM thinks that any educational entity that sponsors sports that can damage the brain is hypocritical. Presumably the justification for sports is that they develop teamwork and build healthy bodies. But if the brain is damaged, this justification evaporates. Sports can be modified, or new ones developed, that preclude brain injury.

Brain Injuries of Tackle Football

August 26, 2019

This post is based on an article with a similar title by Robert C. Cantu and Mark Hyman in the Health & Science Section of the 20 August 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The authors ask that the U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams post the following statement:
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Tackle football is dangerous for children. Children who play football absorb repeated hits to the head. As adults, they’re at higher risk of suffering cognitive deficits as well as behavioral and mood problems.
The authors suggest that this warning be placed on every youth football helmet and placed in bold type on all youth tackle football registration forms. A parent or guardian wouldn’t be able to sign up their children without seeing it.

Since 2015, Boston University’s (BU) Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center has published three studies all leading to the following conclusion: Adults who played tackle football as children were more likely to deal with emotional and cognitive challenges later in life.

One study dug into the sports-playing pasts of 214 former football players. They found that starting as a player in a tackle football program before age 12 corresponded with increased odds for clinical depression, apathy and executive function problems—for example, diminished insight, judgment, and multitasking.

In another study, researchers zeroed in on the effects of head slams by comparing groups of adults who started in football before and after age 12 and who went on to develop CTE, a degenerative brain disease linked to repetitive hits in sports. Those in the study who played before age 12 experienced cognitive deficits—also behavioral and mood problems—a full 13 years earlier than those starting at 12 or older. For every year younger that someone was exposed to tackle football, the start of cognitive problems occurred 2.4 years earlier.

All states have concussion laws, which acquire special attention for athletes when they suffer concussions. But concussions are not a necessary condition for cognitive and behavioral problems. In the BU studies, brain injury was not linked to concussion but to long-term exposure to repeated subconcussive hits. Long-term exposure to subconcussive hits has been associated with CTE. The problem with subconcussive hits is that they become a problem years after they occur.

Now is a good time to review the true virtue of sports. They develop teamwork and promote physical health. So, why then, do sports that injure body and mind continue? Perhaps adults might continue so they could prosper in professional sports. But why should they be allowed, much less promoted for, children.

Previous healthy memory sports have pointed up the obvious irony of playing of football in institutions devoted to learning and healthy brains. The obvious justification for continuing to play these sports is money. Some universities and colleges are nothing more than fronts for football teams that ooze money into the university. Unfortunately, there are too many alumni who care only about the success of their teams, and not the quality of education offered at their schools, nor considerations about the future brain and mental health of future alumni.

Your Brain is Leading You Astray

August 8, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Professor Abigail Marsh in the 7 August 2019 issue of the Washington Post. She is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Georgetown University.

In reality, most people die of diseases of old age, such as heart disease and cancer. However, more than half of news coverage is devoted to homicides and terrorism, which account for less than 1% of actual deaths. People disproportionately buy, click on and share scary stories about people killing other people. Professor Marsh says we can blame this fact on our brain. She writes, “Your brain’s most important job is to take information about the messy, confusing world we inhabit, find patterns embedded in the noise and use them to make predictions about the future. Brains particularly like actionable intelligence—and the most useful information pertains to threats that can be avoided, thus increasing your odds of survival.”

She continues, “Heart disease and strokes don’t provide much fodder for this prediction machine. We know why they happen: because we get old. Talk about unactionable intelligence. The best you can do is to stave them off for a while by doing things we already know are healthy: Eat well, exercise, and don’t smoke. You can almost hear your brain yawning.”

She proceeds, “Now consider a gunman mowing down a crowd of innocents. Acts like this are rare, vivid and unexpected. The combination sets your brain whirring, whirring, generating a red-alert signal called a ‘prediction error,‘ a surge of activity deep in the brain’s emotional core. A prediction error signal screams: ‘Look for a cause! Prevent this next time!’ This leaves you craving even more information about such attacks, in the vain hope you can predict the next one.”

The article notes that we are not good at intuiting the minds of others, even those we know well. There is no way of intuiting the mind of a mass murderer. Most people would never commit an act like this. Prof. Marsh has spent more than a decade conducting research on rare populations such as altruistic kidney donors and psychopathic teenagers. She has come away convinced of two things. First, we are all not the same. and some people have much more (or less) capacity for compassion than average. And second: The average person is really pretty nice. Study after study bears her out. Most people return lost wallets, share resources, donate to charity and help strangers as a default response. She writes if people weren’t, on average, pretty compassionate, we wouldn’t need a label like “psychopath” for the small group of people who aren’t. She concludes,”Thus, the average person is totally unable to understand or predict why anyone would want to kill innocent people. And so the brain’s prediction machine draws the worse possible conclusion: If we can’t predict who among us is capable of heinous violence, it’s best to assume anyone could be. From there, it’s just one step further to conclude: Everyone could be. Translation: Trust no one.

She writes that up to 1 in 5 of us is genuinely paranoid. HM would consider the percentage of people who are Trump supporters. Trump’s entire campaign is based on fear. He claimed that there are many thousands of immigrants trying to enter the United States to sell drugs and commit crimes. Although one cannot argue that there are a few immigrants that do this; they constitute a distinct minority. The majority of these immigrants are leaving homes they no longer regard as safe, to go to that former safe harbor for immigrants, the United States. Most of our forebears came by this same route. Moreover, Trump supporters raise no objections about separating children from their parents and of forcing people to live in inhumane conditions. All this is the result of unfounded fear.

Fortunately, Prof. Marsh does no imply that we are victims of our brains. We can think and correct what our brain initially tells us. She concludes, “People who are trusting have more money and more friends. They are also happier, perhaps because their social lives are more rewarding. Trust also makes the world a better place—it’s the basis of all cooperations and social capital.”

In the lingo of the healthy memory blog, we must use our System 2 processes to override unwarranted fears from our System 1 processes.

The Psychology That Binds Trump Fans to His Racism

July 23, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Kathleen D. Vohs in the Outlook section of the 21 July 2019 issue of the Washington Post. Vohs is writing about Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory will be returned to later in this post, but the article reminded HM that psychological theories can account for Trump and his supporters.

There have been many posts about Kahneman’s Two System view of cognition. There was a previous post titled Kahneman and Identity Based Politics that provides a large portion of the explanation for Trump and his followers. In Nobel Lauerate Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition, System 1, intuition, is our normal mode of processing and requires little or no attention. System 2, commonly referred to as thinking, requires our attention. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1. When we encounter something contradictory to what we believe, the brain sets off a distinct signal. It is easier to ignore this signal and to continue System 1 processing. To engage System 2 requires attentional resources to attempt to resolve the discrepancy and to seek further understanding.

Emotional processing is a System 1 process. System 1 is fast requiring minimal cognitive resources. Virtually all of Trump’s message is emotional and is processed on System 1. His MAGA message is one founded on hate and fear. Ironically, it seeks to turn the United States back to a time when it was much more racist and fearful of immigrants. There is nothing Great about what he wants to do to the United States.

Unfortunately, to rebuke these views requires System 2 processing. System 2 requires critical thinking, something which many find painful to do, and a recourse to facts and logic. Trump dislikes facts and tells his followers that he is the only source of truth. This is the hallmark of a demagogue, but his followers remain blind to his lies and contradictions.

Here is where Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance enters. Our minds do not like to confront dissonant ideas. So the tendency is to reduce the dissonance by shunning the truth. People refuse being called a racist, because racism is bad they, their families, and friends are certainly not racists.

Understand that we individuals cannot determine whether we are racists. We need to infer this from what we are called by others. “Strangers to Ourselves:  Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious”   by psychologist Timothy D. Wilson provides sound research showing that we need to understand ourselves from the reactions we receive from our fellow human beings. Unfortunately, many people remain unaware of this truth.

Perhaps the most prominent or well known example of this is Joe Biden. He has insulted people, but fails to apologize because he didn’t intend to insult them. There might be a problem with his brain, because this is not how it is supposed to function. Should you insult someone inadvertently, and HM has done this so many times that it is painful, apologize for insulting them and learn from this experience.
Many agree that Trump is not just a racist, but one of the world’s foremost racists. Unfortunately Trump’s base consists of Nazis and white supremacists. It is likely that Trump’s followers will deny this, but while they might not be Nazis, they are white supremacists. Indeed, Fox News has succeeded not from its fraudulent fair and balanced news, but by appealing to white supremacists. True they do not use the term, but the beliefs and the hatred of Obama stem from white supremacist beliefs.

Nazism and white supremacists are bad things, but people think of themselves as good people, not bad people. Similarly for their relatives and friends, they are good people, not bad people, so they cannot be white supremacists. But many, and it can be argued whether it’s a plurality or a majority, think that they are.

Trump voters express a variety of problems that are real and not racist. But still, how could they vote for Trump? Characterizing his behavior as boorish is being charitable. Clearly he is not presidential. He is an embarrassment for us regarding foreign nations. It is doubtful that he could pass a high school civics test. He embraces Putin and other totalitarian dictators. As was mentioned in a previous post, the paramount question is where did he get the money to make so many purchases since so many were in cash. He had been bankrupt and no respectable bank would lend him money. Trump’s son said that he got the money from Russia. So why won’t Trump release his financial data? The obvious reason is that he owes Putin and that Putin effectively owns him. All this was apparent before the election. Republicans recognized his faults and denounced him. But once he was elected, and many Healthymemory posts have outlined how Russia supported him, Republicans embraced him. It is clear that what they want is power, and the capability of profiting remuneratively from that power.

Expect Republicans to keep defending Trump. The Mueller report is not needed to impeach Trump. His behavior, which has worsened since he became President, is sufficient. Plus, how can the United States afford a president who is indebted to a hostile foreign power? Nevertheless, Republicans will ignore the facts and continue with the false narrative being advanced that Trump is the victim. This 1984 scenario is the only one that will save Trump.

Trump’s false claims about being the victim are clearly motivated out of desperation and are wrong, but to realize this it takes System 2 Processing, which requires mental effort and might be painful, so clearly Trump is a victim. Some people are for Trump for religious reasons, but religions that promote Trump have a political agenda. And for true Christians, they might want to switch to a Christian sect that is more in accordance with Christ’s teachings.

There is another dimension to consider, and that dimension is truly enormous. That is the social dimension. Although psychology provides an understanding of Trump’s support, unfortunately it provides little in the way of knowledge for changing people’s minds once they are firmly set. Usually this takes significant time. Abandoning Trump would likely produce frictions within families and among friends. So a thinking person needs to proceed carefully. One option would be to remain silent, but to use the ballot box to record one’s true and well reasoned opinions.

Car Crash Deaths Eclipse Toll of World Wars

July 22, 2019

The title of this post contains most of the title of the article by Ashley Hasey III in the 22 July 2019 Washington Post. The entire title is “Car crash deaths since 2000 eclipse toll of World Wars.” Since January 2000 more than 624,000 people died in car crashes, compared to 535,000 American military personnel who died in the two world wars. Close to 78,000 people have died in crashes caused by distracted driving according to a study by the American Public Health Association and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data.

Cellphone use while driving caused 800 deaths in 2017. Most of them were talking rather than texting or dealing with emails according the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports this year. So so much for hands free requirements dealing with the distraction problem.

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that those who talk on a cellphone while driving are four times more likely to crash. Those who text and drive are up to eight times likely to crash.

Even if you care little or nothing about yourself, think about the other people you can kill or maim.

Alzheimer’s Researchers Shift Focus After Failures

July 7, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a front page article by Christopher Rowland in the 4 July 2019 issue of the Washington Post. These researchers are shifting their focus to new drug treatments that deal with other factors than the defining features for an Alzheimer’s diagnose, which are amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles. The conclusion that this research is fruitless was made by a former researcher in this area. The Myth of Alzheimer’s is a book by Peter J. Whitehouse, M.D. and Ph.D and Daniel George, M.Sc. Whitehouse is the former researcher who came to the conclusion that this research would never yield results. There was a healthy memory post on this book in 2011. HM believes Dr. Whitehouse is working on non drug treatments for Alzheimer’s. The Alzheimer’s association provides little, if any, support in this area. The Alzheimer’s association provides financial support for drug research. HM wonders in the unlikely event that a useful drug was produced, whether the Alzheimer’s Association had some agreement to limit costs or would this company be allowed to prey on the public. Before giving any money to the Alzheimer’s association, potential donors should demand an answer to this question.

There have been many posts on this topic including one titled “The Myth of Alzheimer’s.” Perhaps the most significant finding is one that is rarely, if ever, mentioned. And that is that people die with the defining characteristics for an Alzheimer’s diagnosis, the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, but who never knew that they had the disease because they never had any behavioral or cognitive symptoms of the disease. The explanation offered is that these people had developed a cognitive reserve as a result of being cognitively active during their lifetimes.

The reappearing theme in this blog is that people should live cognitively fulfilling lives with growth mindsets in which they are continuing to learn. This involves System 2 processing, more commonly referred to as thinking. Our normal processing mode is System 1, which is quite fast and efficient. Here we are in cruise control where the conscious content just keeps flowing. As one proceeds through life this becomes easier and easier. Much has been learned, there is little interest in learning anything new, so the mind effectively is on cruise control. Cognitive neuroscience has termed this the default mode network, which is quite similar, if not identical, to Kahneman’s System 2 processing which is from cognitive psychology.

HM knows people who have been cognitively active throughout their lives, yet still succumbed to Alzheimer’s or dementia. But there are other causes. One of HM’s friends trained himself to get by on 4 hours of sleep per night. Research shows us that 7 to 8 hours of sleep are required. Other ambitious people burn the candle and both ends, which also leads to sleep deprivation.

HM wishes the researchers well in their research. But everyone should know that by engaging in a cognitively challenging life with growth mindsets they should greatly decrease, if not eliminate, the prospect of dementia or Alzheimer’s. Of course, a healthy lifestyle is also assumed.

Please use the search block of the blog (healthymemory.wordpress.com) to learn more about any of the terms in this post.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Role of Humor for a Healthy Memory

June 28, 2019

This post was inspired by a column by Marlene Cimons titled “Laughter can cure your ills? That’s no joke” in the Health and Science Section of the June 18, 2019 issue the Washington Post. She cites the following statement by Carl Reiner. “There is no doubt about it. Laughter is my first priority. I watch something that makes me laugh. I wake up and tickle myself while I’m still in bed. There is no greater pleasure than pointing at something, smiling and laughing about it. I don’t think there is anything more important than being able to laugh. When you can laugh, life is worth living. It keeps me going. It keeps me young.”

Reiner is 97. His fellow funny people: Mel Brooks is 93, Dick Van Dyke is is 93, Norman Lear will be 97, and Betty White is 97, seem to make this point.

Sven Svebak, professor emeritus at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology says, “A friendly sense of humor will bless you with better social relations as well as coping skills, and the reduced risk of dying early. A friendly sense of humor acts like shock absorbers in a car, a mental shock absorber in everyday life to help us cope better with a range of frustrations, hassles, and irritations.”

Norman Cousins asserted that self-induced bouts of laughter (and massive intravenous doses of vitamin C) extended his life after he was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, which is a debilitating form of arthritis. Cousins lived many years longer that his doctors initially predicted,

Edward Creagan, professor of medical oncology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science said, “When people are funny, they attract other people, and community connectedness is the social currency for longevity. Nobody wants to be around negative, whiny people. It’s a drain. We’re attracted to funny people.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, laughter stimulates the brain to release more endorphins. It also helps people manage stress by easing tension, relaxing the muscles and lowering blood pressure. It relieves pain and improves mood. Laughter also strengthens the immune system.

Creagan says, “When we laugh, it decreases the level of the evil stress hormone cortisol. When we are stressed, it goes high and this interferes with the parts of the brain that regulate emotions. When that happens, the immune system deteriorates and becomes washed in a sea of inflammation, which is a factor in hear disease, cancer, and dementia. Cortisol interferes with the body’s immune system, putting us at risk for these three groups of diseases.

The results of a large Norwegian study of 53,556 participants conducted by Svebak and his colleagues indicate that humor can delay or prevent certain life-threatening diseases. The scientists measured the subjects’ sense of humor with a health survey that included, among other things, a cognitive element, “asking the participants to estimate their ability to find something funny in most situations.

Women with high cognitive scores experience a reduced risk of premature death from cardiovascular and infectious diseases. Men with high cognitive scores had a reduced risk of early death from infections.

Ms. Cimons’s article also reported that humor seems to stimulate memories and improve mental acuity in the elderly, especially among those with dementia. Elder clowns are now also helping seniors in residential setting says Bernie Warren, professor emeritus in dramatic arts and the University of Windsor and founder of Fools for Health, a Canadian clown-doctor program.

There are good reasons that humor benefits a healthy memory. This can be thought of in terms of Kahneman’s Two Process of cognition. System 1 is our default mode of processing and is very fast. System 2 kicks in when we are learning something or when we hear or see something that is surprising. A joke occurs when something unexpected happens. If we are surprised and amused, that is due to System 2 processing kicking in. If System 2 does not kick in, then we miss the point and the humor of the joke. System 2 processing is critical for both a good sense of humor and a healthy memory.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Worst Problem: The Most Imminent Danger

June 23, 2019

Of all the issues raised in Douglas Rushkoff’s book “TEAM HUMAN,” which is the worst; which constitutes the most imminent danger. Although HM would argue that global warming is the most imminent danger, economics presents a possible existential threat. Adam Smith was aware of the dangers presented by large corporations and stressed that regulations would be necessary to keep them from destroying the marketplace. There are regulations, but one can readily question whether they are adequate and can anticipate future problems.

In 1969 the CEO of a typical company made about 20 times the salary of the average worker. Currently, CEOs make 271 times the salary of the average worker.

The following statistics are taken from “Resisting the siren song of ‘modern monetary theory” by Heather Boushel in the 21 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. “Between 1979 and 2015, after accounting for taxes and transfers, Americans in the middle 60% of the income spectrum saw their incomes rise by 46%, while those in the top 20% saw their incomes rise by nearly 103%. High inequality is associated with less upward mobility and with the capture of politics by elites.”

What is more important and more worrisome is accumulated wealth. This problem was discussed in the post The Piketty Insight on the Accelerating Wealth Gap. In the United States in 2010, the top 1% had 35.4% of the wealth. In 2010, the top 5% had 63% of the wealth; and the top 20% had 88.9% of the wealth. That left the bottom 80% with 11.1% of the wealth. So what is being lost? The freedom that wealth can buy, and the power that wealth can buy. Technically, we may still have one person, one vote (but given the menacing Electoral College, not for Presidential elections). But the effect of one person on elections has gone way down.

It is important to appreciate the difference between inherited money and earned money, and more importantly the distinction between inherited money and earned money. Earned money is earned and deserved. Inherited money is not earned and creates a wealthy class analogous to royalty. Presumably the United States broke away from England and its royalty to form a society of equal citizens. This inherited wealth destroys this goal of equality.

It is important to note exceptions. Perhaps the most famous exception is the most successful capitalist, Warren Buffet. He does not believe in inherited wealth. Similarly the most successful entrepreneurs, Bill and Melinda Gates, do not believe in inherited weather. They have created the Gates Foundation, which uses the techniques of operations research to maximized the effectiveness of their giving. Both Buffet and the Gates regard inherited wealth as being unhealthy for their children. It also needs to be mentioned that there are billionaires pledging to give away significant portions of their wealth.

But unfortunately, these people are the exception. Greed seems to be the governing principle for the remainder. One wonders, how many billions does a billionaire need? For too many the answer appears to be infinity. They use their wealth as a measure of their success, and, according to their calculus, how they rank against the rest of humanity.

Corporations need to grow continually and at ever higher rates. This creates the treadmill or rat race that just gets worse. Add to this effect of automation and the loss of future jobs, which will likely exacerbate the problem.

In the past politicians would promise jobs and expect voters to grovel at their feet, even those these jobs would damage further the environment.

We need to stop or get off this treadmill, or we shall eventually, and perhaps, shortly, reach disaster.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Incel Problem

June 9, 2019

HM must confess to being asleep at the wheel. Although previous posts have written about the new technology resulting in about 1 in 3 18-to-34 year old American men being unemployed, and living at home, essentially divorced from society. HM learned learned reading Christine Emba’s column, “Men are in trouble, ‘Incels’ are proof” in the 8 June 2019 issue of the Washington Post that “incel” is short for “involuntarily celibate.” These are young men who have come to define themselves by their inability to find a sexual or romantic partner. Unfortunately, men who identify themselves as being #ForeverAlone have gathered online in forums such as Reddit to trade their stories of woe.

These communities are self-reinforcing. Members believe the their looks or personal traits have consigned them to lifelong loneliness, and similarly downbeat peers are always willing to add more fuel to that fire. They have gone on to develop elaborate, and elaborately misogynistic theories to blame others for their plight. These theories are centered on the idea that women are shallow, stupid and cruel—exclusively choosing only a handful of the most attractive men to be with and disdaining the rest. All men should deserve a chance with women, the incels tell themselves, but some men have all the luck, while they get left out. If there were a competition for self-fulfilling prophecies, this one would likely win.

Ms. Emba writes, “…the incel subculturing has become not just self-reinforcing but self-radicalizing, often with tragic outcomes. At its most horrifying extremes, the self-described incels have taken their anger out on the women they believe are refusing them. At least two mass shootings have left behind manifestos identifying themselves as adhering to incel ideology and explaining their actions as taking revenge on the world that hasn’t given them the women they think they deserve. It is clear that these incels are on a doomed quest that, at best will lead to miserable lives, and, at worst, will lead to imprisonment or death.

One of the unfortunate results of technology is that human connection in the real world has become rarer, and often feels more difficult than it used to be. Smartphones and gaming have been replacing face-to-face interactions that might force one to confront one’s social difficulties or develop a better understanding of the lives of others.

Incels need to understand that failure and rejection are necessary components of living, and that resilience needs to be developed to successfully cope with life. Interventions need to be developed to confront these individuals with the need to change to a life of interacting face-to-face with fellow humans and to dealing with failure and rejection with resilience. Until an incel realizes the need to change, improvement in his condition is extremely unlikely to occur.

However, once he realizes the need to change, technology could be helpful. Discussion groups could provide advice on how to change and would provide further guidance on the need to change. Such groups could benefit from technology by being self-reinforcing and group reinforcing.

Reasons to Build a Healthy Hippocampus

June 8, 2019

This post is inspired by an article by M.R. O’Connor in the 6 June 2019 issue of the Washington Post titled, “Here’s what gets lost when we rely on GPS.” The article cites a study published in Nature Communications in 2017 where researchers asked participants to navigate a virtual simulation of London’s Soho neighborhood and monitored their brain activity, specifically the hippocampus, which, as health memory blog readers know, is integral to spatial navigation. Amir-Honayoun Javadi, one of the study’s authors said, “The hippocampus makes an internal map of the environment and this map becomes active when you are engaged in navigating and not using GPS.”

The hippocampus is highly important. It allows us to orient in space and know where we are by creating cognitive maps. It allows us to both store and retrieve personal memories of experience. Neuroscientists believe the hippocampus believes give us the ability to imagine the future. Again this is something healthy memory blog readers should know and one of the principle purposes of memory is for time travel so we can travel back in time to review our past, so we can think of possible actions we can take in the future.

Research has long shown that the hippocampus changes as a function of learning. Again healthy memory blog readers should remember the study of London taxi drivers who have greater gray-matter volume in the hippocampus due to memorizing the city’s labyrinthine streets. Atrophy in the hippocampus is linked to devastating conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. Stress and depression dampen neurogenesis—the growth of new neurons —in the hippocampal circuit.

Javadi said the conclusions he draws from recent research is that “when people use tools such as GPS, they tend to engage less with navigation. Therefore, brain area responsible for navigation is less used, and consequently their brain areas involved in navigation tend to shrink”

Neuroscientist Veronique Bohbot has found that using spatial-memory strategies for navigation correlates with increased gray matter in the hippocampus at any age. She thinks that interventions focused on improving spatial memory by exercising the hippocampus—paying attention to the spatial relationships of places in our environment—might help offset age-related cognitive impairments or even neurodegenerative diseases.

She continues, “If we are paying attention to our environments, we re stimulating our hippocampus, and a bigger hippocampus seems to be protective against Alzheimer’s disease. When we get lost , it activates the hippocampus, it gets us completely out of the habit mode. Getting lost is good.” It can be a good thing if done safely.

M.R. O’Connor writes, “Saturated with devices, children today might grow up to see navigation from memory or a paper map as anachronistic as rote memorization or typewriting. But for them especially, independent navigation and the freedom to explore are vital to acquiring spatial knowledge that may improve hippocampal function. Turning off the GPS and teaching them navigational skills could have enormous cognitive benefits later in life.”

M.R. O’Connor concludes the article, “Over the past four years, I’ve spoken with master navigators from different cultures who show me that performing navigation is a powerful form of engagement with the environment that can inspire a greater sense of stewardship. Finding our way on our own—using perception, empirical observation and problem solving skills—forces us to attune ourselves to the outside world. And by turning our attention to the physical landscape that sustains and connects us, we can nourish “topophilia,” a sense of attachment and love for space. You’ll never get that from waiting for a satellite to tell you how to find a shortcut.”

Stanford Helped Pioneer Artificial Intelligence

May 21, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the first half of a title by Elizabeth Dworkin in the 19 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The second half of the title is “Now it wants humans at the core.” A Stanford University scientist coined the term artificial intelligence (AI) and advancements have continued at the university including the first autonomous vehicle.

Silicon Valley is facing a reckoning over how technology is changing society. Stanford wants to be at the forefront of a different type of innovation, one that puts humans and ethics at the center of the booming field of AI. The university is launching the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). It is intended as a think tank that will be an interdisciplinary hub for policymakers, researchers and students who will go on to build the technologies of the future. The goal is to inculcate in the next generation a more worldly and humane set of values than those that have characterized it so far—and guide politicians to make more sophisticated decisions about the challenging social questions wrought by technology.

Fei-Fei-Li, an AI pioneer and former Google vice president who is one of the two directors of the new institute said, I could not have envisaged that the discipline I was so interested in would, a decade and a half later, become one of the driving forces of the changes that humanity will undergo. That realization became a tremendous sense of responsibility.”

The goal is to raise more than $1billion. It’s advisory panel is a who’s who of Silicon Valley titans, that includes former Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, former Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer and co-founder Jerry Yang, and the prominent investor Jim Breyer. Bill Gates will keynote its inaugural symposium.

The ills and dangers of AI have become apparent. New statistics emerge about the tide of job loss wrought by the technology, from long-haul truckers to farmer workers to dermatologists. Elon Musk called AI “humanity’s existential threat” and compared it to “summoning the demon.”

Serious problems were raised in the series of healthy memory posts based on the book, “Zuck.” The healthy memory posts based on the book “LikeWar” raised additional problems. Both these problems could be addressed with IA. Actually IA is being used to address the issues in “LIkeWar.” Regarding the problems raised in the book “Zuck”, rather than hoping that Facebook will self-police or trying to legislate against Facebook’s problematic practices, AI could police online all these social networks and flag problematic practices.

It is the position of this blog to advocate AI be used to enhance human intelligence. This is especially important in areas where human intelligence is woeful lacking, that is intelligent augmentation (IA). Unfortunately, humans, who are regarded as social animals, have difficulties reconciling conflicting political and religious beliefs. Artificial intelligence could be used here in an intelligence augmented (IA) role. Given polarized beliefs dead ends are reached. IA could suggest different ways of framing problematic issues. Lakoff’s ideas that were promoted in the series of healthy memory blog posts under the rubric “Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse” could provide the initial point of departure. Learning would take place and these ideas would be refined further to result in disagreeing parties being surprised about their ultimate agreement.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Unhealthful Memories Can Lead to Alzheimer’s and the Loss of Democracy

May 3, 2019

This post is motivated by an article by Greg Miller titled “With Mueller silent, Barr speaks for him—and defends the president” in the 2 May 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The article is about how Barr has gotten ahead of Mueller and completely misrepresented the report of the special council. Mueller has remained silent trying to observe the normal protocols. Barr has completely misrepresented Mueller’s report and continues to lie and misrepresent his characterization of the report when questioned by Democratic members of the Senate. Most Republicans seem to be complicit in Barr’s lies and misrepresentation.

Mueller will eventually testify, but much damage has been done by Trump’s puppet Barr. However, it is more than time that truth will need to overcome. The failure of too many Americans to use their critical thinking processes also hinders their reaching truth.

A brief review of Kahneman’s two process theory of cognition is appropriate here. System 1 is fast and is called intuition.  System 1 needs to be fast so we can process language and make the fast decisions we need to make everyday.  System 1 is also the seat of our emotions.  System 2 is called reasoning and corresponds loosely to what we mean by thinking.  System 2 requires mental effort and our attentional processes.

The default mode network will be mentioned in future posts. Basically it corresponds to System 1 processing. What is important is the word “default.” Once misinformation has gotten into memory it takes cognitive effort to remove and correct it.

Without knowing it, Trump is a genius at exploiting the default mode network. The default mode network is also responsive to emotion. Emotion comes first. That’s why it is important to stop and think, when you become angry, so you do not respond foolishly. But by exploiting pre-existing biases and out and out lying, misinformation gets into memory. And it will remain there until the individual thinks, discovers the information is wrong, and corrects this memory.

This problem is exacerbated by social media. As has been shown in previous posts, social media reinforces this disinformation. Much of this misinformation is emotional. Hate spreads easily, unfortunately, much faster than does love and caring.

There have been many previous posts on how cognitive activity, system 2 processing, getting free of the default mode network decreases the likelihood of Alzheimer’s and dementia. Moreover, there are many cases of individuals whose brains have the defining characteristics of Alzheimer’s, the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, who die never knowing that they had Alzheimer’s because they had none of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms.

Effective democracy also depends on healthy memories. It requires that citizens know how democracy works and seek and evaluate information as to how the democracy should proceed. There is ample evidence that few citizens know how the government is supposed to work as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. And there is ample evidence that most voting citizens have little understanding of the issues and candidates on which they are voting.

If Russia waged a conventional military attack on the United States, citizens would be outraged and demand that we fight back. But the Russians are smart, and too many Americans are stupid. The Russians used cyberattacks. These cyberattacks have been described in previous healthy memory posts. These cyberattacks promoted Trump for president and created disruption and polarization among the American public. Remember that Trump was not elected in the popular vote. He lost that by three million votes. He won due to an irresponsible electoral college.

Trump built his campaign on lies, and continues to support himself on lies. Obviously it requires too much mental effort for too many citizens to recognize this individual as the fraud and obscenity he actually is.

Regardless of the Mueller report, there is ample evidence that Trump needs to be impeached. And reading the Mueller report one quickly realizes that if Trump did not commit any crimes of which he could be convicted, his behavior still puts democracy at risk. Should he not be impeached and should he lose a reelection, he will claim fraud and refuse to leave the office. Our democracy is at risk of becoming a de facto totalitarian dictatorship. Obviously that is something that Barr would prefer, as he thinks there are no limits on presidential power.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Thanks to Kathleen Parker

May 1, 2019

Whose column titled “Easter, and this ungodly episode” in the 21 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post expressed some sentiments similar to HM’s post “Trump vs. a Buddhist Monk’” where HM argued that the Buddhist Monk, in his poverty, lives a happier life than Donald Trump, with all his worldly riches.

The following are excerpts from Ms. Parkers column:

“Trump…is a villain but also a tragic figure. For him there is never enough of anything—riches, possessions, attention and adulation.

At times I feel sorry for him, because he has invited the wrath of millions, and it can’t be easy to shoulder so much disapproval. When I said this recently to a friend, she replied: ‘It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who has no empathy.’ True, but a person without empathy—the ability to feel what others do—walks a lonely path. Driven by lust for the material, such a person doesn’t know the company of what ancient philosophers called transcendentals—truth, goodness, and beauty, which correspond sequentially to the mind, the will and the heart, and which according to Christian theology, lead to God’s infinite love.

Trump wages daily war against truth. Examples of his falsehoods and outright lies could fill a doorstop volume.

Goodness is missing everywhere. Trump may have some good qualities, though it is hard to discern them given his propensity for hurtful, divisive rhetoric. To him, goodness is what he wills it to be, that which nourishes his narcissism and appetites, whether the compliance of women or the loyalty of comrades. Ironically, disloyalty may have saved him when aides refused to carry out orders to obstruct the Mueller investigation.

One needn’t be a theologian, philosopher, or Christian to recognize that Trump, defiant before truth and lacking goodwill, knows beauty only as a standard for useful women or towers bearing his name.”

She includes in her column Trump’s own statement when Attorney Jeff Sessions told him about the Mueller appointment. “Oh, my God. This is the end of my presidency. I’m f—-ed.”

Kathleen Parker ends her column, “Would this prophecy come to pass and this ungodly epodes in American history be finished.”

Are We Getting Dumber?

April 30, 2019

This post is based on statistics from a column by Max Boot in the 18 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. His column begins, “Only 36% of Americans could pass a multiple-choice civics test of the kind that is administered to immigrants seeking to become citizens. 60% don’t know which countries the United States fought with in World War II. 57% don’t know how many justices serve on the Supreme Court. Only 24% know what Benjamin Franklin was famous for? Some respondents thought he had invented the light bulb.

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship foundation conducted a survey confirming that there is a national emergency of civics illiteracy and it is getting worse. 74% of those over age 65 could pass the citizenship exam (which requires correctly just 6 out of 10 questions), but only 19% of those under 45 could do so. And a college degree does not guarantee a minimal knowledge of U.S. history. In surveys of college graduates commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, fewer than 20% could identify the Emancipation Proclamation, only 42% knew that the Battle of the Bulge occurred during World War II (this is spite of the many movies made about this battle), and one-third were unaware that Franklin D. Roosevelt had introduced the New Deal.

Boot concludes “We are a democracy at risk of being too ignorant to govern ourselves.” HM would argue that we have already demonstrated that we are too ignorant to govern ourselves. The election of Trump as President and a Republican Party that continues to support him make this point. HM would like to know how Trump would do on this citizenship exam. Trump only recently learned, and was surprised to learn, that Lincoln was a Republican!

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

2019 NFL Draft

April 29, 2019

This post is based on an article by Sally Jenkins titled, “Smart teams trade down, but most teams just aren’t smart,” in the 27 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. There have been previous posts on this topic. Behavioral economics which grew from Prospect Theory by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, for which Kahneman won a Nobel Prize (unfortunately Amos Tversky had passed on and was ineligible for the prize when it was awarded) can be used to guide NFL Draft Picks. The basic strategy is to trade down rather than trade up. Cade Massey of the University of Pennsylvania Wharton school and Nobel Prize winner produced papers in 2005 and 2012 that showed that teams profoundly overvalue first-round picks and simply don’t have the ability they think they do to discern between a great player and a good one.

Jenkins writes, “How often is a team right in picking a high-first rounder” What will be the quantifiable difference between the top choice at a position in the 2019 draft and the next available player, or even the third or fourth, in terms of games started and potential Pro Bowl success? The difference would need to be large given the amount of their investments. But their expenditures prove right only 52% of the time, which is effectively a coin toss.

Massey who does consulting for NFL teams says, “History suggests you do better by trading down from the top, using multiple lesser picks than one high pick.” The Patriots have done this with obvious success. From the article, “As of 2018, Bill Belichick had traded down fully 21 times on draft day to acquire more picks. Over the past 15 years, the Patriots have chosen 39 players in the second and third rounds, the highest number of any team in the AFC. And they won Super Bowls with them.”

Massey says, “If you recognize the uncertainty rather than throwing up your hands, you say, ‘We want as many draws as possible from the lottery. We can’t influence one ticket, but we can get as many tickets as possible.”

Andrew Brandt, a sports business analyst and former vice-president of the Green Bay Packers says, “It take a lot of willpower to trade out of that first-round pick, because there’s a lot of pressure. A lot of gravitas goes with that.”

Teams often do the dead opposite of what they should: give away fistfuls of picks to move up and grab a single star prospect. According to Massey overconfidence in their own judgment clouds their thinking. Brandt says, “Or sometimes it’s just a simple case of seeing a player ‘you lust after.’”

There is also extreme pressure coming from fans. There are many males who might not be about to tell you who their representatives to Congress or their senators are, who have definite strong picks for the NFL draft.

Massey says, “The quants are wrong to think you can quantify every single player. But you also can’t be right without the quantifications.”

The Random Act of Choosing a College Major

April 28, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Andrew Van Dam in the 30 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. This post provides a neat follow up to the immediately preceding post “Missing Healthymemory Themes.” The article begins by stating that this potentially life altering decision is often made based on something as trivial as what time of day you took a particular class, or what you happened to be studying when the deadline for picking a major arrived. Even when students are doing well in a course, perhaps even in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematic (STEM) discipline, they will switch majors to be with others who share genre or background. This has been suggested as a possible explanation for lower participation of females in these disciplines.

Economists like to study U.S. Military Academy Cadets because they are assigned schedules, and some classes at random creating a data set that allows them to answer questions such as what’s causing a student to pick one major over another. The author writes, “The answer, it turns out, is dumb luck. Students who happen to be assigned classes in one of four required subjects during the semester when they’re supposed to pick a major are twice as likely to major in the assigned subject, according to University of Maryland economist Nolan Pope, and Richard Patterson and Aaron Feudo of the U.S. Military Academy. This held true regardless of how well a student performed or how much they liked the course according to the analysis of class data from 2001 to 2015. Their database included grades, class times and students opinion about the course. Pope said, “Small and seemingly unimportant things can really have a large impact. Often students cite a specific class or teacher for a choice of major.”

Carnegie Mellon University professor Karem Haggag, showed students are about 10% less likely to major in a subject if they took a class at 7:30 a.m. Likewise. as students grown more fatigued during the day they grow about 10% less likely to major in the subject covered by each successive class.

Given these data it is not surprising that 37% of students eventually switch according to a paper from University of Memphis economists Carmen Astorne-Fiagari and Jamin D. Speer. These economists conducted a long-running survey of almost 9,000 students born between 1980 and 1984. Not surprisingly, students with lower GPAs are more likely to leave their major. But women of all ability levels are likely to change majors. However, men are more likely to drop out instead of trying a different major according to a study by Astorne-Figari and Speer.

Students doing poorly tend to switch majors, which makes perfect sense. Business, social sciences and economics tend to gain the most from students major switching, while biology, computer science and medicine (medical and health services) lost the most.

About a third of the men and a fifth of the women start out in STEM, and about 30% of those men and 43% of those women switch out of the subject area. Women who leave STEM tend to go to majors that cover similar subjects but are less competitive and less male, such as nursing. Speer said, “There are a lot of women who are very competent in math and science. They typically go to other fields that use science or other fields that use science but are less dominated by men.

Just because one has difficulty with a subject, does not necessarily mean that one cannot be successful in that area. The case of Barbara Oakley is instructive here.
Her father was in the military and she moved constantly doing her childhood. Her father wanted her to attend college and study math and science. Unfortunately, the only thing she was certain about was that she did not like math and science and did not think that she had any aptitude in math and science. However, she did like studying languages so she began studying French and German. At the time there were no available college loans so she enlisted in the military where she could get paid to study a language. So she studied Russian and learned the language.
When she got out of the army, she could not find any interest in her Russian skills. The jobs were in engineering and science and required advanced mathematical skills. So she moved into a new area for which she thought she had no aptitude. However, she found through diligent work that she was able to learn these subjects, and as she became proficient in these subjects, she found that she enjoyed them. So today she is a professor of engineering, firmly planted in the world of math and science. Along with Terrence Sejnowski, the Francis Crick Professor at the Salk Institute, she teaches the most popular online course in the world—“Learning How to Learn”—for Coursera/UC San Diego.

There are several posts on Dr. Oakley. She has also written a book “MIndshift.”
She writes that a “mindshift” is a deep change in life that occurs thanks to learning, and that is what this book is about. She relates true and inspirational stories of how people change themselves through learning—and who bring seemingly obsolete extraneous knowledge with them that has enabled our world to grow in fantastically creative and uplifting ways.

We Need to Take Tech Addiction Seriously

March 26, 2019

The title of this post is the same as an article by psychologist Doreen Dodgen-Magee in the 19 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The World Health Organization has recognized Internet gaming as a diagnosable addiction. Dr. Dodgen-Magee argues that psychologists and other mental-health professionals must begin to acknowledge that technology use has the potential to become addictive and impact individuals and communities. Sometime the consequences are dire.

She writes that the research is clear, that Americans spend most of their waking hours interacting with screens. Studies from a nonprofit group Common Sense Media indicate that U.S. teens average approximately nine hours per day with digital media, tweens spend six hours and our youngest, ages zero to 8, spend 2.5 hours daily in front of a screen. According to research by the Nielsen Company, the average adult in the United States spends more than 11 hours a day in the digital world. Dr. Dodgen-Magee claims that when people invest this kind of time in any activity, we must at least start to ask what it means for their mental health.

Both correlational and causal relationships have been established between tech use and various mental-health conditions. Research at the University of Pittsburgh found higher rates of depression and anxiety among young adults who engage many social media platforms than those who engage only two. Jean Twenge found that the psychological development of adolescents is slowing down and depression, anxiety and loneliness, which she attributes to tech engagement are on the rise. Multitasking, a behavior that technology encourages and reinforces is consistently correlated with poor cognitive and mental-health outcomes. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have published the first experimental data linking decreased well-being to Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram use in young adults. Dr. Dodgen-Magee concludes that our technology use is affecting our psychological functioning.

The author has been examining the interplay between technology and mental health for close to two decades. She finds that while technology can do incredible things for us in nearly every area of life, it is neither all good nor benign.

The author writes that when the mental-health community resists fully exploring the costs associated with constant tech interaction, it leaves those struggling with compulsive or potentially harmful use of their devices few places to turn. She continues that recently a woman scheduled a consultation with her because she was concerned about her inability to focus. She was a self-described Type A personality who found herself simultaneously interacting with three or four screens for nearly 20 hours a day, determined to stay on top of every demand. When it came time for her biannual revision of an important procedural manual, she couldn’t focus on the single tasks for the time to do it effectively. She is not the only individual with this problem.

She writes that consequently our attention spans are short. Our ability to focus on one task at a time is impaired. And our boredom tolerance is nil. People now rely on the same devices that drive so much of our anxiety and alienation for both stimulation and soothing. While, for many people, these changes will never move into the domain of addiction, for others they already have. In a recent Common Sense Media poll, 50% of adolescents reported already feeling that their use had become addictive and 27% of parents reported the same.

She writes, “If Americans were interacting with anything else for 11-plus hours a day, I feel confident we’d be talking more about how that interaction shapes us. Mental-health professionals must begin to educate themselves about the digital pools in which their clients swim and learn about the impact of excessive technology use on human development and functioning. It is too easy for therapists to assume that everyone’s engagement with the digital domain looks just their own and to go merrily from there. We would serve our client well by understanding the unique way in which many platforms encourage addictive pattens and behaviors. We should also create non-shaming environments in which they can candidly explore how their tech use impacts them.

It’s time to put our phones down and begin an informed conversation about how technology is impacting our mental health. Our clients’ health and the well-being of our communities may depend on it.”

Good Advice from the Danes

March 15, 2019

This post is based on an article in the Washington Post by Marie Helweg-Larsen titled (in the electronic version) “Angry? Worried? Stressed Out? Just say ‘pyt” Danes are regarded as being among the happiest people in the world. The article notes that they also happen to have a lot of cool words for ways to be happy.

One is “hygge,” which is often mistranslated to mean “cozy,” but it really describes the process of creating intimacy. But the word “pyt” was recently voted the most popular word by the Danes. Pyt does not have an exact English translation. It’s more a cultural concept about cultivating healthy thoughts to deal with stress.

Pyt sounds something like “pid.” It is usually expressed as an interaction in reaction to a daily hassle, frustration, or mistake. It most closely translates to the English sayings, “Don’t worry about it,” “stuff happens” or “oh, well.”

If you break a glass in the kitchen, you would just shrug and say, “pyt.” If you see a parking ticket lodged under your windshield wiper and, as you become hot with anger, just shake your head and murmur, “pyt.”

It’s benefit comes from accepting and resettling. It provides a reminder to step back and refocus rather than overreact. Instead of assigning blame, it’s a way to let go and move on.

The author, who is a Danish psychologist writes, “ You might say “pyt” in response to something your did—“pyt, that was a dumb thing to say”—or to support another person—“pyt with that, don’t fret about your co-worker’s insensitivity.”

Pyt can reduce stress because it is a sincere attempt to encourage yourself and others to not get bogged down by minor daily frustrations. One Danish business leader has suggested that knowing when to say “pyt” at work can lead to more job satisfaction.”

The author notes that there’s a rich strain of psychological research devoted to understanding how we interpret and react to other people’s actions.

Study after study show that we are happier and live longer when we have fewer daily hassles. And in some cases, what constitutes a hassle might be tied to how we interpret what’s happening around us.

Pyt can also help people avoid the tendency to blame others. Say you’re late to an appointment and there’s a person in front of you who’s driving slowly. This can feel irrationally personal.

However, research shows that we get angrier when we explain someone’s behavior by pointing to their incompetence, intentionality, or poor character.

If you say “pyt,” you’re deducing that it’s not worth letting someone else’s actions, which are out of your control, bother you; It’s “water off a duck’s back.” You can also see other strategies, such as thinking about situational constraints—maybe the driver was ill—or considering whether this will be an issue in two hours, two days, or two weeks.

Of course, ‘pyt’ should not be said in response to being seriously wrong. Nor should it be used when you ought to take responsibility, nor should it be used as an excuse for inaction.

Danes who teach positive psychology have also written about how applying pyt to too many aspects of our life isn’t healthy, especially if they concern your core needs or values.

Other activities, such as walking in nature, doing yoga or meditation, exercising, keeping a journal, or engaging in creative work, can also facilitate letting go

And you can also get a pyt button. Danish teachers use pyt buttons to teach students how to let go. Teachers find that it can help children cope with smaller frustrations such as losing a game, or losing a pencil. It teaches children that everything can’t be perfect.

These are important skills. Research shows that perfectionism is related to worry and depression, whereas self-compassion and social support can help prevent perfectionism from leading to negative outcomes.

The pyt button has become popular recently among Danish adults. They can either make one at home or buy one that, when pressed, says “pyt pyt pyt” and “breathe deeply, it will all be okay” in Danish.

Enter “pyt button” in your browser search block to find where to get your own pet button.

Another factor contributing to the Danes being among the happiest people of the world is that they have government provided healthcare. Moreover, the costs of this healthcare is less than US costs, and the care that the Danes receive is better than the US. Of course, this is true of every advanced country other than the US. It is like these other countries are wearing shoes and the US is still barefoot.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Donald Trump and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

January 11, 2019

There have been fourteen prior healthy memory blog posts on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Angela Fritz in the 8 Jan 2019 issued of the Washington Post wrote a timely article titled “Psychological phenomenon helps explain the confidence of the incompetent.” The subtitle is “Dunning-Kruger effect drawing a surge of interest during the Trump years.” She writes, “In their 1999 paper, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, David Dunning and Justin Kruger put data to what has been known by philosophers since Socrates, who supposedly said something along the lines of “the only true wisdom is knowing when you know nothing.” Charles Darwin followed that up in 1871 with “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

Dunning and Kruger quizzed people on several topics, such as grammar, logical reasoning, and humor. After each test, they asked the participants how they thought the did. Specifically, participants were asked how many other quiz-takers they beat. Even though the results confirmed their hypothesis, the researchers were still shocked by the results. No matter, the subject, people who did poorly on the test ranked their competence much higher. On average, test takers who scored as low as the 10th percentile ranked themselves near the 70th percentile. Those least likely to know what they were talking about believed they knew as much as the experts. These results have been replicated in at least a dozen different domains including: math skills, wine tasting, chess, medical knowledge among surgeons, and firearm safety among hunters.

The author notes that during the election and in the months after the presidential inauguration, interest in the Dunning-Kruger effect surged. Google searches for “dunning-kruger” peaked in May 2017, according to Google Trends, and has remained high. Time spent on the Dunning-Kruger Effect Wikipedia entry skyrocketed since late 2015.

The immediately preceding post, “A President Divorced from Reality” documents the enormous knowledge that Trump says he has to accompany his highest IQ. If anything, his delusional disorder only amplifies this effect.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan said, “Donald Trump has been overestimating his knowledge for decades. It’s not surprising that he would continue that pattern into the White House.”

Steven Sloman, a cognitive psychologist at Brown University said, Dunning-Kruger “offers an explanation for a kind of hubris. The fact is, that’s Trump in a nutshell. He’s a man with zero political skill who has no idea he has zero political skill. And it’s given him extreme confidence.”

Sloman thinks that Dunning-Kruger effect has become popular outside of the research world because it is a simple phenomenon that could apply to all of us, as people are desperate to understand what’s going on in the world. Many people “cannot wrap their minds around the rise of Trump,” Sloman said. “He’s exactly the opposite of everything we value in a politician, and he’s the exact opposite of what we thought Americans valued.” It’s clear that this view was not reflective of what too many Americans actually thought.

Additional research by Dunning shows the poorest performers are also the least likely to accept criticism or show interest in self improvement.

Some might argue, what then about Trump’s success as a businessman and celebrity. His celebrity was based on the false belief that Trump was a successful businessman. The truth is that Trump is a failed businessman, who has declared bankruptcy numerous times. According to Donald Trump Jr., his father’s financing comes from the Russians. The Russians have recruited him and are using him for their purposes.

According to Dunning, the effect is particularly dangerous when someone with influence or the means to do harm doesn’t have anyone who can speak honestly about their mistakes. He notes several plane crashes that could have been avoided if the crew had spoken up to an overconfident pilot.

Dunning explained, “You get into a situation where people can be to deferential to the people in charge. You have to have people around you that are willing to tell you you’re willing to make an error.”

HM is more upset about Trump supporters than by Trump himself. Eventually the country should be rid of Trump, but his supporters will remain. How to explain them? Perhaps the Dunning-Kruger effect can be extended to them. These people eschew expertise ascribing expertise to the deep state. And they are highly confident in their contempt for expertise.

HM’s fear is that there is a stupidity pandemic that can be understood by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Research needs to be done on how to overcome this pandemic.

There’s a Deep Neural Connection Between Gratitude, Giving and Values

January 2, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the titled of an article by Christina Karns in the Health & Science Section in the 25 December 2018 issue of the Washington Post.

Psychological research has found that taking time to be thankful has benefits for well-being. Not only does gratitude go along with more optimism, less anxiety and depression, and create goal attainment, but also is associated with fewer symptoms of illness and other physical benefits. Researchers have also found that making connections between the internal experience of gratitude and the external practice of altruism.

The author is a neuroscientist particularly interested in the brain regions and connections that support gratitude and altruism. To study the relationship between gratitude and altruism in the brain, the author and his colleagues first ask volunteers questions meant to test how frequently they feel thankful, and the degree to which they tend to care about the well-being of others. They used statistical analyses to assess the extent to which someone’s gratitude could predict their altruism. As has been previously found, the more grateful people tended to be more altruistic.

Being neuroscientists the next step was to explore about how these tendencies are reflected in the brain. Study participants performed a giving activity in an MRI scanner. They watched as the computer transferred real money to their own account or to the account of a local food bank. Sometimes they could choose whether to give or receive, but other times the transfers were like a mandatory tax, outside their control. They especially wanted to compare what happened in the brain when a participant received money as opposed to seeing money given to the charity instead.

The result was that the neural connection between gratitude and giving is very deep, both literally and figuratively. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a region deep in the frontal love of the brain, is key to supporting both. This regions is wired up to be a hub for processing the value of risk and reward; it’s richly connected to even deeper brain regions that provide a kick of pleasurable neurochemicals in the right circumstances. It does abstract representations of the inner and outer world that help with complex reasoning, one’s representation of oneself and social processing. They also saw how differences in just how active this region was in various individuals.

They calculated a “pure altruism response” by comparing how active the reward regions of the brain were during “charity-gain” vs. “self-gain” situations. The participants identified as more grateful and more altruistic via the questionnaire had higher “pure altruism” scores. That is a stronger response in these reward regions of the brain when they saw the charity gaining money. It felt good for them to see the food bank do well.

Other studies have zeroed in on this same brain region and found that individual differences in self-reported “benevolence” were mirrored by participants’ brains’ response to charitable donations, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. So is this brain reward region the key to kindness?

To address this question the author randomly assigned study participants to one of two groups. For three weeks, one group wrote in their journals about gratitude, keeping track of the things they were thankful for The other group wrote about engaging topics from their lives that weren’t specific to gratitude.

Gratitude journaling seemed to work. Keeping a written account about gratitude led people to report experiencing more of the emotion. Other research also indicates that gratitude practice make people more supportive of others and improves relationships.

Study participants also exhibited a change in how their brains responded to giving. In the MRI scanner the group that practiced gratitude by journaling increased the “pure altruism” measure in the reward regions of the brain. Response to charity-gain increase more than those to self-gain.

Practicing gratitude shifted the value of giving in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It changed the exchange rate in the brain. Giving to charity become more valuable than receiving money oneself. After the brain calculated the exchange rate, you get paid in the neural currency of the reward, the delivery of neurotransmitters that signal pleasure and goal attainment.

So, in terms of the brain’s reward response, it really can be true that giving is better than receiving.

Meditation is another technique to enhance altruism. In particular, loving kindness meditation done by experienced Buddhist monks revealed impressive brain activity.
To learn more about loving kindness meditation enter “loving kindness meditation” into the search block of the healthy memory blog.

Freed from the Feed

January 1, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the titled of a piece by Elise Viebeck in the 25 December ’18 issue of the Washington Post. The piece follows the development of an early Facebook enthusiast.

In 2005 Michael Lampert, a student at the University of Arizona, joined an early version of Facebook. He wrote, “It felt very cool, very hip, very exclusive.” He writes silly anecdotes and ridiculous things about college life.

In MId-2008 he is a recent graduate in the middle of the Great Recession trying to find work. Although Facebook did not help him find work, it did provide a distraction and a connection to far-off-friends. He says, “There was still this sense of happiness that I could go and log on and reignite old memories.”

In Spring 2012 he is a newcomer in fast-changing San Francisco. He endures rising rents and a difficult job in advertising. Unknown to him, a layoff loomed. Facebook became a way to keep track of new friends amid the upheaval. He says, “it helped me build the social circle I have now.”

In Summer 2018 he is thriving in Oakland engaged to be married. He receives congratulations on Facebook. The platform feels different since the 2016 edition. A friend’s decision to delete his account has made him think: “The people I had this artificial sense of relationship with online—how important is it that I maintain that? If I actively care about them, do they actively care about me?”

In late November he is about to be an ex-user of Facebook. He publishes his last post, urging friends to stay in touch by phone and email. He says, “Most people were like, ‘Oh, that’s too cool, good for you.” But weeks later, few of his old contacts have reached out. He says, “I feel like my perspective on social media is very much in the minority.”

Now he is not interested in returning to Facebook. He is pursuing a career in human resources, hoping to make corporate workplaces more humane. He doesn’t think social media is evil, but its ubiquity still has him thinking. He says, “I’m moving more toward a sense of being in the moment.”

May this post assist you in making a New Year’s resolution to break from social media.

Happy New Year 2019!

December 31, 2018

So it’s time for those new year’s resolutions. HM encourages you to consider marshaling your precious attentional resources. Unfortunately, it seems like the majority of people are unknowingly squandering their attentional resources. Our attentional resources are limited, so we need to try to use them to best advantage. This is key to the development and maintenance of a healthy memory.

The first issue regards the amount of time you are plugged in. Being plugged in subjects you to interruptions that can be harmful. Being plugged in results in superficial processing, which is not good for memory health. There are social issues here, so there is a need to consult with one’s true friends and explain what you are trying to do and why. You might also want to encourage them to join you in this effort.

The next issue, which is clearly related to the first issue, is to restrict use of social media. Do not get news from social media. It can literally lead you down paths to disinformation. There are respected news sources in traditional newspapers and magazines as well as online sources. Evaluate them for their credibility. Previous healthy memory posts have documented the problems resulting from social media news sources, Facebook being the prime example.

Active cognitive processing, System 2 processes in Kahneman’s terminology, contribute to memory health and are likely the best protection against Alzheimer’s and dementia. They also lead to more fulfilling lives and to being better citizens. Learning new skills and subjects require System 2 processing.

System 2 processes along with willpower are limited resources that can be exhausted. If your resolutions are unrealistic and exhaust your willpower, they will not be fulfilled.
Actually, if you are continually hooked in and a social media addict, just getting these problems remedied might be demanding enough. And the reward in memory health would be commensurate.

Previous New Year’s Healthymemory posts have recommended having two resolutions. One which is challenging, and one for which you have a high probability of such seeding. You do not want to go through the new year with an 0fer.

A piece in the 30 December 2018 issue of the Washington Post in the Outlook section by Linda Rodriguez McRobbie disabuses us of the myth that New Year’s Resolutions are useless because they are not kept. A frequently cited statistic is that only 8% of us manage to keep our resolutions. But according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology in 2002 found that 46% of resolvers were successful six months later, compared with just 4% of the non resolvers just interested in changing something about their lives. A 2017 Statistic Brain Survey found that 44.8% of participants kept up their resolutions for at least six months, adding, “People who explicitly make resolutions are 10 times more likely to attain their goals than people who don’t explicitly make resolutions.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Scale of Russian Operation Detailed

December 23, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Craig Timberg and Tony Romm in the 17 Dec ’18 issue of the Washington Post. Subtitles are: EVERY MAJOR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM USED and Report finds Trump support before and after election. This post is the first to analyze the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The research was done by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphic, a network analysis firm. It provides new details on how Russians worked at the Internet Research Agency (IRA), which U.S. officials have charged with criminal offenses for interring in the 2016 campaign. The IRA divided Americans into key interest groups for targeted messaging. The report found that these efforts shifted over time, peaking at key political moments, such as presidential debates or party conventions. This report substantiates facts presented in prior healthy memory blog posts.

The data sets used by the researchers were provided by Facebook, Twitter, and Google and covered several years up to mid-2017, when the social media companies cracked down on the known Russian accounts. The report also analyzed data separately provided to House Intelligence Committee members.

The report says, “What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party and specifically Donald Trump. Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting.”

The report provides the latest evidence that Russian agents sought to help Trump win the White House. Democrats and Republicans on the panel previously studied the U.S. intelligence community’s 2017 finding that Moscow aimed to assist Trump, and in July, said the investigators had come to the correct conclusion. Nevertheless, some Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to doubt the nature of Russia’s interference in the election.

The Russians aimed energy at activating conservatives on issues such as gun rights and immigration, while sapping the political clout of left-leaning African American voters by undermining their faith in elections and spreading misleading information about how to vote. Many other groups such as Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women received at least some attention from Russians operating thousands of social media accounts.

The report offered some of the first detailed analyses of the role played by Youtube and Instagram in the Russian campaign as well as anecdotes about how Russians used other social media platforms—Google+, Tumblr and Pinterest—that had received relatively little scrutiny. That also used email accounts from Yahoo, Microsoft’s Hotmail service, and Google’s Gmail.

While reliant on data provided by technology companies the authors also highlighted the companies’ “belated and uncoordinated response” to the disinformation campaign and, once it was discovered, their failure to share more with investigators. The authors urged that in the future they provide data in “meaningful and constructive “ ways.

Facebook provided the Senate with copies of posts from 81 Facebook pages and information on 76 accounts used to purchase ads, but it did not share posts from other accounts run by the IRA. Twitter has made it challenging for outside researchers to collect and analyze data on its platform through its public feed.

Google submitted information in an especially difficult way for researchers to handle, providing content such as YouTube videos but not the related data that would have allowed a full analysis. They wrote that the YouTube information was so hard to study, that they instead tracked the links to its videos from other sites in hopes of better understand YouTube’s role in the Russian effort.

The report expressed concern about the overall threat social media poses to political discourse within and among nations, warning them that companies once viewed as tools for liberation in the Arab world and elsewhere are now a threat to democracy.

The report also said, “Social media have gone from being the natural infrastructure for sharing collective grievances and coordinating civic engagement to being a computational tool for social control, manipulated by canny political consultants and available to politicians in democracies and dictatorships alike.”

The report traces the origins of Russian online influence operations to Russian domestic politics in 2009 and says that ambitions shifted to include U.S. politics as early as 2013. The efforts to manipulate Americans grew sharply in 2014 and every year after, as teams of operatives spread their work across more platforms and accounts to target larger swaths of U.S. voters by geography, political interests, race, religion and other factors.

The report found that Facebook was particularly effective at targeting conservatives and African Americans. More than 99% of all engagements—meaning likes, shares and other reactions—came from 20 Facebook pages controlled by the IRA including “Being Patriotic,” “Heart of Texas,” “Blacktivist” and “Army of Jesus.”

Having lost the popular vote, it is difficult to believe that Trump could have carried the Electoral College given this impressive support by the Russians. One can also envisage Ronald Reagan thrashing about in his grave knowing that the Republican Presidential candidate was heavily indebted to Russia and that so many Republicans still support Trump.
© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Speaking Two Languages May Help the Aging Brain

December 13, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Ramin Skibba in the Health and Science Section of the 11Dec 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The article notes that the first main advantage involves what is referred to as executive function. This includes skills that allow us to control, direct and manage our attention, as well as our ability to plan. It also helps us to ignore irrelevant information and focus on what’s important. Having two languages and the languages being activated automatically and subconsciously, the bilingual person is constantly managing the interference of the languages so that the wrong word in the wrong language at the wrong time isn’t said. These same brain areas are also used when trying to complete a task while there are distractions. This task might have nothing to do with language; it could be trying to listen to something in a noisy environment or doing some visual task. The muscle memory developed from using two languages can apply to different skills.

Executive functions are the most complex brain functions that separate us from apes and other animals. They’re often observed in parts of the brain that are the newest in evolutionary terms: the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for advanced processing; the bilateral supra marginal gyro, which plays a role in linking words and meanings; and the anterior cingulate. Studies show that the bilingual experience alters the structure of these areas.

There are increases in gray matter volume. Gray matter refers to how many cell bodies and dendrites there are. Bilingual experience makes gray matter denser, so there are more cells. This is an indication of a healthier brain. Bilingualism also affects white matter, a fatty substance that covers axons, which are the main projections coming out from neurons to connect them to other neurons. White matter allows messages to travel fast and efficiently across networks of nerves and to the brain. Bilingualism promotes the integrity of white matter as we age. It gives us more neurons to use, and it strengthens or maintains the connections between them so that communication can happen optimally.

When the brains of bilingual individuals who have suffered neurodegeneration are examined, their brains look damaged. From their brain scans one might think these people should be more forgetful, or they should’t be coping as well as they are. But this is not the case. A bilingual brain can compensate for brain deterioration by using alternative brain networks and connections when original pathways have been destroyed. Researchers call this theory “cognitive compensation” and conclude that it occurs because bilingualism promotes the health of both gray and white matter.

A continuing theme of the healthy memory blog is that memory health is dependent on staying cognitively active. We need to be continually learning throughout our lifetimes. This provides not only for memory health, but also for a more fulfilling life. As was described in the preceding paragraph, the brain can compensate for brain deterioration by using alternative brain networks and connections when original pathways have been destroyed. As has been described in many previous healthy memory blog posts that autopsies have been done of people whose brains were full of the neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaque, which are the defining features for a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, but who never had any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms of the disease.

Bezos Pledges $2 Billion to Aid Homeless Families

September 21, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the first part of a title of an article by Abha Bhattarai and Christian Davenport in the 14 Sep 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The remainder of the title is “launch preschool network.” Bezos is the world’s richest man and the founder of amazon.com and also the owner of the Washington Post. He is beginning an initial commitment of $2 billion to create what he is calling the Day One Fund. Bezos said, “We know for a fact that if a kid falls behind it’s really, really hard to catch up. If you can find somebody a leg up when they’re 2, 3 or 4 years old, by the time they get to kindergarten or first grade, they’re much less likely to fall behind. You’re really improving their lives.”

This announcement comes a few weeks after the first major political contribution from Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie—a $10 million gift to a super PAC focused on electing veterans to public office. In January, he said he would donate $33 million to a scholarship fund for young “dreamers,” immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

Kyle Caldwell, executive director of the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, MI., said “As an individual commitment, $2 billion is pretty high, but it’s not in the league of a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which last year had a $50.7 billion endowment. But this is part of a wave we’re seeing within Silicon Valley, where a number of successful entrepreneurs are looking at philanthropy to have a greater impact.

In 2010, Warren Buffet along with Bill & Melinda Gates created the Giving Pledge, which calls on billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to charity. Nearly 200 people from 22 countries have signed on, including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Carl Icahn, T. Boone Pickens, and Ted Turner.

Kahneman and Identity Based Politics

September 3, 2018

This post was a motivated by an article titled “People Don’t Vote on the Issues. They vote on their identifies” by Kwame Anthony Appiah in the Outlook section of the 2 Sep 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The electronic version has a picture of two men at a Trump rally wearing t-shirts that read “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat.” As the article points out, these t-shirts at a rally for a Republican president are truly remarkable. Historically, the Republican Party has been pointedly anti-Russian. But Trump is now the Republican nominee and he is changing the Republican party in a frightening manner.

It is easy to see why Trump is pro-Russian. He has been doing business with the Russians since the 1970s. Today, most, if not all, of his financing comes from Russia. So it is easy to understand why he is so pro-Russian. What is difficult to understand is why Republicans are supporting him and his pro-Russian views. And one should wonder, regardless of the results of the Mueller investigation, whether an American President should be financially dependent on the Russians.

Russia might no longer be a Communist country, but it is a de facto dictatorship led by Putin that can most accurately be described as a kleptocracy. Putin used the Russian mafia and fears of terrorism into creating this kleptocracy. Given the support provided Trump by certain multi-billionaires in the United States, one wonders whether there is an effort to turn the United States into a kleptocracy.

It is, however, easy to see how Trump garnered popularity and eventually the nomination of the Republican Party. Although he did not win the popular vote, the distorted vote that determined his electoral college win was apparently due to the areas of the country more governed by identity based politics than by issue based politics. Trump used identity based politics, the identity being white people. After all, his core base constitutes of nazis and white-supremacists. Trump has created fears of Mexicans and other latinos and of moslems that have no basis in fact. But they constitute clear identities against which to fight. Hitler used this tactic successfully.

So where does Kahneman come in here? Understand that HM is using Kahneman’s two process view of cognition to make this argument. In Nobel Lauerate Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition. System 1, intuition, is our normal mode of processing and requires little or no attention. System 2, commonly referred to as thinking, requires our attention. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1. When we encounter something contradictory to what we believe, the brain sets off a distinct signal. It is easier to ignore this signal and to continue System 1 processing. To engage System 2 requires attentional resources to attempt to resolve the discrepancy and to seek further understanding.

To put Kahneman’s ideas into the vernacular, System 2 involves thinking. System 1 is automatic and requires virtually no cognitive effort. Emotions are a System 1 process, as are identity based politics. Politics based on going with people who look like you requires no thinking yet provides social support.

Much research has shown that the majority of voters know little substantively about whom and what they are voting on. Try asking typical males who their representatives are. The results are likely to be depressing. But ask him about sports and he is likely to go on and on. He’ll tell your what trades his teams should make and what prospects they should draft. The reality is that he is better prepared to be the general manager of one of his teams than to be a citizen in the United States.

The problem is that good political decisions require System 2 processing, something that most are not wont to do. So voters need to be asked, perhaps prompted, about their needs, and then to explain what needs to be done politically to address these needs. There are code words, like “socialism” to immediately cut off debate. In these cases, the response should be that I have no beliefs, but rather I am searching for policies that are likely to effectively address problems. Evidence should be used, such as every other advanced country provides health care for all its citizens. These are single payer systems. Their health care costs are much less than the United States, but the results of their programs are vastly superior to those in the United States. And they do not have people declaring bankruptcy because of health care costs.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

On the Internet, Americans are Far More Interested in Neo-Nazis than Islamists

August 25, 2018

On the Internet, Americans are Far More Interested in Neo-Nazis than Islamists

This post is based on an article by Joby Warrick titled “ISIS proves more resilient online than on the ground” in the 20 August 2018 issue of the Washington Post. During a three-month test period last year, Americans were roughly 10 times more likely to search for information related to joining or supporting violent groups on the far right than about the Islamic State and other jihadist groups. In Arkansas, it was 14.98 more likely for people to search for violent far-right content. Alaska had the lowest likelihood, 3.82 times, of people searching for violent, far-right content.

These results make sense as Trump’s base consists of Nazis and White Supremacists, so these neo-Nazis sites are of more interest than Islamist sites. Think of the irony of this. Trump’s base consists of people with interests inimical to the cited States.

Science Explains the World of Manafort and Gates

August 22, 2018

This post is based on an article by William Wan in 18 August 2018 its of the Washington Post. The article asks the question are rich people more likely to lie, cheat, and steal?

This is a timely question as Paul Manafort’s trial has revealed details of his alleged crimes: defrauding banks out of tens of millions of dollars, evading taxes by stashing huge sums in offshore accounts and using riches earned through unregistered word for governments to buy $15,000 ostrich and python jackets. Rick Gates, Manafort’s deputy testified about the small fortune he spent on globe-trotting infidelities. And last week, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) was charged with insider trading. Scandals have shown Trump’s Cabinet members flouting government rules and ethics for private jet rides $31,000 dining table sets, $43,000 soundproof booths and questionable business trips abroad.

Dasher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkely has spent decades studying wealth, power, and privilege. He said, “To researchers who study wealth and power, it’s dismaying but not surprising, because it tracks so closely with our findings. The effect of power is sadly one of the most reliable laws of human behavior.” Six years ago, Keltner and a then graduate student in his lab, Paul Piff, published influential innovative research that confirmed many of our worst assumption about the rich and the corrupting power of wealth.

In one study, the researchers stationed themselves at a busy intersection with four-way stop signs and tracked the model of every car whose driver cut off others instead of waiting their turn. People driving expensive cars—like a brand-new Mercedes—were four times more likely to ignore right-of-way laws than those in cheap cars like an old beat-up Honda. Keltner said, “ It told us that there’s something about wealth and privilege that makes you feel like you’re above the law, that allows you to treat others like they don’t exist.”

Next, they had a researcher play a pedestrian trying to cross at a crosswalk and tracked which cars stopped as the law requires and which blew right past him. Every one of the cheapest cars stopped, while half of the expensive cars ignored the pedestrian in the crosswalk, many even making eye contact. Pedestrians need to be aware of this study. It could save their lives.

Religious leaders have been issuing warnings throughout the ages about the corrupting effects of wealth and power. Buddha gave up the rich life of a prince for enlightenment (and found it!). Jesus warned his disciples a camel would have an easier time squeezing through the eye of a needle than a rich man trying to get into God’s kingdom.

In the past few decades, a growing body of psychology research has tried to capture and measure the exact effect of wealth and behavior and morality. This research has shown the rich cheat more on their taxes. They cheat more on their romantic partners. The wealthy and better-educated are more likely to shoplift (HM finds this quite surprising). They are more likely to cheat on games of chance. They are often less empathetic. In studies of charitable giving, it is often the lower-income households that donate higher proportions of their income than middle-class and many upper-income folk.

Keltner and Piff in their 2015 paper found the rich are more likely to literally take candy from children. In that experiment, they first asked 129 subjects to compare their finances with people who had either more or less money. Then they give their subjects a jar of candy and told them the sweets were intended for children in a nearby lab but they could take some if they wanted. Those who felt richer after comparing their finances to poorer people took significantly more candy for themselves.

The findings build on similar research in recent years that suggest wealth and power strip people of their inhibitions, increase risk taking and feelings of entitlement and invulnerability. At the same time, power makes people less empathetic and able to see others’ perspectives.

Adam Galinsky of the Columbia Business School says, “Wealth is basically a mechanism for power and power has a freeing effect on people. It takes away the constraints of society and frees people to act according to their dominant desires.” His experiments have explored how power often propels people’s actions. In some cases, those desires may be altruistic or helpful to society, so power heightened those goals and can give rise to effective philanthropies. Often, however, power leads to self-serving behaviors unrestrained by the usual concerns over rules or the consequences for others.

Because much of the psychological research into wealth and power is relatively new, many of the findings are still being tested and need to be confirmed by replication, researchers say. Michael Kraus, a social psychologist at Yale’s School of Management says, “I wouldn’t say these questions are settled. There are disagreements about the exact effect of wealth on ethics and how large the effect is.” But the research has never seen such booming interest and momentum, with the growing inequality in America and a multimillionaire born into wealth in the White House.

Kraus said, “There’s a lot of reasons we should care about the ethics of wealthy people. Even if research found that they were no more unethical as anyone else, their influence on the world is so much greater. If someone like me steals something, it only affects a handful of people. But if someone like Manafort steals or lies or cheats it affects so many more people. There are foreign governments and banks involved. You start getting into that area where it can affect the whole country and the course of democracy.”

HM thinks that this discussion ignored an extremely important variable, and that is differences in individuals. There are billionaires like Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates who are giving away their fortunes. They do not believe in inherited wealth, which is particularly pernicious. And the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is using the tools of operations research to maximized the benefits of their giving. We need to learn how to produce more rich people to pursue the paths of these three outstanding individuals.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fascism in on the March Again: Blame the Internet

August 11, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Timothy Snyder in the Outlook Section of the 27 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The hope was that the internet would connect people and spread liberty around the world. The opposite appears to have happened. According to Freedom House, ever year since 2005 has seen a retreat in democracy and an advance of authoritarianism. The year 2017, when the Internet reached more than half the world’s population, was marked by Freedom House as particularly disastrous. Young people who came of age with the Internet care less about democracy and are more sympathetic to authoritarianism that any other generation.

Moreover, the Internet has become a weapon of choice for those who wish to spread authoritarianism. Russia’s president and its leading propagandism both cite a fascist philosopher, Ivan Ilyin, who believed that factuality was meaningless. In 2016 Russian Twitter bots spread messages designed to discourage some Americans from voting and encourage others to vote for Russia’s preferred presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Britain was substantially influenced by bots from beyond its borders. In contrast, Germany’s democratic parties have agreed not to use bots during political campaigns. The only party to resist the idea was the extreme right Alternative fur Deutschland, which was helped by Russia’s bots in last year’s elections.

Mr. Snyder writes, “Modern democracy relies upon the notion of a “public space” where, even if we can no longer see all our fellow citizens and verify facts together, we have institutions such as science and journalism that can provide going references for discussion and policy. The Internet breaks the line between the public and private by encouraging us to confuse our private desires with the actual state of affairs. This is a constant human tendency. But in assuming that the Internet would make us more rather than less rational, we have missed the obvious danger: that we can now allow our brokers to lead us into a world where everything we would like to believe is true.

The explanation that the healthy memory blog makes is Nobel Lauerate Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition. System 1, intuition, is our normal mode of processing and requires little or no attention. System 2, commonly referred to as thinking, requires our attention. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1. When we encounter something contradictory to what we believe, the brain set off a distinct signal. It is easiest to ignore this signal and to continue our System 1 processing. To engage System 2 requires our attentional resources to attempt to resolve the discrepancy and to seek further understanding. The Internet is a superhighway for System 1 processing, with few willing to take the off ramps to System 2 to learn new or different ways of thinking.

Mr. Snyder writes, “Democracy depends upon a certain idea of truth: not the babel of our impulses, but an independent reality visible to all citizens. This must be a goal; it can never be fully achieved. Authoritarianism arises when this goal is openly abandoned, and people conflate the truth with what they want to hear. Then begins a politics of spectacle, where the best liars with the biggest megaphones win. Trump understands this very well. As a businessman he failed, but as a politician he succeeded because he understood how to beckon desire. By deliberately speaking unreality with modern technology, the daily tweet, he outrages some and elates others, eroding the very notion of a common world of facts.

“To be sure Fascism 2.0 differs from the original. Traditional facts want to conquer both territories and selves; the Internet will settle for your soul. The racist oligarchies that are emerging behind the Internet today want you on the couch, outraged or elated, it doesn’t matter which, so long as you are dissipated at the end of the day. They want society to be polarized, believing in virtual enemies that are inside the gate, rather than actually marching or acting in the physical world. Polarization directs Americans at other Americans, or rather at the Internet caricatures of other Americans, rather than at fundamental problems such as wealth inequality or foreign interference in democratic elections. The Internet creates a sense of “us and them” inside the country and an experience that feels like politics but involves no actual policy.”

To be sure, Trump is a Fascist. His so-called “base” consists of nazis and white supremacists. His playbook is straight from Joseph Goebbels with the “big lie” and the repetition of that “big lie.”

A Healthier Heart and a Sharper Mind

July 29, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Tara Bahrampour in the 23 July 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The article begins, “Research presented Wednesday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Chicago found that at-risk people whose blood pressure was kept lower than the recommended level had a significant reduction in mild cognitive impair (MCI), the precursor to dementia/

The trial compared two strategies for maintaining blood pressure for people with an average age of around 68 with increased cardiovascular risk. One group received the standard care strategy at the time targeting systolic blood pressure (taken when the heart beats) to below 140 millimeters of mercury. The other group received the same medication, but in higher doses, with a target blood pressure of 120 mm or less.

Memory tests were also administered to assess participants for probable dementia and early memory loss. The group receiving the intensive approach had a 19% lower rate of new cases of MCI.

A subgroup was also assessed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for white matter brain lesions that are associated with a higher risk of stroke, dementia and higher mortality. While both groups showed an increase in white matter lesions, the increase was significantly less in the intensive treatment group.

In the United States the rate of Alzheimer’s dementia is 10% for people 65 and older.

The researchers were excited with the results showing that the lowering of blood pressure with medication could also reduce the probability of dementia.

What the article does not mention is that blood pressure can be reduced without medication. Meditation can reduce blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen consumption. Research has also shown how meditation affected the body’s 40,000 genes and found that those who regularly meditated induced anti-oxidation and anti-inflammatory changes that counteracted the effects of stress on the body. There have been many healthymemory posts on meditation, the first being “The Relaxation Response.” The post provides instruction for getting the relaxation response, and benefits can be realized by doing this for 10 to 20 minutes once or twice a day.

Nor does the article mention that many have died with their brains full of the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles that are the defining characteristic of Alzheimer’s, but who never exhibited any behavioral or cognitive symptoms while they were living.

The reason offered for this fact is that these people had built up a cognitive reserve, presumably through certain types of cognitive activity. The healthy memory blog argues that growth mindsets, which by definition include Kahneman’s Type 2 processing, along with a healthy lifestyle and meditation, provide a means of building a cognitive reserve. These practices can lead to a more fulfilling life free of dementia. There are many, many healthymemoy blog posts on these topics.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Surprise, Maryland

July 26, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article in the 23 July 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The subtitle is “Your election contractor has ties to Russia. And other states also remain vulnerable to vote tampering.” Senior officials have revealed that an Internet technology company with which the state contracts to hold electronic voting information is connected to a Russia oligarch who is “very close’ to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Maryland leaders did not know about the connection until the FBI told them.

Maryland is not a slacker on election security; it is regarded as being ahead of the curve relative to other states. So if even motivated states can be surprised, what about the real laggards?

Maryland’s exposure began when it chose a company to keep electronic information on voter registration, election results and other extremely sensitive data. Later this company was purchased by a firm run by a Russian millionaire and heavily invested in by a Kremlin-connected Russian billionaire. Currently the state does not have any sense that this Russia links have had any impact on the conduct of its elections, and it is scrambling to shore up its data handling before November’s voting. But the fact that the ownership change’s implications could have gone unnoticed by state officials is cause enough for concern. The quality of contractors that states employ to handle a variety of election-related tasks is just one of may concerns election-security experts have identified since Russia’s manipulation in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Maryland has pushed to upgrade its election infrastructure. It rented new voting machines in advance of the 2016 vote to ensure that they have left a paper trail. State election officials note that they hire an independent auditor to conduct a parallel count based on those paper records, with automatic recounts if there is a substantial discrepancy between the two tallies. Observers note that the state could still do better, for example by conducting manual post-election audits as well as electronic ones. But Maryland is still far more responsible than many others.

Recently Politico’s Eric Geller surveyed 40 states about how they would spend new federal election-security funding Congress recently approved. Here are some depressing results: “only 13 states said they intend to use the federal dollars to buy new voting machines. At least 22 said they have no plans to replace their machines before election—including all five states that rely solely on electronic voting devices, which cybersecurity experts consider a top vulnerability. In addition almost no states conduct robust statistic-based post-election audits to look for evidence of tampering after the fact. And fewer than one-third of states and territories have requested a key type of security review from the Department of Homeland Security.”

Moreover, Congress seems uninterested in offering any more financial help, despite states’ glaring needs. Federal lawmakers, who are Republican, last week nixed a $380 million election-security measure.
So do not waste your time watching voter predictions and wonder whether there will be a “blue wave” to save the country from Trump. Russian election interference is guaranteed, and Trump, understandably is taking no action. So if there is no blue wave, Democrats will cry interference. If there is a “blue wave” Trump would claim interference even though such interference by Russia would make no sense, although Trump has already made this assertion. Mixed results and widespread dissatisfaction are the likely result. And perhaps a Constitutional Crisis.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Microsoft Calls for Regulation of Facial Recognition

July 14, 2018

The title of this post is that same as the title of an article by Drew Harwell in 12 July 2018 issue of the Washington Post. Readers of the healthy memory blog should know that there have been many posts demanding data on the accuracy of facial recognition software to include a party responsible for assessing its accuracy. As has been mentioned in many posts, the accuracy of facial recognition software on television, especially on police shows, is misleading. And the ramifications of erroneous classifications can be serious.

The article begins, “Microsoft is calling for government regulation on facial-recognition software, one of its key technologies, saying such artificial intelligence is too important and potentially dangerous for tech giants to police themselves. This technology can catalog your photos, help reunite families or potentially be misused and abused by private companies and public authorities alike. The only way to regulate this broad use is for the government to do so.”

There’s been a torrent of public criticism aimed at Microsoft, Amazon and other tech giants over their development and distribution of the powerful identification and surveillance technology—including their own employees.

Last month Microsoft faced widespread calls to cancel its contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which uses a set of Microsoft cloud-computing tools that also include facial recognition. In a letter to chief executive Satya Nadella, Microsoft workers said they “refuse to be complicit” and called on the company to “put children and families about profits.” The company said its work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is limited to mail, messaging and office work.

This a rare call for greater regulation from a tech industry that has often bristled at Washington involvement in its work. The expressed fear is that government rules could hamper new technologies of destroy their competitive edge. The expressed fear is not real if the government does the testing of new technologies. This does no hamper new technologies, rather it protects the public from using inappropriate products.

Face recognition is used extensively in China for government surveillance. The technology needs to be open to greater public scrutiny and oversight. Allowing tech companies to set their own rules is an inadequate substitute for decision making by the public and its representatives.

Microsoft is moving more deliberately with facial recognition consulting and contracting work and has turned down customers calling for deployment of facial-recognition technology in areas where we’ve concluded that there are greater human rights and risks.

Regulators also should consider whether police or government use of face recognition should require independent oversight; what legal measures could prevent AI from being used for racial profiling; and whether companies should be forced to post noticed that facial-recognition technology is being used in public places.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

My Problem was that I was Too Nice

July 13, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the first part of a title in an article by Jamil Zaki in the Health and Science Section of the 20 March 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The second part of the title is “Now I realize the downside of being polite.”

The author is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Stanford University. He asked the question he poses to everyone who graduates from his lab: “What could I have done better?” The departing student replied, “You’re too nice.” When asked to elaborate he said, “you’re so nice to everyone here that we don’t really know what you think about anyone. Some people end up assuming the worst.”

The author concluded that he was addicted to niceness. He wrote, “Not everyone shares my addiction. In fact, our culture is in the middle of a politeness shortage. Imagine a reader from five years ago leafing through today’s Washington Post. She’d probably be shocked at the vulgarity of our national conversation. Social media is overrun with bullying. CNN warns parents they might want to clear the room of small children before the president’s remarks are broadcast. Norms are steadily shredded. The psychologist Steven Pinker claims that modern society is built on a foundation of ‘civilizing’: people’s adherence to common decency. If he’s right, our house is teetering.”

The author has been studying empathy for the past dozen years, the ability to share and understand each others feelings. Empathy comes in different flavors, including distress, an aversion to seeing others in pain. And concern, a desire to improve their well-being. He notes that the pieces of empathy often split apart. He says to imagine a friend about to launch an ill-advised business adventure or to marry someone you know to be unfaithful. If you tell him the bad news, he’ll feel hurt, but he’ll also have information to make wiser choices. Empathetic distress motivates us to avoid causing suffering at all costs, but it can also encourage comforting lies over difficult truths. This is polite, but not kind. If we truly care for people, we often must steer them into hard feelings.

The author writes, “If there is one place that politeness seems useful, it’s the gulf between Us and Them into which our country has fallen. Political discourse increasingly resembles a live-action YouTube comment section; to claw our way back toward stability, niceness seems like a crucial starting point. In the fall Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch preached the importance of politeness, joining a chorus of similar voices from across the political spectrum.”

The author concludes, “I now realized my politeness stemmed from a shallow empathy. I strove to guard others—and probably myself—from pain rather than to enrich us. My question for this year: Instead of doing no harm, how can I do the most good?

Rudeness is as Contagious as a Bad Cold

July 12, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the second half of the title of an article by William Wan in the 27 June 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The first half of the title of the article is “Study’s finding for an age of rage:

Trevor Foulk, who studies organizational behavior at the University of Maryland, likens rudeness to the common cold: It’s contagious. He said, “When it comes to incivility, there’s often a snowballing effect. The more you see rudeness, the more likely you are to perceive it from others and the more likely you are to be rude yourself to others.”

A 2016 study by Christopher Rosen, an organizational scientist at the University of Arkansas, tracked employees over the course of their work days. He and fellow researchers found that individuals who experienced a perceived insult earlier in the day would later strike back at coworkers. Using psychological tests, the researchers linked that reaction to lowered levels of self-control. Rosen said, “When someone is uncivil to you, it forces you to spend a lot of mental energy trying to figure out what.s going on, what caused the rudeness, what it means. All that thinking lessens your capacity for impulse control. So you become more prone to be rude to others…People, in a way, ‘pay it forward.’”

Foulk and others in a series of experiments showed that the more people witness and experiences rudeness, the more they are predisposed to interpret an action as rude and then act toward others in rude ways. Foulk said, “Rudeness is interesting in that it’s often ambiguous and open to interpretation. If someone punches you, we would all agree that it’s abusive. But if someone comes up to you and says in a neutral voice ‘nice shoes,’ is that an insult? Is it sarcasm or something else?’ The more someone has witnessed rudeness, the more likely you are to interpret ‘nice shoes’ as deliberately rude.’

In one study, workers were shown videos every morning before work. On the mornings when those videos included an uncivil interaction, the workers were more likely to interpret subsequent interactions throughout their day as rude.

Foulk found in another study on negotiations that if someone experiences rudeness from a person on the opposing side, the next person they negotiate with is highly likely to perceive them as rude also. Even when the two negotiations took place seven days apart, the contagion effect was just as strong.

In a summary of his findings Foulk wrote, “What is so scary about this effect is that it’s an automatic process—it takes place in a part of your brain that you are not aware of, can’t stop, and can’t control.”

The article continues “But perhaps most worrisome is the effect of all this growing incivility. Mounting research shows rudeness can cause employees to be chronically distracted, less productive, and less creative. Researchers have shown how incivility can lower trust, spark feelings of anger, fear, and sadness, and cause depression. One study found increased incivility at work had personal-life implications, such as a drop in marital satisfaction.”

In 2016 and 2017 two studies found that doctors and nurses in neonatal intensive care units who were scolded by an actress playing the mother of a sick infant performed much more poorly than those who did not—even misdiagnosing the infant’s condition.
One of the authors of this study told the Wall Street Journal, “The results were scary. The teams exposed to rudeness gave the wrong diagnosis, didn’t resuscitate or ventilate appropriately, didn’t communicate well, gave the wrong medications and made other serious mistakes.”

Rosen made the following suggestion. “When you experience incivility, it’s important to take a step back and not act on your impulses. Do things that help you recover your ability to self-regulate, like exercise or taking a break. Our research shows people are often not even aware of their reactions and the way they spread negativity. Some of these recommendation for how to stop it are easier said than done.”

It is our misfortune that President Trump is notorious for his uncivil behavior, and it seems that this uncivil behavior has become an epidemic.

Remember This Post on July 4

July 3, 2018

This post is inspired by an article in the 7 June 2008 issue of the Washington Post by Jeff Stein titled “U.N. study: Safety net was failing before Trump’s election.” The subtitle is “About 40 million Americans live in poverty, report finds.” This report is a product of the United Nations. The report says that among countries in the developed world, America already has the highest rates of youth poverty, infant mortality, incarceration, income inequality and obesity. The reports says Americans “live shorter and sicker lives compare to those living in all other rich democracies.”

About 40 million Americans live in poverty, and 18.5 million live in “extreme poverty.” And that 5 million Americans live “in Third World conditions of absolute poverty.”

Every year about 11 million Americans cycle through a jail or prison every year, with at least 730,000 people incarcerated “on any given day.”

In 2016, a “schockingly high” number of children were living in poverty, about 13.3 million, or 18% of them, with government spending on children near the bottom of the international pack.

Philip Alston blames the American political system for these failings, arguing it deprives African Americans of voting rights, unfairly sends the homeless to jail, and has failed to provide health care and housing programs for its citizens. He writes, “The persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power. With political will, it could be readily eliminated.”

Obviously, Trump is not entirely responsible for all these conditions. Some of the statistics in the early stages of his administration looked good. But it needs to be remembered, that there is a time lag in economic effects. So it is likely that Trump benefited from some of Obama’s policies. But it is also clear that Obama and a non-cooperating Congress were responsible for the general conditions that existed when Trump took over. It is also clear that Trump’s policies will further worsen these already deplorable statistics.

The statement we hear on the Fourth is that the United States is the freest and and best country in the world. The truth is that we are not. We lag far behind other free countries in terms of human welfare. Alston predicts that Trump’s policies will weaken a safety net that has already made America among the stingiest in the world.

Jamila Michener of Cornell University says “my expectation is most if not all these outcomes will look worse post-Trump than they did pre-Trump.

HM has heard Christians say that we are an Christian country. How can such conditions exist in a truly Christian country?

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Damage Done by Forcibly Separating Children from Parents

June 19, 2018

Please excuse this interruption in the series of the posts on “The Upside of Stress” (between the 11th and 10th Posts), but current events justify this interruption. There have been a number of healthy memory posts stressing the importance of mothers loving their children and the damage done by indifferent mothers. The notion advanced by HM is that that most of the negative incidents typically reported in the news probably are the result of children who lacked a loving mother. The forceful separation of children that is now occurring at our current borders is even worse. This current post is based primarily on an article by William Wan in the 19 June 2018 issue of the Washington Post titled “When children are forcibly separated from parents, ‘‘The effect is catastrophic.’”

Here is what happens inside children when they are forcibly separated from their parents. Their heart rate goes up. Their body releases a flood of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline. These stress hormones can start killing off dendrites, which are the little branches in brain cells that transmit messages. Eventually this stress can start killing off neurons and, especially in young children, wreaking dramatic and long-term damage, both psychological and to the physical structure to the brain.

A pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School said, “The effect is catastrophic, There’s so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science they would never do this.”

This is why pediatricians, psychologists, other health experts, as well as other caring human beings, have been led to vehemently oppose the Trump administration’s new border crossing policy, which has separated more than 2,000 immigrant children from their parents in recent weeks.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association have all issued statements representing more than 250,000 doctors in the United States against this new, intolerable policy. Nearly 7,700 mental health professionals and 142 organizations have also signed a petition urging Trump to end the policy. The petition reads, “To pretend that separated children do not grow up with the shrapnel of this traumatic experience embedded in their minds is to disregard everything we know about child development, the brain, and trauma,” the petition reads.

Nelson has studied the neurological damage from child-parent separation, work which he has said has reduced him to tears. In 2000 the Romanian government invited Nelson and a team of researchers into its state orphanages to advise them on a humanitarian crisis created by dictator Nicolae Ceausescu’s policies.

At these orphanages, Nelson said, “we saw kids rocking uncontrollably and hitting themselves, hitting their heads against walls. They had to make up a rule as researchers that they would never cry in front of children. As the children grew older Nelson and his colleagues began finding disturbing differences in their brains. Those separated from their parents at a young age had much less white matter, which is largely made up of fibers that transmit information throughout the brain, as well as much less gray matter, which contains the brain-cell bodies that process information and solve problems. The activity in the children’s brains was much lower than expected. Nelson said, “it’s as though here was a dimmer than had reduced them from a 100-watt bulb to 30 watts.”

The children, who had been separated from their parents in their first two years of life, scored significantly lower on IQ tests later in life. Their fight-or-flight response system appeared permanently broken. Stressful situations that would usually prompt physiological responses in other people, increased heart rate, sweaty palms, would provoke nothing in the children.

What alarmed the researchers most was the duration of the damage. Unlike other parts of the body, most cells in the brain cannot renew or repair themselves.

“The reason child-parent separation has such devastating effects is because it attacks one of the most fundamental and critical bonds in human biology.

From the time they are born, children emotionally attach to their caregiver and vice versa, said Lisa Fortuna, medical director for child and adolescent psychiatry at Boston Medical Center. Skin-to-skin contact for newborns, for example, is critical to their development, research shows. ‘Our bodies secrete hormones like oxytocin on contact that reinforces the bond, to help us attach and connect,’ Fortuna said.

A child’s sense of what safety means depends on that relationship. And, without it, the parts of the brain that deal with attachment and fear, the amygdala and hippocampus, develop differently. The reason such children often develop PTSD later in life is that these neurons start firing irregularly. ‘The part of their brain that sorts things into safe or dangerous doesn’t work like it’s supposed to. Things that are not threatening, seem threatening.’

Research on Aboriginal children in Australia who were removed from their families also showed long-lasting effects. They were nearly twice as likely to be arrested or criminally charged as adults, 60% more likely to have alcohol abuse problems and more than twice as likely to struggle with gambling.

In China, where 1 in 5 children live in villages without their parents, who migrate for work, studies have shown that those ‘left behind’ children have markedly higher rates of anxiety and depression later in life.

Other studies have shown separation leading to increased aggression, withdrawal and cognitive difficulties.

Luis H. Mayas, a psychiatry professor at the University of Texas said “if you take the moral, spiritual, even political aspect out of it, from a strictly medical and scientific point of view what we as a country are doing to these children at the border is unconscionable . The harm our government is now causing will take a lifetime to undo.’”

The justification provided by several in the Trump administration was that they were enforcing the law. This is reminiscent of Nazis running the concentration camps killing jews claiming that they were only following orders.

Remember that at Charlottesville Trump was given several opportunities to denounce the nazi demonstrators. HIs lack of response was understandable when one considers that nazis are part of Trump’s base.

It’s True, Trump Doesn’t Lie

June 5, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of a column by Dana Milbank in the 30 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The column begins with examples of lies told by Donald Trump. They will not be repeated because everyone has heard these lies many, many times. Milbank writes, “Calling him a liar lets him off easy. A liar, by definition, knows he’s not telling the truth. Trump’s behavior is worse: With each day it becomes more obvious he can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy. It’s an illness, and it’s spreading.

There is a name of the illness that Trump is experiencing and that is the delusional disorder. The test that would confirm this disorder involves hooking him up to a polygraph (lie detector). If documented lies were not detected, that would confirm that he has the delusion disorder. This means that Trump has lost touch with reality. And this is truly frightening with the President who is supposed to have control of the nuclear football (let’s hope that that is wrong). Milbank writes, “Trump’s not a liar. He’s a madman.” Frankly, it does not matter whether Trump has this disease or not. Trump does not care about objective truth, and in his version of reality, what is true is whatever benefits him at the moment.

What is also of concern is what neuroscientist Tali Sharot noted that people “may sensitize to the president’s falsehoods in the same way that they do to overused perfume, making them less likely to act to correct this pattern of behavior.” This might account for why people who carry water for the president, many Republicans, Rudy Giulani, newscasters, and columnists continue to carry water rather than denounce the president.

It is quite apparent that Trump feels he will be found guilty on a number of counts. However, if he can discredit the Justice Department, that might not matter. Giuliani has already announced that this is the strategy. One can gauge the degree of Trump’s guilt by the number and intensity of his attacks on Mueller and the Justice Department. He might even fire Mueller. This would create a Constitutional Crisis from which the worst result would be Trump declaring himself president for life.

Although we all wish for successful negotiations with North Korea, the outcome of these negotiations are irrelevant to Trump’s guilt. Even if he should be successful and win the Nobel Prize, that should not exonerate him from whatever crimes he might have committed.

Remember that Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize for negotiations he brought about with North Korea. However, it turned out that North Korea had cheated on the treaty that had been negotiated. So even given ostensibly successful negotiations, it will be some time before it can be accurately assessed whether they had been successful.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Heresy of Trumpism

May 25, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of a column by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the 24 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The substance of this column is the motivation for this post. Dionne writes, “Maybe it takes one of the world’s most elitist institutions—a monarch for goodness sake—to provide a view of Christianity rooted rooted not in conservative cultural warfare (or unrelenting support for President Trump) but in and egalitarian love that will ‘let justice roll down like a mighty stream.’”

Dionne continues, “And the Most Rev. Michael Curry, who preached for a royal couple and the world last Saturday, isn’t finished with us yet. On Thursday, a group of Christians will march to the White House for a candle-light vigil inspired by a declaration titled ‘Reclaiming Jesus: A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis.’ The presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, Curry is a prime mover of a statement suffused with a sense of urgency about ‘a dangerous crisis of moral and political leadership at the highest levels of our government.’ While Trump lurks behind almost every paragraph of this passionate assertion of faith, he is never mentioned. This reflects the desire of the endorsers to focus on what it means to proclaim that ‘Jesus is Lord.’ The opening paragraph makes this clear: ‘We believe the soul of the nation and the integrity of faith are now at stake.’”

Dionne continuing further, “At a time when social media and email inboxes bulge with manifestos about the danger posed by Trump, ‘Reclaiming Jesus’ is distinctive; Its vision contrasts sharply with the approach taken by Christians who are invoking religions in apologetics for a president whose actions and policies seem antithetical to almost everything Jesus taught. The Rev. Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical Christian leader and the declaration’s main drafter, credited Curry for encouraging his colleagues to speak out. ‘The two of us talked and prayed about this for months before inviting a group of elders to join us for a retreat on Ash Wednesday to discuss a theological and biblical statement.’”

and further, “Even if its implications about you-know who are unmistakable, the call—issued by 23 prominent Christians with long experience in social struggles—‘wants to be about Jesus, not Trump,’ Wallis said in an interview. The hope is to challenge Christians to reach their political conclusions only after pondering what Jesus and his disciples said. ‘What we believe leads us to what we must reject,’ the signers assert, laying out six core propositions and the conclusions that follow. If ‘ each human being is made in God’s image and likeness,’ then Christians have a duty to repudiate ‘the resurgence of white nationalism and racism in our nation on many fronts, including the highest levels of political leadership.’ A belief that ‘we are one body’ requires opposition to ‘misogyny’ and ‘the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment, and assault of women.’ Because ‘how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ,’ Christians must oppose ‘attacks on immigrants and refugees’ and ‘cutting services and programs for the poor’ accompanied by tax cuts ‘for the rich.”

The final three assertions were especially pointed about the unnamed president. Because ‘truth-telling is central to the prophetic biblical tradition.’ Christians should stand against ‘the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our political and civil life.’ It notes that ‘Christ’s way of leadership is servanthood not domination.’ This means resisting ‘any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule.’

The declaration’s most barbed conclusion from Christ’s injunction to ‘go into all nations making disciples.’ This, the signatories say, demands a rebuke to ‘American First’ as a theological heresy.’

‘While we share a patriotic love for our country, they add, ‘we reject xenophobic or ethnic nationalism that places one nation over others as a political goal.’ This is a testing time for the country as a whole, but the moment presents a particular challenge to the Christian churches.

Trump, after all, won a substantial majority of the vote among white Christians. The battle within Christianity (and not just in the United States) can be defined in many ways. It is at least in part between those who would use faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, to often, race and those who see it as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency—and, yes, as an invitation to love.

The question ‘Who is Jesus?’ has been debated for two millennia. It is starkly relevant now.”

Thus ends, E. J. Dionne’s outstanding column. HM has been waiting for a column such as Dionne’s for quite some time.

To understand this problem, it is important to make a clear distinction between religions and God. Religions are human institutions. To believers, God is a true deity. Religions tend to be catered to particular types of believers. And most promise a quality eternal life. But people should realize that it is God who determines who shall enjoy a quality eternal life. And when one looks at Trump supporters, one wonders how they could possibly be following the dictates of Christ? Dionne’s column makes that pretty clear. People need to read the teachings of Christ rather than listening to certain preachers.

Some churches have told their congregants to vote for Trump so that he would appoint a conservative justice who would be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. One can by sympathetic for people who fear that lives are being lost. But are lives really being lost?

The first point is that lives are not relevant. The issue is the soul. Any hope that eternal life is dependent on biological life is solely mistaken. A suitable means of eternal life is provided by the soul. When HM was a child he would pray,

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep,
If I should die before I ‘wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.

As the Korean War was taking place at this time, he would add
“and bless all the little children in Korea.”

HM did not know this at the time, but he was praying for his future wife.

So it is the soul, not biological life, that it is key.

At this point HM thinks that he is praying to a different God than others who oppose abortion pray to. HM knows that what is essential for the healthy development of a child is a loving and attentive mother. HM also knows the consequences of a child being unloved. The child grows up emotionally and cognitively handicapped. When you read in the paper of the crimes and tragedies that are being committed, the underlying cause is likely to be an unloved child. And to think that there are even those who believe that a woman who is pregnant because she has been raped should be compelled to deliver the child.

HM’s loving and merciful God, being omniscient, knows these facts. HM believes that if a pregnant woman does not think she can be a loving a caring mother, she should get an abortion. He is confident that God is merciful, that the soul will not be lost, and that the soul should find a loving and caring mother.

What is the Key to LeBron James Phenomenal Performance?

May 24, 2018

And the answer is his superior memory. Sally Jenkins captured this in her article, “How is LeBron James always one move ahead? Let’s ask the scientists” in the 18 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. She begins, “Much as his brute-strength shoulders and legs define LeBron James, it’s the stuff in his head that elevates him.”

Ms. Jenkins continues, “Much has been made of James show-offy display of memory in his postgame analysis of Game 1. Replay it and notice not just the accuracy but the detail: in narrating six sequences in proper order, he noted the time on the shot clock, who took each shot and missed what, where the ball was inbounded from, and Jayson Tatum’s use of a Euro-step and right hand on a layup. When he was done, listeners broke into applause.

Zach Hambrick, a cognition-performance expert at Michigan State said, “It’s remarkable, but not surprising.” It is not surprising because there is a strong connection between cognitive science and human performance. Hambrick said, “This is one of the bedrock findings in research on human expertise: that experts have superior memory for information within their domain.”

Research has shown what seems to be “photographic memory” is really extrapolation based on habit-worn paths of knowledge, the vestiges and traces left in the brain by experience.

Adriaan de Groot conducted a famous study of chess players in the 1960s. Pieces were shown on a board for five seconds and then removed. The players were asked to recall what they had seen. Novices remembered poorly. The more expert the players, the more pieces they could recall, and the locations of the pieces. An important point in this study, which is frequently not mentioned, is that the superior recall of the experts only occurred when they pieces on the board were placed in a meaningful manner as would be found in a game between experts. If pieces were arranged in a random, nonsensical manner, the masters’ performance differed little from the novices. If so arranged in a meaningful manner, grandmasters could recall virtually everything.

Masters of games don’t just build static memories, but have a remarkable ability to intuit. Ms. Jenkins writes, “James’s anticipation is inseparable from his memory. Ericsson cited a study of elite soccer players where they were shown a game and the screen was halted at an unpredictable point. The best players remembered not only who was where but also predicted where they would go next.

Ms. Jenkins writes, “Think about the processes involved as James scans the court while moving down the floor. The optic nerves absorb and transmit small peripheral details, then shift to a sudden zoom focus as he throws a glancing no-look bounce pass that hits Kevin Love in the hands mid-stride. Then his attention broadens again stereoscopically to capture the whole floor. The cognitive flexibility to go in and out of those states fluidly is highly learned. And yet little short of magic.”

In 2014 researchers John O’Keefe, Maybritt Moser, and Edvard Moser won the Nobel Prize for explaining how the brain navigates. They answered the questions: How do we perceive position, know where we are, find the way home? O’Keefe found a specific cell in the hippocampus that throws off a signal to mark a specific place. The Mosers found that neurons in the entorhinal cortex fire in fields with regularity. When they drew lines corresponding to the neuronal activity they saw a grid. So LeBron James has a geometric projection in his brain that acts as a computation coordinate system. And so do we, but LeBron makes a much more effective use of this system.

There still is the question as to how James’s brain discriminates among multiple similar memories. Andre Fenton has published a possible answer to this question in the journal “Neuron.” The answer is that the “place” signaling is not so much a constant remapping. Actually it is highly synchronized. Think of the neurons in James’s head as birds. Starlings, “Like a flock of starling that takes on different formations while still maintaining cohesion as a flock,” Fenton said. “He’s not recording like a videotape. He’s not rebuilding. He doesn’t rebuild a picture of what is going on. He watches it evolve continuously and fluidly. There is a flock, and it’s moving down the court, and everybody has a place. All these birds form a structure, and the structure is important. We call it a flock. He calls it a play.”

Fenton says that this is actually what all human beings do. HM would add that this is also what many infra human species do. Our brains learn a series of models over our lives and is constantly making predictions.

Phenoms like James are masters of assessing the likelihoods of things. With an amazingly good set of models and expectations—of opponents, of teammates and of how the ball will move, it can look like total omniscience.

Responsible Tech is Google’s Likely Update

May 9, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Elizabeth Dworkin and Haley Tsukayama in the 8 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. At its annual developer conference scheduled to kick off today in its hometown of Mountain View, CA, Google is set to announce a new set of controls to its Android operating system, oriented around helping individuals and families manage the time they spend on mobile devices. Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai is expected to emphasize the theme of responsibility in his keynote address.

Pichai is trying to address the increased public skepticism and scrutiny of the technology regarding the negative consequences of how its products are used by billions of people. Some of this criticism concerns the addictive nature of many devices and programs. In January two groups of Apple shareholders asked the company to design products to combat phone addiction in children. Apple chief executive Tim Cook has said he would keep the children in his life away from social networks, and Steve Jobs placed strict limitation on his children’s screen time. Even Facebook admitted that consuming Facebook passively tends to put people in a worse mood according to both its internal research as well as academic reports. Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has said that his company didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility to society, in areas such as Russian interference and the protection of people’s data. HM thinks that this statement should qualify as the understatement of the year.

Google appears to be ahead of its competitors with respect to family controls. Google offers Family Link, which is a suite of tools that allows parents to regulate how much time their children can spend on apps and remotely lock their child’s device. FamilyLink gives parents weekly reports on children’s app usage and offers controls to approve the apps kids download.

Google has also overhauled Google news. The new layout show how several outlets are covering the same story from different angles. It will also make it easier to subscribe to news organizations directly from its app store.

HM visited Google’s campus at Mountain View, which was one of the trips of a month long workshop he attended provided. It looks more like a university campus than a technology business. Different people explained what they were working on, and we ate at the Google cafeteria. This cafeteria is large, offers a wide variety of delicious food, and is open 24 hours so staff can snack or dine for free any time they want.

The most talented programmer with whom HM was privileged to work with, left us for an offer at Google. She felt that this was a needed move for her to develop further her already excellent programming skills.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Data is Needed on Facial Recognition Accuracy

May 8, 2018

This post is inspired by an article titled “Over fakes, Facebook’s still seeing double” by Drew Harrell in the 5 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. In December Facebook offered a solution of its worsening coverage of fake accounts: new facial-recognition technology to spot when a phony profile tries to use someone else’s photo. The company is now encouraging its users to agree to expand use of their facial data, saying they won’t be protected from imposters without it. The Post article notes that Katie Greenmail and other Facebook users who consented to that technology in recent months have been plagued by a horde of identity thieves.

After the Post presented Facebook with a list of numerous fake accounts, the company revealed that its system is much less effective than previously advertised: The tool looks only for imposters within a user’s circle of friends and friends of friend’s of friend;s—not the site’s 2 billion-user network, where the vast majority of doppelgänger accounts are probably born.

Before any entity uses facial recognition software, they should be compelled to test the software and describe in detail the sample it was developed on including the size and composition of that sample, and the performance of the software with respect to correct identifications, incorrect identifications, and no classifications. Facebook needed to do this testing and present the results. And Facebook users needed to demand these results from testing before using face recognition. How many time do users need to be burned by Facebook before they terminate interactions with the application?

The way facial recognition is used on police shows on television seems like magic. A photo is taken at night with a cellphone and is tested against a data base that yields the identity of the individual and his criminal record. These systems seem to act with perfection. HM has yet to see a show in which someone in a database is incorrectly identified, and that individual arrested by the police, interrogated and charged. That must happen. But how often and under what circumstances? It seems likely that someone with a criminal record is likely to be in the database and it is possible that the individual whose photo was taken is not in the database. If there is no match will the system make the best match that it can and make a person who is in the database a suspect in the crime?

The public, and especially defense lawyers, need to have quality data on how well these recognition systems perform.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Some People Do Better Exercising at a Slow-Intensity Pace

May 3, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Amanda Loudin in the Health & Science Section of the 1 May 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The article begins by relating the story of Liz Wolfert who rode her bike to work, climbed “14ers”, which are mountains that rise more than 14,000 above seal level, took kung fu lessons and swam. But at the age of 32 she learned that she had elevated blood glucose levels, which is a possible sign of pre-diabetes. Her first instinct was to work out harder and faster, but she soon learned that she needed to do the opposite: slow down and exercise at a much easier pace.

Inigo San Millan is the director of the Sports Performance Program at the University of Colorado Sports Medicine Center in Boulder. He’s an exercise physiologist who works with elite athletes who defines metabolic flexibility as the body’s ability to quickly switch between fat and carbohydrates to fuel exercise. He says that individuals with Type 2 diabetes are metabolically inflexible. They have a poor ability to switch back and forth. On the other hand, endurance athletes have an amazing capacity to do so. Fats and carbohydrates are metabolized in the mitochondria, so mitochondrial function is the key element behind metabolic flexibility.

Elite athletes are incredibly efficient at this task because they have a high level of mitochondrial health. He says, “Mitochondria have the job of metabolizing carbohydrates and fats in order to generate energy. As a result, elite athletes are a population practically devoid of Type 2 diabetes. However, the average person may have a metabolism that is less agile, If you are not metabolically flexible, you have a tough time accessing and burning fat for fuel.”

It turns out that the title of this article is inaccurate. Millan notes that “if you look at the exercise workloads of top athletes, they do 70% to 80% of their training at a low intensity. But out on the streets, we often see the opposite: an out-of-shape population jumping in at high intensity.

After taking her test with San Millan, Liz Wolfert began taking 30-to-60-minute walks several times per week. She said, “After several months of this, I climbed a 14er and realized that it was much easier for me. My body began working more efficiently.

HM is reminded of the famous baseball pitcher, Satchel Paige, who was not only likely the best pitcher in baseball, he certainly was the oldest living pitcher baseball ever had. His attitude toward’s exercising was “to get the juices jangling.”

Walking and meditating are two of HM’s favorite activities. He likes to combine them with meditative walking.

There was another article in the same Health & Science Section by Joel Achenbach titled “Big brains are fine, but upright walking was the key. This article reviewed research supporting the nation that upright walking, not just walking, was the key to the development of a larger brain and the success our species has achieved so far. Walking upright provided us with greater use of our hands and easier face to face communication. These activities led, in turn, to the development of a larger brain.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Two Disturbing Articles About Cognitive Decline

April 22, 2018

There were two disturbing articles about cognitive decline in the Aging Issue in the Health & Science section of the 17 April 2018 issue of the Washington Post. To be fair, two were positive articles. One positive article was by Marlene Cimons titled “Many seniors don’t accept stereotypes about aging.” Becca Levy, a professor of Psychology at Yale did a study that found that older adults with positive beliefs about old age were less likely to develop dementia, including those who are genetically disposed. She writes that negative age stereotypes are communicated to children through many sources, ranging from stories to social media. Individuals of all ages can benefit from bolstering their positive images of aging.

Another positive article was by Debra Bruno titled “Even in their 80s, these seniors set a very active pace.” She lists the following eight lessons:
Have a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning. Healthy memory blog readers should recognize this as “ikigai.”
Celebrate and cultivate the social connections.
Do not be defined by your obstacles.
Money isn’t as important as you think.
Acknowledge that aging can be lonely.
Have a routine.
Location is important.
Death has no dominion

By far the worst article is by Kirk R. Daffner and is titled “How will I know when it’s time to retire?” This fellow is a neurologist and clinical director of an Alzheimer Center. His advice is to have a “Living Will for his Cognitive Skills” Basically he is conceding defeat and writing an article of surrender. I find it both disturbing and frightening that he is both a neurologist and clinical director of an Alzheimer center. He is woefully ignorant of relevant key research on the topic, and this ignorance does not bode well for patients at his center.

Another article, which is somewhat positive, but still disturbing, is by Lauren Neergaard and is titled, “Scientists study brains of “superagers’ to study their unusual memory. His definition of a superego is a useful brain in the body of someone 80 or older. Rogalski’s team has tested more than 1,000 people who thought they’d qualify, and only about 5% pass. Here is the test:listen to 15 unrelated words, and a half-hour later recall at least nine of them. Neergaard says, “That’s the norm for 50-year olds, but on average an 80-year old recalls five. Some superagers remember them all.

Now when HM was in graduate school, he would not have been able to recall the 5 words that Rogalski says is the norm for an 80 year old. To be sure, his superagers, are truly super, but the problem involves people who read this, do poorly, and conclude that they are in the process of cognitive decline. It is ridiculous to write something like this, and for an editor to publish it. It is a damaging statement. First of all, people should never self-test. And even if they did publish the test, the specific protocol for the test needs to be published (how the words are selected, the method of presentation, the study time, and what is done in the inter-test interval).

The following healthy memory blog posts need to be read: The Myth of Cognitive Decline and More on the Myth of Cognitive Decline (Use the healthymemory blog search block). Research has shown through simulations (which is the only way this issue can be practically studied), is that memory processes become slower as we age because those of us who are active learners acquire magnitudes of order more information across time. HM has a colleague in his nineties who appears to be slow and apologizes for “senior moments”. HM cautioned him never to apologize because his apparent slowness was due to the enormous amounts of information he has acquired over his active learning lifetime.

One of the superagers who will be 87 next month and who joined Rogalski’s study two years ago is interesting. His father developed Alzheimer’s in his 50s. He thinks his own stellar memory is bolstered by keeping busy. He bikes, and he plays tennis and water volleyball. He stays social through regular lunches and meetings wit a men’s group he co-founded. Rogalski’s research is interesting and he is finding anatomical information about the brain that is important.

The article also mentions the research that Claudia Kawas is doing at the University of California at Irvine. She studies the oldest old, people 90 and older. Some have Alzheimer’s. Some have maintained excellent memory, and some are in between. She’s found that about 40% of the oldest-old who show no symptoms of dementia during life nonetheless have full-fledged signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains at death, Kawas told the AAAS meeting. The common explanation for this finding is that these individuals had built up a cognitive reserve, presumably due to learning during their lifetimes. Rogalski has also found varying amounts of amyloid and tau, hallmark Alzheimer’s proteins in the brains of some superagers.

Rogalski asks, “Are there modifiable things we can think about today, in our lives to live long and live well.

HM is glad he asked. First of all, live a healthy lifestyle. Then focus on the primary organ, the brain, and how you use it. HM advises to have a growth mindset throughout one’s lifetime. That is to keep learning throughout one’s entire life. HM also has the conjecture, a strongly felt conjecture, that a specific type of processing is important. Nobel prize winning psychologist, Daniel Kahneman presented his two process model of cognition in his best selling book, “Thinking Fast and Slow.” System 1, called intuition, is our normal mode of processing. System 2 is called reasoning and corresponds to what we call thinking. Most learning has a heavy involvement of System 2 processing.

HM also thinks that meditation, in general, and the relaxation response, in particular, is beneficial to both personal and cognitive health. Enter “relaxation response” into the search of the healthy memory block to learn more. Meditation and mindfulness develop the ability to focus one’s attention, which is critically important to effective cognition.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Finland is Up, U.S. Down on the Happiest-country List

April 14, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article in the Health & Science section of the 20 March 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The 2018 World Happiness Report of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) ranked 156 countries according to factors such as GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, social freedom, generosity, and absence of corruption.

Finland was ranked as the world’s happiest country. In spite of their harsh, dark winters, Finns said access to nature, safety, child care, good schools, and free health care were among the best things about their country. Finland rose from fifth place last year to oust Norway from the top spot. The 2018 top 10 are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia. The United States came in at 18th, down from 14th place last year.

All countries in the top ten provide universal health paid for by the government. Moreover, all advanced countries with the exception of the U.S. provide universal health care courtesy of the government. In addition to having poorer health in the United States, people end up in bankruptcy trying to pay for health care. The following two paragraphs are taken directly from the Post article:

“One chapter of the 170-page report is dedicated to emerging health problems such as obesity, depression and the opioid crisis, particularly in the United States, where the prevalence of all three has grown faster than in most other countries.

While U.S. income per capita has increased markedly over the past half-century, happiness has been hit by weakened social support networks, a perceived rise in corruption in government and business, and declining confidence in public institutions.”

Jeffrey Sachs, the head of the SDSN says, “We obviously have a social crisis in the United States: more inequality, less trust, less confidence in government. It’s pretty stark right now. The signs are not good for the U.S. It is getting richer and richer but not getting happier.”

For the first time since the report was started in 2012, the report ranked the happiness of foreign-born immigrants in the 117 countries. Finland also took top honors in this category also. John Halliwell of the University of British Columbia said, “The most striking finding of the report is the remarkable consistency between the happiness of immigrants and the locally born.”

Too Many People Unnecessarily Die of Stroke

April 13, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Kevin Sheth in the Health and Science Section of the 10 April 2018 issue of the Washington Post. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strokes strike nearly 800,00 Americans each year, killing 140,000.

The author of the article is a neurologist who writes, “every single day I am left unable to help victims of stroke, despite an effective treatment in hand, simply because they arrive too late. The blood clots in the brain that cause strokes irreversibly change who we are and burden our families.” As if this personal cost were not enough, the annual cost to society is $34 billion.

For more than two decades, neurologist and emergency providers had a drug available that can restore blood flow to the brain, limiting damage, but only 4% of stroke patients receive the medication. The drug called tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), is a potent blood thinner and was approved as an effective clot-busting treatment by the Food and Drug Administration in1996. However, patients must receive the medication in the first few hours after experiencing a stroke for it to work. So if you have the slightest feeling that you’re having a stroke, quickly go to an emergency room and quickly notify them that you’re having a stroke. Remember that patients with stroke usually don’t have pain, but remember that it is difficult to call 911 if you are alone, paralyzed and unable to speak.

Since 2015, at least eight international trials have shown the efficacy of a mechanical clot-removal procedure that can restore blood flow. The possible window for this treatment can be as long as 24 hours in some patients, but as with tPA, earlier is always better. With 2 million brain cells dying every minute without blood flow, time is brain.

Remember that pain is not usually a symptom of stroke. Here are stroke symptoms taken from the Wikipedia

• hemiplegia and muscle weakness of the face
• numbness
• reduction in sensory or vibratory sensation
• initial flaccidity (reduced muscle tone), replaced by spasticity (increased muscle tone), excessive reflexes, and obligatory synergies.[34]
• altered smell, taste, hearing, or vision (total or partial)
• drooping of eyelid (ptosis) and weakness of ocular muscles
• decreased reflexes: gag, swallow, pupil reactivity to light
• decreased sensation and muscle weakness of the face
• balance problems and nystagmus
• altered breathing and heart rate
• weakness in sternocleidomastoid muscle with inability to turn head to one side
• weakness in tongue (inability to stick out the tongue or move it from side to side)
• aphasia (difficulty with verbal expression, auditory comprehension, reading and writing; Broca’s or Wernicke’s area typically involved)
• dysarthria (motor speech disorder resulting from neurological injury)
• apraxia (altered voluntary movements)
• visual field defect
• memory deficits (involvement of temporal lobe)
• hemineglect (involvement of parietal lobe)
• disorganized thinking, confusion, hypersexual gestures (with involvement of frontal lobe)
• lack of insight of his or her, usually stroke-related, disability
• altered walking gait
• altered movement coordination
• vertigo and or disequilibrium

Remember, not to delay and to seek attention immediately.

How Wikipedia Became the Internet’s Good Cop

April 10, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Noam Cohen in the Outlook Section of the 8 April 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The subtitle is “To combat fake news, tech companies want the wisdom of the crowd.”

Actually it is not only tech companies, but it is everyone who should want the wisdom of the crowd. Moreover, the contributors to the Wikipedia constitute a very smart and intelligent crowd. There is a standard that needs to be reached to remain published in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has sworn off advertising completely. Cohen writes, “When Tim Berners-Lee conceived the web, he imagined that it would look a lot like Wikipedia; that is, “ system in which sharing what you know or thought should be as easy as learning what somewhat else-knew.”

Wikipedia serves as a remedy to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Previous healthy memory posts have written about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The effect describes the phenomenon of people thinking they know much more about a topic than they actually know, compared to the knowledgeable individual who is painfully aware of how much he still doesn’t know about the topic in question. HM experiences this effect practically every time he consults the Wikipedia. He fairly soon becomes somewhat familiar with how much he does not know about the topic, and becomes engaged to remedy this shortcoming. But as the effect describes, the more you learn, typically the more you become aware of how much more there is still to learn.

It is not enough just learning the news of the day. Ultimately, this just results in superficial knowledge. In the Wikipedia, one can read meaningful integrated presentations on different topics. Infrequent trips to the Wikipedia are insufficient. The Wikipedia should become, at least, a daily habit.

The Wikipedia is also an outstanding tool for fostering growth mindsets. The practice of the daily learning of new information is emphasized in the healthy memory blog as being one of the primary means for fostering a healthy memory.

It appears that the Wikipedia has replaced the encyclopedia. In the traditional encyclopedia experts were hired to write about topics. The crowd-sourced Wikipedia provides a more diverse coverage of most topics.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 andhealthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The New Lesson Plan for Elementary School: Surviving the Internet

April 8, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the digital title of an article by Drew Harwell in the 7 April 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The article describe Yolanda Bromfield’s fifth grade digital-privacy class. The lesson was on online-offline balance, so she asked how would they act when they left school and reentered a world of prying websites, addictive phones and online scams. One student answered, “I will make sure that I don’t tell nobody my personal stuff, and be offline for at least two hours every night.”

Author Harwell writes, “Between their math and literacy classes, these elementary school kids were studying up on perhaps one of the most important and least understood school subjects in American—how to protect their brains and survive the big, bad Web.

This course is part of an experimental curriculum designed by Seton Hall University Law School professors and taught by a legal fellow such as Bromfield. This class has been rolled out in recent months to hundreds of children in a dozen classrooms across New York and New Jersey. These classes are free and are folded into kids’ daily schedules and taught in the classrooms where fifth- and sixth-graders typically learn about the scientific method and the food chain. The director of Seton Hall Law’s Institute for Privacy Protection, Gaia Bernstein, who designed the program, said each class included about a half-dozen lessons taught to kids over several weeks, as well as a separate set of leeches of parents concerned about how “their children are disappearing into their screens.”

The program is funded by a $1.7 million grant that was awarded by a federal judge as part of a class-action consumer-protection settlement pending over junk faxes—to teach students about privacy, reputation, online advertising and overuse at the age when their research found that many American kids get their first cell phones when they are 10 years old.

The Seton Hall instructors said they had no interest in teaching kids digital abstinence or in instructing parents how to be the computer police. They conceded that the internet is a fact of life and children always find ways around their parents’ barriers.

The students’ parents are offered separate classes that focus largely on how parents should deal with kid’s overuse. Of course in a world where much of their homework and friendships play out online, it needs to be defined what normal use even looks like. Bernstein said, “What really bothers parents is how they are losing their children, and how family life is changing.

In February the advocacy group Common Sense Media said it would expand a “digital citizenship” curriculum now offered free at tens of thousands of nationwide public schools. This program addresses the topics of self-image, relationships, information literacy and mental well-being. Lesson plans for the program range from kindergarten (“Going Place Safely,” Screen Out the Mean”) to high school (“Taking Perspectives on Cyberbullying,” “Oops! I Broadcast It on the Internet”).

Let us hope that these activities grow and become standards.

Data Lacking for Memory Supplements

April 4, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article from Consumer Reports in the Health and Science Section in the 3 Apr 2018 issue of the Washington Post. According to the Nutrition Business Journal, sales of supplements touted as memory boosters nearly doubled between 2006 and 2015. Unfortunately, according to a review of studies published in December, there’s virtually no good evidence that such products can prevent or delay memory lapses, mild cognitive impairment or dementia in older adults. Moreover, Pieter Cohen, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School says, “some may do more harm than good.”

Fish oils (omega-3 fatty acids); B vitamins such as folate B6 and B12; and ginkgo biloba extract, made from the dried leaves of a ginkgo tree, none of which have demonstrated their benefits. For example, one study published in Lancet Neurology in 2012 found that among 2,854 older adults with memory complaints, those who took ginkgo biloba extract twice a day for five years had no fewer cases of Alzheimer’s than those who took a placebo.

Regarding fish oil, some studies have found that people with diets high in omega-3s—which are found in fatty fish such as salmon—may have a lower risk of dementia. But similar benefits have not been found with supplements. A 2012 review of data on thousands of older adults found that those who took omega—3 fatty acid supplements had no fewer dementia diagnoses or better scores on tests of short-term memory than those who took a placebo.

Nor have B vitamins fared any better. A 2015 review of studies found that supplementation with B6, B12 and/or folic acid failed to slow or reduce the risk of cognitive decline in healthy older adults and did not improve brain function in those with cognitive decline or dementia.

The article states, “Our experts also recommend avoiding branded “memory boosting” blends.”

The article notes that a 2017 Government Accountability Office report analyzed hundreds of ads promoting memory-enhancing supplements and identified 27 making what seemed to be illegal claims about treating or preventing disease such as dementia.

Lon Schneider, professor of psychiatry and the behavioral sciences at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California says, “even legal claims that suggest supplements will improve, boost or enhance your memory don’t have to have any data to justify them.” A statement from the Council on Responsible Nutrition, an industry group responded to the GAO report reads, “Dietary supplements cannot cure, treat or prevent Alzheimer’s, dementia, or any disease.”

Supplements are loosely regulated and some may contain undisclosed ingredients or prescription drugs. Some dangerously interact with medication: For example, ginkgo biloba should never be paired with blood thinners, blood pressure meds, or SSRI antidepressants.

Marvin M. Lipman, Consumer Reports medical adviser says, “Don’t be misled by hype. They are not only a waste of money, but some can also be harmful.”

The article offers three strategies to try instead (which should be familiar to healthy memory blog readers).
“*Do a brain workout. Enhancing reasoning and memory abilities—learning a new language, for instance—might help delay or slow decline. A 10-year trial found that such training (though not computerized “brain games’) can help increase cognitive processing speed an sharpen reasoning skills.

*Exercise your body. In 2011, one study estimated that a million cases of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States were caused by a sedentary lifestyle. Several studies have found that physical activities—walking, weightlifting, yoga, or tai chi, for example—may delay or slow cognitive decline but not prevent it.

*Manage blood pressure. Lowering blood pressure dramatically reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke, which are risk factors for memory loss.”

The Brain and Mindfulness Meditation

April 2, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Bruce Lieberman in the Health & Science section of the 27 March 2018 issue of the Washington Post. His article was based on a recent article in the APS journal Perspectives on Psychological Science (Jan 2018) titled “Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research and Mindfulness and Meditation.” The title should tip off the reader that this article has a bias and it does. Healthymemory blog readers should be aware that there have been many posts on this topic.

The references include only three citations of Davidson, the most prolific and qualified researcher in the area, and only one for Goleman, who provided the incentive for research in this area. There is no reference to Dr. Benson, a physician and researcher at Harvard medical school who documented the benefits of the relaxation response. He also provided guidance and benefits of the relaxation response on Angina Pectoris, Anxiety, Depression, Hypertension, Stress-related infertility, insomnia, Menopausal, Perimenopausal, and Breast Cancer Hot Flashes, Nausea, Pain-General, Pain-Variations, Parkinson’s Disease, Phobias, Premature Aging, Premature Ventricular Contractions and Palpitations, and premenstrual syndrome. He does advise for treatment with a physician, but if the physician is hostile to meditation, then to look for a more accommodating physician. He also documents epigenetic effects in which meditation fosters healthy readouts from one’s genes. These effects are described in the healthy memory blog post “The Genetic Breakthrough—Your Ultimate Mind-Body Connection.”

HM was amazed by the kind and generous response by Dr. Davidson to the “Mind the Hype” article in his following paper in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, (Jan 2018) “Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation.” Dr. Davidson is one of the most conscientious and demanding scientists HM knows.

The “Mind the Hype” article does not cite the book by Goleman and Davidson titled, “Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body.”
This is the most exhaustive review of the literature currently available, and it does indicate how much is known about each topic. Dr. Davidson is his own most severe critic. So the best way to learn about the benefits and current limitations of mindfulness and meditation is to read this book. Short of that, read the numerous healthymemory posts that have been based on this book, along with the other healthy memory blog posts on this topic. Just use the search block for this blog. You can also go to Dr. Davidson’s website, https://centerhealthyminds.org/about/founder-richard-davidson

HM’s concern is that this article in the Washington Post based on this “Mind the Hype” review in the Washington Post will discourage people from meditating, in general, and from trying the relaxation response, in particular. There is much to be gained here and it is difficult imaging any risk.

Go to the healthy memory blog “An Update of the Relaxation Response Update” for guidance on how to do the relaxation response.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

School Shootings Are Rare. We’re Still Terrified

April 1, 2018

The title of this article is identical to the title of an article by David Ropek in the Outlook Section of the 11 March 2018 Washington Post. Mr. Ropek writes, “the murder of children in their classrooms has come to seem common a regular feature of modern American life, and our fears so strong that we are certain the next horror is sure to come not long after the last.

According to the Education Report approximately 50 million children attend public schools for around 180 days per year . Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, and a more recent shooting in Birmingham, AL. This means that the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 is about 1 in 614,000,000.

Although the article’s author does not mention Kahneman’s Availability, heuristic, this is what underlies the fear. According to Kahneman, it is information that is available and accessible in memory that guides our judgments. Moreover, this is reasonable, given that objective facts are not readily available, and considerable effort is involved in gathering the data Mr. Ropek did to write this article.

Nevertheless, HM is grateful that the students and the public are reacting in this way. The Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School students have been highly articulate and active. May they continue their effort and be joined by the entire country.

The exact wording of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This amendment makes sense. Note that the justification for this is to maintain a well regulated militia. The NRA always omits this justification for the amendment. Today’s NRA is not the same our grandfathers’ NRA. In those days the NRA focused on gun safety. Today’s NRA seems to be focused on making every weapon available to everyone. It appears to be motivated by the fear that their guns might be taken away. As the prospect of their losing their guns is not on the horizon, this seems to be institutional paranoia. Unfortunately, a retired Supreme Court Justice appeared to be arguing for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. This argument did nothing constructive and merely provided justification for the NRA’s paranoia.

Unfortunately, HM suffers from his own paranoia about the NRA. He asks why do they argue for weapons designed for combat? He remembers Charlton Heston, the actor, and HM believes a former president of the NRA, said that his rifle would need to be pried from his cold, dead hand. This leaves the impression that once some fear threshold is reached, the NRA will effectively declare war on the United States and need to be defeated militarily.

Clearly it is time for a sanity check. HM thinks that the majority of families do not have a gun in their homes. This would make gun owners a minority, and should be given the respect all minorities should be given. They have feelings, desires, and beliefs. This is not the time to think that it is morally superior to be anti-gun.

HM has also seen surveys of actual NRA members who seem to have moderate views on gun ownership. It seems that working with NRA members, reasonable gun laws could be passed. But it seems like the NRA is managed by paranoid lunatics. Moreover, they are heavily funded by gun manufacturers and perhaps by the Mercers, the Koch’s, and perhaps even the Russians. This group has essential bought the United States Congress. We can truthfully say that we have the best congress money can buy.

These students are trying to get Congress to pay attention not just to them, but to citizens at large. We all need to work with these students, including sane NRA members, uphold the 2nd Amendment, and assure the safety of all our citizens.

Please submit comments to correct any factual errors in this post.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

 

#deletefacebook? Nah, just get even

March 30, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Christine Emba in the 24 Mar ’18 issue of the Washington Post. Ms Emba suggests that rather than just staying mad, you should try to get even. You can do plenty to protect yourself.

The first is to stop sharing.

The second is to log off.
Remember that Facebook is trying to consume as much of your time as possible and as much of your conscious attention as possible. Both your time and your conscious attention are too precious to squander on Facebook.

And, finally.
Trust no one.

The New Technology That Aspires to #DeleteFacebook for Good

March 29, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Brian Fung in the 24 March 2018 issue of the Washington Post. That new technology can be found at
http://joinmastodon.org . What makes Mastodon increasingly attractive, especially in a post-#Delete-Facebook world, is its attitude toward data and control. Mastodon’s code is open-source, so anybody can inspect its design. It’s distributed so that it doesn’t run in some data center controlled by corporate executives but instead is run by its own users who set up independent servers. Its development costs are paid for by online donations, rather than through the marketing of users’ personal information.

It is rooted in the idea that it doesn’t benefit consumers to depend on centralized commercial platforms sucking up users’ personal information. The developers believe they can restore some of the magic from the internet’s earlier days, when everything was open and interoperable, not soloed and commercialized.

From a business perspective, Facebook’s most important innovation was its aggressive collection and use of customer data for advertising purposes. Facebook not only gathers the information that we volunteer about ourselves, but also data that we generate by using the platform such as likes, friend connections, and so forth. As we learned from Cambridge Analytica’s whistleblower, this information can be extremely powerful in the wrong hands.

Mastodon is an open source social network. It is decentralized. Anyone can create their own server on Mastadon with it’s own rules. It can communicate with instances of other networks given that the other network agrees. Users are free to join whatever network they want.

For more information go to http://joinmastodon.org

Rape Conviction Vacated Four Decades After Plea

March 4, 2018

This post is based on an article by the same title by Justin Juvenal in the Metro Section of the 2 March 2018 issue of the Washington Post. On the advice of his grandfather Roy L. Watford, then 18, pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12 year old girl. Having a weak case the prosecutors offered a plea deal that spared him prison time. Watford said he was innocent, but his grandfather worried about him not taking the deal, because he faced the possibility of a life sentence if convicted at trial. Watford said he was innocent, but took the plea deal on the advice of his grandfather.

Although Watford was spared prison, the conviction dogged him for the past four decades, making it difficult for him to find steady work and limiting his ambitions. He said he has gone from job to job and has trouble earning more than the minimum wage.

The victim testified she set out on her bike in Portsmouth on 14 Sep 1977, to find Watford, whom she knew from the neighborhood. She said she knocked on the door of an abandoned home and when it opened, she saw one of Watford’s two brothers inside. Then someone threw a blanket over her head. She testified that the blanket remained over her head as three men raped and sodomized her on a bare mattress inside the home. The woman said she did not see Roy Watford that day and could not say whether she heard his voice during the assault.

Detectives collected a vaginal swab from the victim that contained sperm, and pieces of the mattress and her jeans that appeared to contain biological material. All three Watford brothers were eventually charged in the assault. One of the brothers was found “not innocent” in juvenile court, and the charges were dropped against the other brother.

DNA testing did not exist at the time of the crime. The first conviction based on DNA profiling happened in 1986. In 2005, then-Gov Mark R. Warner ordered fresh DNA tests in thousands of Virginia criminal cases from 1973 to 1988, including Watford’s, after a bevy of biological samples was discovered in the case files of a deceased former analyst for the state’s department of Forensic Science. The DNA samples associated with the crime did not include Watford’s DNA. If it were not for Governor Warner, Watford will likely still have been labeled with the “Guilty” conviction. On the other hand, had his DNA been tested shortly after DNA profiling was accepted, the correction in the justice system could have been done much earlier.

The court wrote in its opinion that Watford “has proved by clear and convincing evidence.” his petition for what is known as a writ of actual innocence, which requires a high bar of evidence in Virginia.

The state opposed the motion, saying the evidence was not strong enough to exonerate Watford.

Not strong enough? The victim knew Watford and neither saw nor heard his voice at the crime. And Watford’s DNA was not among the globs of DNA taken from the crime scene.

HM finds it infuriating how reluctant the state is to recognize and correct its errors. It appears that the state is interested in “wins,” doing anything they can get away with, and fights to have any of its “wins” taken off the score board.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Being Married Seems to Reduce the Risk of Developing Dementia

March 3, 2018

This post is based on an article in the Health & Science Section of the 5 November 2017 issue of the Washington Post. The article begins, “Your spouse may drive you crazy at times, but new research suggests that your marriage may keep you from losing your mind.”

According to a report in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, the risk of dementia was significantly lower for married people than for adults who remained single their entire lives. Researchers also found that husbands and wives fared better than widowers and widows.

The analysis included over 800,000 people who had participated in 15 previously published studies. Most of the volunteers came from Sweden, with the rest living elsewhere in Europe, the United States, Asia or Brazil. Nearly 30,000 of them had some form of dementia.

The report authors offered several reasons to suspect that marriage might help keep the brain in good working order.

As social engagement is associated with a reduced risk of dementia, people who are married spend more time in the company of another person. So it is likely that years of interacting with a husband builds up a cognitive reserve. A cognitive reserve has been proposed for the many individuals who die with their brains full of the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, which are the defining characteristics of Alzheimers, who never exhibited any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s.

Married people also tend to be healthier. The report authors think that this might be because their spouses nag them to eat their vegetables, quit smoking and take prescribed blood pressure medications. They also surmised that better physical health could translate into better brain health by reducing the risk of factors such as heart disease and stroke.

Nine of the studies compared dementia risk in married people and those whose spouses had died. Here the risk of dementia was 2% to 41% higher for widows and widowers. Overall, the added risk associated with being widowed was 20%.

Six of the studies compared the dementia risk in people who were married and in people who were lifelong singles. Singles consistently faced a higher risk ranging from 7% to 90% more. Overall, the added risk for those who had never married was 42%.

These results can be compared with other risk factors. People who are sedentary are about 40% more likely to develop dementia than people who are physically active. Smokers and people with high blood pressure are about 60% more likely to develop dementia than people who don’t smoke or don’t have hypertension.

Seven studies compared dementia risk in those who were married and those who were divorced. There was no difference between these two groups.

The healthy memory blog recommends maintaining growth mindsets, mindfulness and meditation, exercise, a healthy diet and lifestyle, and a happy marriage. These factors should not only reduce, if not eliminate the risk of dementia, but they will provide for a more satisfying live.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Certain Books May Boost Baby’s Brain

March 2, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Lisa S. Scott in the Health Section of the 2 January 2108 issue of the Washington Post. The author is Dr. Scott an associate professor of psychology at the University of Florida.

Researchers see clear benefits of shared book-reading for child development. It is good for language and cognitive development, increasing vocabulary and pre-reading skills and honing conceptual development.

Shared book-reading also probably enhances the quality of the parent-infant relationship. It encourages reciprocal interactions between parents and infants. Not least of all, it gives infants and parent a consistent daily time to cuddle.

Research has found that both the quality and quantity of shared book-reading in infancy predicted later childhood vocabulary, reading skills and name-writing ability. So the more books parents read, and the more time they spend reading, the greater the developmental benefits in their 4-year-old children. But Dr. Scott writes that there’s still more to figure out about whether some books might naturally lead to higher-quality interactions and increased learning.

Dr Scott and her colleagues followed infants across the second month of life. They found that when parents showed babies books with faces or objects that were individually named, they learn more, generalize what they learn to new situations and show more specialized brain responses. This is in contrast to books with no labels or books with the same generic label under each image in the book. Early learning in infancy was also associated with benefits four years later.

The books that parents should read to 6- and 9-month-olds will probably be different from those they read to 2-year olds, which will probably be different from those they read to 4-year olds who are getting to read on their own.

HM would urge parents to continue reading to their children. HM’s wonderful mother read him “Peter Pan”, “Tom Sawyer’, and a Clair Bee book “Touchdown Pass.” This was when HM was four and five years old. She read many other books to him, but these three are his strongest memories. HM was impressed how these inkblots could contain such stories. Those experiences awoken a strong enthusiasm for reading which has continued his entire life and which shall continue until he passes on.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An Active Social Life May Be a Secret to Brain Health

March 1, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Judith Graham in the Health Section of the 2 January 2108 issue of the Washington Post. This title should not be news to readers of the healthy memory blog post, but this article provides additional evidence to buttress further this already established fact. Ms. Graham begins by telling a story about her 103-year-old friend Edith Smith who talks about her friends. One is Katie who is 93 and whom Smith met during a long teaching career with the Chicago Public Schools. She said that every day they have a good conversation and that Katie is still driving and lives in her own house.

Then there’s Rhea, 90, whom Smith visits regularly at a retirement facility, and Mary, 95, who doesn’t leave her house anymore so Smith fixes her a basket of jelly and little things she makes and sends it over by cab about once a month. And there are Smith’s fellow residents at a Chicago senior home she recognizes with a card and a treat on their birthdays. When asked to describe herself Smith says that she is a very friendly person. This is likely one reason this 103-year-old has an extraordinary memory for someone her age.

The article goes on to report a recent study highlighting a notable link between brain health and positive relationships. Emily Rogalski at the Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine has been examining “Superagers” for nine years. Superagers are men and women older than 80 whose memories are as good or better than people 20 to 30 years younger. Every couple in the group fills out surveys about their lives and gets a battery of neuropsychological tests, brain scans, and neurological examination, along with other evaluations.

Thirty-one older men and women with exceptional memories, mostly from Illinois and surrounding states are participating in the project. Previous research showed that a SuperAgers have distinctive brain features: thicker cortexes, a resistance to age-related atrophy. and a larger left anterior cingulate (a part of the brain important to attention and working memory).

Rogalski thinks that brain structure alone doesn’t fully account for Superagers’ unusual mental acuity. She said, “It’s likely there are a number of critical factors that are implicated.

In a new study, researchers asked 31 SuperAgers and 19 cognitively normal older adults to fill out a 42-item questionnaire about their psychological well-being. The SuperAgers stood out in one area: the degree to which they reported having satisfying, warm, trusting relationships.

This finding is consistent with other research linking positive relationships to a reduced risk of cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment,and dementia. These researchers still haven’t examined how SuperAgers sustain these relationships and whether their experiences might include lessons for others.

Smith is one of nine people who welcome new residents to her retirement community and make them feel at home. She said “Many older people tell you the same story over and over. And sometime all they do is complain and not show any interest in what your have to say. That’s terrible. You have to listen to what people have to say.”

The administrator of the Bethany Retirement Community, where Smith lives, calls Smith a “leader in the community. She’s very involved, She keeps us in line. She notices what’s going on and isn’t afraid to speak out.

William “Bill” Gurolnick, 86, another SuperAger, realized the value of becoming more demonstrative after he retired from a sales and marketing position in 1999. He explained, “Men aren’t usually inclined to talk about their feelings, and I was a keep-things-inside kind of person. But opening up to other people is one of the things that I learned to do.”

Gurolnick helped found a men’s group, Men Enjoying Leisure, which now has nearly 150 members and has spawned four similar groups in the Chicago suburbs. Every month, the group meets for two hours, including one hour they spend discussing personal issues—divorce, illness, children who can’t find jobs and more.

These stories are both informative and inspirational.

Social Media Putting Democracy at Risk

February 24, 2018

This blog post is based on an article titled, “”YouTube excels at recommending videos—but not at deeming hoaxes” by Craig Timberg, Drew Harrell, and Tony Romm in 23 Feb 2018
issue of the Washington Post. The article begins, “YouTube’s failure to stop the spread of conspiracy theories related to last week’s school shooting in Florida highlights a problem that has long plagued the platform: It is far better at recommending videos that appeal to users than at stanching the flow of lies.”

To be fair, YouTube’s fortunes are based on how well its recommendation algorithm is tuned to the tastes of individual viewers. Consequently, the recommendation algorithm is its major strength. YouTube’s weakness in detecting misinformation was on stark display this week as demonstrably false videos rose to the top of YouTube’s rankings. The article notes that one clip that mixed authentic news images with misleading context earned more than 200,000 views before YouTube yanked it Wednesday for breaching its rules on harassment.

The article writes, “These failures this past week, which also happened on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites—make it clear that some of the richest, most technically sophisticated companies in the world are losing against people pushing content rife with untruth.”

YouTube apologized for the prominence of these misleading videos, which claimed that survivors featured in news reports were “crisis actors” appearing to grieve for political gain. YouTube removed these videos and said the people who posted them outsmarted the platform’s safeguards by using portions of real news reports about the Parkland, Fla, shooting as the basis for their conspiracy videos and memes that repurpose authentic content.

YouTube made a statement that its algorithm looks at a wide variety of factors when deciding a video’s placement and promotion. The statement said, “While we sometimes make mistakes with what appears in the Trending Tab, we actively work to filter out videos that are misleading, clickbait or sensational.”

It is believed that YouTube is expanding the fields its algorithm scans, including a video’s description, to ensure that clips alleging hoaxes do not appear in the trending tab. HM recommends that humans be involved with the algorithm scans to achieve man-machine symbiosis. [to learn more about symbiosis, enter “symbiosis” into the search block of the Healthymemory blog.] The company has pledged on several occasions to hire thousands more humans to monitor trending videos for deception. It is not known whether this has been done or if humans are being used in a symbiotic manner.

Google also seems to have fallen victim to falsehoods, as it did after previous mass shootings, via its auto-complete feature. When users type the name of a prominent Parkland student, David Hogg, the word “actor” often appears in the field, a feature that drives traffic to a subject.

 

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Higher Education, Status, and Costs

February 23, 2018

This blog post is motivated by an article by Jay Mathews titled “Franchising the Ivy League: How About Yale at Yreka,” in the Metro Section of the 8 January 2018 issue of the Washington Post. It cited a study by Alan Krueger, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Mathematica Policy Research expert Stacy Berg Dale that found that students accepted by selective colleges who chose not to attend these colleges had incomes just as high 20 years later as those who did attend. Only students from low-income families did better after attending selective colleges. This is strong evidence that, unless you are from a low-income family, it is foolish to bother applying to selective colleges, and that you are insane to attend a selective college if you are assuming uncomfortable levels of debt for student loans.

Moreover, the best college to attend depends upon the particular subject matter in which you are interested. If you know your topics of interest you should apply to schools whose scholars interest you. Your hope is to attend a school where you can find an appropriate scholar with whom you can take independent study and perhaps participate in her research. Succeed, and this is the best route to a graduate programs that will further your interests.

If HM remembers correctly, Robert Frost said that attending college was just a second chance to read books you should have read in high school. Robert Frost’s statement is even more true today, given all the additional sources of knowledge that are readily available. Go the the healthy memory blog titled “Mindshift Resources” to find (MOOCS) Massively Online Open Courses. Many of these courses are free. Laura Pickard has a site, nopaymba.com, who writes, “I started the No-Pay MBA website as a way of documenting my studies, keeping myself accountable, and providing a resource for other aspiring business students. The resources on this site are for anyone seeking a world-class business education using the free and low-cost tools of the internet.  I hope you find them useful!” She explains how she got an business education equivalent to an MBA for less than1/100th the cost of a traditional MBA.

Frankly, were HM an employer he would prefer to hire an autodidact who had completed this free online MBA than someone who had paid for and completed a conventional degree. He would do this on the basis of the autodidact who had the interest and the motivation to complete the course. There are many free online courses. The cost usually comes when one wants to get credit towards a degree.

So HM encourages high school students, just as he encourages everyone else, to find their passion and to develop a growth mindset to pursue that passion.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Why Do 95% of Defendants Accept Plea Offers?

February 21, 2018

This article is based on an article in by Jeffrey D. Stein titled, “Why an innocent person would accept a plea deal” in the Outlook section of the 14 April 2017 issue of the Washington Post. Jeffrey Stein is a public defender. He writes that his conversation with his clients almost always begins in jail. Usually the prosecution extends a plea offer within a few days and tells the suspect that the offer will expire in a week. A week is rarely a sufficient amount of time to conduct the necessary research about the crime.

He writes that he lays out options for the client. He could go to trial, but that might mean waiting in jail for months, if not years, before a jury hears the case. Of course, if the client can post bail, then he would not need to wait in jail. The other option is to accept the plea offer. Stein notes that in some cases the sentencing difference between accepting and losing at trial can be a matter of decades. This reality answers the question in the title of this post.

But does plea bargaining affect the correct administration? According Registry of Exonerations, 15% of all exonerates, people convicted of crimes later proved to be innocent—originally pleaded guilty. That share rises to 49% for people exonerated for manslaughter, and 66% for those exonerated of drug crimes.

He writes, “The final stage happens in court. Your client has signed the paperwork admitting to something you believe in your gut that he did not do. Maybe he acted in self-defense. Maybe he was standing near the actual perpetrator and were presumed guilty by association because of the color of his skin. Maybe he was the victim of an honest misidentification.”

“The judge turns to you and asks, ‘Does either counsel know of any reason that I should not accept the defendant’s guilty plea?” You hesitate. You want to shout:’Yes, your honor! This plea is the product of an extortive system system of devastating mandatory minimums and lopsided access to evidence. My client faced an impossible choice and is just trying to avoid losing his life in prison.”

“But you stand by your client’s decision, which was made based on experiences and emotions only they can know: You reply: ’No’ your honor.’”

Obviously, the author of this article is a conscientious public defender who has adequate time to work for the client. However, even conscientious public defenders are usually overworked and have neither the time nor the resources to provide the defense they would like to provide.

So, it is usually better to provide your own attorney even if it forces you into debt and perhaps even bankruptcy. That is the price of justice.

Frequently during the police interrogation innocent defendants will confess their guilt. Interrogations can go on for extremely long periods of time even if they are not physically abusive. To get out of the interrogation, the person confesses guilt, knowing he is not guilty and assuming this will come out during the investigation. This is not very likely to happen.

So, as has been frequently mentioned in this blog, the primary problem with the legal system, is that it provides little justice.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

You Think You’re Clairvoyant?

February 18, 2018

The title of this post is the first part of the title by Adam Bear, Rebecca Fortgang, & Michael Bronstein in the Health Section of the 16 January 2018 issue of the Washington Post. The last part of the title is “but your brain is just tricking you.” The three authors are Ph.D. candidates at Yale University.

The article begins, “Have you ever felt as thought you predicted exactly when the light was going to turn green or sensed that the doorbell was about to ring? Imagine the possibility that these moments of clairvoyance occur simply because of a glitch in your mind’s time logs. What happened first—your thought about the doorbell or its actual ringing. It may have felt as if the thought came first, but when the two events (ringing of doorbell, thought about doorbell) occur close together, we can mistake their order. This leads to the sense that we accurately predicted the future when, in fact, all we did is notice the past.

They developed a scale that measures delusion-like ideas. The scale asked participants in this study question such as: “Do you believe in the power of the occult?” Do you ever feel as if you could read other people’s minds?” and “Do you ever feel that you are a very special or unusual person?”

To measure the kind of timing errors that might lead people to mistakenly think they predicted an event that they had already observed, they had participants play a game in which they were asked to quickly predict which of five white squares were about to turn red. Research participants could either indicate that they didn’t have time to finish making a prediction before the red square was revealed, or claim that they did complete their prediction before this event occurred.

The square that turned red from trial to trial was selected randomly. So the researchers knew and the participants could not, that it was impossible to correctly predict the red state with better than 1-in-5 odds. The participants who were more likely to report an implausibly high number of accurate predictions were also more likely to endorse delusion-like ideas in broader contexts. The researchers took measures to ensure that the participants weren’t simply lying to them about their accuracy in the game.

There has been other research where people recalled what they had previously predicted about real events that occur in the world. Their previous predictions were known, so lies could be checked. Nevertheless, it was not uncommon for people to remember that they had correctly predicted, when the had predicted erroneously. It appears that our minds try to protect our egos by informing us we had predicted events, when we have not. So be careful to not let your mind fool you, and at the same time keep your ego intact. You’ll be a better person for it.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How Rising Inequality Hurts Everyone, Even the Rich

February 15, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Christopher Ingraham in the Business Section of the 11 February 2017 issue of the Washington Post. The article begins, “Over the past 40 or so years, the American economy has been funneling wealth and income, reverse Robin Hood style, from the pockets of the bottom 99% to the coffers of the top 1%. The total transfer, to the richest from everyone else, amounts to 10% of the national income and 15% of the national wealth.

It’s part of a massive concentration of wealth and income among the rich that has put the United States at levels of inequality not seen in this country since before World War II. It’s a trend that economists such as Thomas Piety believe will continue unchecked in the coming decades with the top 1% of American capturing a quarter or more of the national income by 2030.”

Research suggests that the inequality depresses economic growth, leaving less for society to divvy up—regardless of how its members decide to do so. Research has also discovered that inequality, particularly the light level seem today in the United States, promotes criminal behavior. Regardless of whether you’re in the bottom 99% or the top 1% these effects can take a chunk of your paycheck. The article notes “Leading economists and economic organizations are coming around to the idea that to maximize income and wealth for everyone—including those at the top—there have to be meaningful checks on income and wealth inequality.

The following is in bold in the article, “Inequality hurts economic growth especially high inequality (like ours) in rich nations (like ours). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development a collective of the world’s 35 wealthiest nations including the United States found that rising inequality in the United States from 1990 to 2010 knocked about 5% points off cumulative GDP per capita over that period. Similar effects were seen in other rich countries.

The OECD found, “The main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socioeconomic backgrounds lowering social mobility and hampering skills development. Children from the bottom 40% of households are missing out on pricey education opportunities. That makes them less productive employees, which means lower wages, which means lower overall participation in the economy.”

What might be surprising is that while this is obviously bad news for poor families, it also hurts those at the top. For if you’re a billionaire owner of a retail or manufacturing company, you want people to be able to afford the stuff you’re selling. It is not because of any altruistic impulses that Henry Ford offered his workers high wages, but because he wanted them to buy his cars.

Inequality is not necessarily bad. A 2015 World Bank paper that a certain amount of inequality boosts per capita GDP in developing economies by allowing wealth entrepreneurs to invest more. This effects is reversed in advance economies like our own, because of the detrimental effects on education attainment mentioned above.

Even in advanced countries, not all inequality is harmful. A report by the International Monetary Fund found the inequality could be beneficial to growth at low to moderate levels. Using the Gini coefficient, where 0 means that everyone has the same income and 100 means just one individual has it all, inequality spurred growth in the counties with index values below 27. Too bad for the US where our current Gini index is somewhere around 41, which is well beyond the threshold where inequality because harmful.

To quickly summarize inequality harms overall growth by decreasing per capita income, damaging health and well-being, decreasing disposable income, or enticing middle-class individuals to incur debts they can’t pay.

Of course, this is of no interest to the Trump administration. They are not interested in research studies and instead are relying on Trump’s gut feeling. Moreover, Trump’s tax cut exacerbated the problem of wealth discrepancy and increased the size of the national debt.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Truly Noteworthy Accomplishment

February 14, 2018

Is Bret Parker’s completion of seven marathons on seven continents in seven days. Day 1 was in Antartica. Day 2 in Cape Town, South Africa. Day 3 in Perth, Australia. Day 4 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Day 5 in Lisbon, Portugal. Day 6 in Cartagena, Columbia. Day 7 in Miami Florida. The length of a marathon is 26 miles 385 yards. HM could not walk a marathon anywhere, much less in Antartica.

So this is a remarkable accomplishment for any human being. But Bret Parker has Parkinson’s disease. Rather than suffering from the disease, he has taken it on as a challenge and is winning that challenge. Bret Parker will eventually die, as will we all. But Bret Parker is most definitely a winner.

HM feels compelled to recognize Bret Parker. He is a true inspiration for us all.

This post is taken from an article by Amy Gardner titled “7 Marathons, 7 Days, 7 Continents” in the Health and Science Section of the 13 February, 2018 Washington Post.

Regular Walking May Help Older Adults Live Longer

December 28, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Rachael Rettner in the Health Section of the 24 October 2017 issue of the Washington Post.

A new study finds that regular walking may help older adults live longer, even if they don’t walk enough to meet exercise guidelines. Adults up to age 64 should get at least 2.5 hours of moderate physical activity per week. But only half of those adults, and 42% of people ages 65 to 74, meet these recommendations.

This new study was based on data from nearly 140,000 US adults in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and followed them for 13 years. The respondents were asked how much time they spent exercising per week and which types of activity they engaged in.

The results showed that those who reported walking regularly but not enough to meet the exercise guidelines were less likely to die during the study period than those who didn’t get any physical activity. The researchers found that those who didn’t get any exercise were 26% more likely to die during the study period than were those who walked less than two hours per week. The findings held even after the researchers took into account factors that could affect the link, such as smoking, obesity, chronic conditions (including diabetes), and time spent sitting.

The researchers wrote in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, “…doctors should encourage patients to walk, even if less than the recommended amount, especially as they age, for health and longevity. Walking has been described as the ‘perfect exercise’ because it is a simple action that is free, convenient, and does not require any special equipment or training, and can be done at any age.”

Not surprisingly the study also found that walking for a length of time that meets or exceeds physical activity guidelines was linked to even more benefits. Those who walked 2.5 to 5 hours a week were 20% less likely to die of any cause, 30% less likely to die of respiratory disease and 9 % less likely to die of cancer during the study period, compared with those who walked for less than two hours a week.

The researchers concluded, “This study shows that engaging in walking is associated with increased longevity and has the potential to improve the public’s health significantly.

And HM reminds you that it also fosters healthy memories regardless of age.

Smartphones and Teen Suicides

December 27, 2017

This post is based on an article written by Jean Twenge titled “As smartphones spread among teens, so did suicide,” in the Health Section of the 21 November 2017 issue of the Washington Post. The article summarizes the research she and her colleagues published in Clinical Psychological Science. The research found that the generation of teens called “iGen”, those born after 1995, is much more likely to experience mental-health issues than their millennial predecessors. Increases in depression, suicide attempts and suicide appeared among teens from every background: more privileged and less privileged, across all races and ethnicities, and in every region of the country.

According to the Pew Research Center, smartphone ownership crossed the 50% threshold in late 2012, right when teen depression and suicide began to increase. By 2015, 73% of teens had access to a smartphone. The research found the teens who spent five or more hours a day online were 71% more likely than those who spent only one hour a day to have at least one suicide risk factor (depression, thinking about suicide, making a suicide plan or attempting suicide). Suicide risk factors rose significantly after two or more hours a day of time online.

Two studies followed how people spend time. Both studies found that spending more time on social media led to unhappiness, while unhappiness did not lead to more study. An experiment randomly assigned participants to give up Facebook for week, vs. continuing their usual use. The group that avoided Facebook reported feeling less depressed at the end of the week.

The finding is that iGen folks spend much less time interacting with their friends in person. Interacting with people face to face is one of the deepest sources of human happiness. Teens who spent more time on average online and less time than average with friends in person were the most likely to be depressed. Since 2012 teens have spent less time on activities known to benefit mental health (in person social interaction) and more time on activities that may harm it (time online).

Teens are also sleeping less, and teens who spend more time on their phones are more likely than others to not get enough sleep. Insufficient sleep is a major risk factor for depression. So if smartphones are causing less sleep, that alone could explain why depression and suicide increased so suddenly.

Clearly restricting screen time, to two hours a day or less, is needed.
Twenge is professor of psychology at San Diego State University.

Who is the Greatest Liar?

December 20, 2017

Psychologist Bella DePaulo has spent the first two decades of her career studying liars and their lies. She thought she had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came President Trump, She says “His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people’s.

At the University of Virginia she asked 77 college students and 70 people from the nearby community to keep diaries of all the lies they told every day for a week. They handed them in with no names attached. The researchers categorized each lie as either self-serving (told to advantage the liar or protect the liar from embarrassment, blame or other undesired outcomes), kind (told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else), or cruel (told to hurt or embarrass someone).

The Fact Check at the Washington Post has been tracking every false and misleading claim and flip-flop made by Trump during his first year as president. The inclusion of misleading statements and flip-flops is consistent with the definition of lying the researchers gave to their participants: “A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone.” She notes that in the case of Trump’s claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading and not what Trump’s intentions were. And while the subjects of her research self-reported how often they lied, Trump’s falsehoods were tallied by The Post.

Dr. DePaulo categorized the most recent 400 lies that The Post had documented through Mid-November in the same way the researcher had categorized the lies of the participants in their study.

The college students in the previous research told an average of two lies a day, and the community participants told one. A more recent study of the lies 1,000 U.S. adults told in the previous 24 hours found hat people told an average of 1.65 lies per day; the authors noted that 60% of the participants said they told no lies at all., while the top 5% of liars told nearly half of all the falsehoods in the study.

In Trump’s first 298 days in office he made 1,628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops by The Post’s tally. That’s about six per day, far higher than the average rate in the previous studies. Of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump’s false statements—the ones he makes publicly. That rate has been accelerating starting in early October. The Post’s tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in previous research.

Dr. DePaulo notes that the flood of deceit is not the most surprising finding about Trump. Usually people lie to make themselves appear better. These lies are self-serving. Sometimes people lie to be kind. That is they do not want to hurt or offend the recipient of the lie. And sometimes people lie to be cruel and hurt people.

Here is how these different types of lies break down for Trump, Community Members, and College Students.

Self-serving Trump (64.8%) Community Members (56.7%) College Students (45.5%)
Kind Trump (9.8%) Community Members (24.4%) College Students (25.7%)                    Cruel Trump (50.2%) Community Members (2.4%) College Students (0.8%)

More than half of Trump’s lies are to hurt people or to get back at them for some perceived wrong. More than 90% of this lies are self-serving or vindictive.
Some of Trump’s lies are both self-serving and vindictive. For example, “Senator Bob Corker ‘begged me’ to endorse him for reelection in Tennessee. I said ‘NO’ and he dropped out.

Polls have reveal that fewer than 40% of Americans see Trump as honest. This roughly corresponds to what is regarded as Trump’s base. Remember that the default we humans have is to believe. This is a reasonable default to believe unless there is reason to not believe.

How can Trump’s base still believe in him? As has been mentioned in previous healthy memory blog posts these people are System 1 processors virtually exclusively. System 1 processing is fast, can be regarded as intuitive, and is highly emotional. System 2 processing is called reasoning and corresponds loosely to what we mean by thinking.  System 2 requires mental effort and our attentional processes. One of the roles of System 2 processing is to detect errors in System 1 processing, which is something that does not happen in Trump’s base.

Less than 40% should not be something to worry about, Unfortunately due to gerrymandering and the electoral college, the will of the majority of Americans is ignored. Remember that Trump lost the general election. Trump is not a true Republican; still too many Republicans support him because they like to have power. Were these Republicans to value Country first rather than Party first, the country would not be in its present danger.

Dr. DePaulo’s research was taken from her article titled “I study liars. I’ve never seen one like President Trump.” in the Outlook section of the 10 December 2017 issue of the Washington Post.

What makes Trump especially dangerous as President is that he has been diagnosed as having a delusional disorder. The delusional disorder is a “stealth” disorder because such individuals can seem perfectly normal, logical, high functioning and even charming as long as the delusion itself is not challenged. Having the delusional disorder Trump is not aware that he is lying. He exists in an alternative reality wherein he is infallible and what he says is true. If he was hooked up to a lie detector, his lies would not be detected, because he does not believe he is lying. Someone with such a disorder should not be the president. The quickest way this could be done is with the Twenty-fifth Amendment. The Republicans would have to do this, but if they recognized that he is not a true Republican and that they need to be country rather than party first, this hazard could be quickly removed.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Study: Richest 1% Own 40% of the Country’s Wealth

December 19, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the titled of a Wonkblog piece by Christopher Ingraham in the 7 December 2017 issue of the Washington Post. Here is the current breakdown of wealth in the United States

Population    % of Wealth
Top 1%             40%
Next 4%           27%
Next 5%           12%
Next 10%         11%
Second 20%      8%
Middle 20%      2%
Fourth 20%       0%
Bottom 20%     -1% (negative net worth)

In 2010 Michael Norton and Dan Ariely surveyed more than 5500 people to find out how they thought wealth should be distributed in the United States

Population    % of Wealth
Top 20%         32%
Second 20%   22%
Middle 20%   21%
Fourth 20%   13%
Bottom 20%   11%

Now here is a summary of how wealth is distributed around the world. It shows how much of their domestic wealth the top 1% owns in their respective countries,

Country            % of Wealth
United States       40%
Germany               25%
France                   18%
United Kingdom 18%
Canada                  16%
Finland                  12%

So the distribution of wealth in the United States is frighteningly unequal.
It is both unhealthy and dangerous.
The next tax bill exacerbates this problem.

Here is a relevant simile.

Money is like manure. It needs to be spread around.

The Quality of Life Lessons We Should Learn from the Allegations Against Paul Manafort

December 18, 2017

This post is based on an article by Michelle Singletary titled “The financial lessons we should learn from the allegations against Paul Manafort in the 1 November 2017 issue of the Washington Post. Ms. Singletary notes that the American economist Thorstein Veblen, in his book, “The Theory of the Leisure Class” coined the term “conspicuous consumption” to describe wealthy people who broadcast their wealth and attempt to boost their reputations by purchasing things. He wrote, “conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentlemen of leisure.”

Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates were living very comfortable lives. But they risked their comfortable lives to achieve even more wealth and apparent prestige. Manafort is accused of laundering more than $18 Million. Here’s what his indictment says:
“Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income. Manafort, without reporting the income to his tax preparer or the United States spent millions of dollars on luxury goods and services on himself and his extended family through payments wired from offshore nominee accounts to United States vendors. Manafort allegedly withdrew money from offshore accounts to purchase multimillion-dollar properties. Some of his spending also allegedly included the purchase of four Range Rovers that cost a total of $210,705 and a Mercedes-Benz for $62,750; landscaping at a Hamptons property; and improvements to a house in Palm Beach, FL. Manafort also allegedly spent $934,350 on antique rugs at a store in Alexandria, VA; close to $850,000 on clothing at a men’s store in New York between 2008 and 2014; and another half-million dollars at a clothing store in Beverly Hills, CA.”

Ms. Singletary notes a Princeton University economics researcher, Ori Heifetz, who examined the need for people to flaunt their financial status. In a 2004 paper he wrote, “In the signaling game we call life, when deciding upon a course of action, we consider not only the direct effects of our choice, but also the indirect (or social) effects resulting from society observing our choice. Ms. Singletary elaborates on this point, “It matters to man it signals they’ve arrived at some destination point of social standing. It’s a sign of success. People like to tell themselves their BMWs, Mercedes, or Range Rovers are far superior to other vehicles. But on the Consumer Reports 2017 list of the 10 most reliable cars, half are priced under $30,000.”

Perhaps the most obvious examples of conspicuous consumption are Rolex watches. There was a time when one could justify spending a large amount on an Accutron watch, because it kept better time. But a Rolex is bought to impress, as it is no more accurate than inexpensive watches. However, to a cynical psychologist like HM, a Rolex watch reveals an underlying sense of inferiority, and perhaps, an unconscious desire to be mugged.

This post makes the same argument as the preceding post, “It Should Be Life Quality Not Household Income.” Ms. Singletary quotes from the Book of Proverbs, “One person pretends to be rich, yet has nothing; another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth.” Eudaemonia and ikigai provide a road to true happiness that hedonism does not.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Revenge, Sweet, but Not Healthy

November 22, 2017

This post is based on an article titled “Revenge” by Jennifer Breheny Wallace in the Health Section of the 14 November 2017 Washington Post. She wrote, “People are motivated to seek revenge—to harm someone who has harmed them—when they feel attached, mistreated or socially rejected. Getting an eye for an eye, Old Testament-style, is thought to bring a sense of catharsis and closure. Unfortunately, a growing body of research suggests it may have the opposite effect.

Evolutionary psychologists think we are hard-wired for revenge. Absent laws and prisons, our earliest ancestors relied on the fear of retaliation to keep peace and correct injustices. Michael McCullough, a professor of psychology at the University of Miami says, “Acts of revenge not only sought to deter a second harmful act by a wrongdoer, but also acted as an insurance policy against future harm by others, a warning signal that you’re someone who will not tolerate mistreatment.”

In modern life, betrayal and social rejection still hurt. According to research reported in the Journal of Personality Psychology the desire to repair that pain and improve our mood may be one of the things that motivates us to seek revenge.

In one experiment 156 college students wrote a short essay to be submitted for comments. Then the essays were randomly given either positive or negative feedback. Next all participants were given a test that measured their emotional state, and then offered a chance to retaliate by sticking pins into a voodoo doll that represented the grader of the essay. Not surprisingly getting revenge felt good such that the moods of the ones given negative feedback were as high as the moods of those given positive feedback.

In another study, 167 participants were invited to play a video game where some players were snubbed by others. Rejected players were given the chance to seek revenge by increasing the volume in the other player’s headphones. But before they could retaliate, some participants received what they were told was a cognition enhancing drug (which was a placebo) that would steady their mood for 60 minutes. Although most wronged players turned up the volume, those who took the placebo, who presumably thought they wouldn’t be given a mood boost for doing so, were less likely to retaliate because we think it will make us feel better, according to David Chester who studies the psychological and biological processes involved in human aggression at Virginia Commonwealth University.

According to new research by Chester revenge may provide a lift, but the positive effects appear to be fleeting. “Revenge can feel really good in the moment,” he says, “but when we follow up with people 5 minutes to 10 minutes and 45 minutes later, they actually report feeling worse than they did before they sought revenge.”

University of Psychology Professor Timothy Willson and colleagues conducted a study on the “paradoxical consequences” of revenge. Research participants played an investment game where they were told that they could earn money if they all co-operated but that if one player betrayed the group, that person would earn more and the other players would earn less. This is called the “free-rider paradigm.” The game was staged so that players were double-crossed and some were given the chance to retaliate. When asked by researcher how they imagined they would feel after seeking revenge, the players predicted it make them feel better. However, when surveyed afterward, those who had retaliated reported feeling worse than players who didn’t get the opportunity to punish and so had “moved on.” Wilson theorizes that seeking revenge when we were wronged and can make an event appear even larger. He says, “by not retaliating, we’re able to find other ways of coping, like telling ourselves that it wasn’t such a big deal.

Ruminating about getting even by stewing over what the person did to you and what you would like to do in return can interfere with day-to-day well-being and happiness. Psychotherapist Beverly Engel says, “When someone persists in revenge fantasies, over time they can develop anxiety and remorse as well as feelings of shame. These feelings can also take up important cognitive resources, depleting you of time and energy that could be better spent on healthier, more constructive ways of dealing with anger, such as learning to accept the injustice, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes or acknowledging that you, too, may have hurt someone in similar ways.”

With respect to valuable relationships McCullough says “what the angry mind ultimately wants is a change of heart from the transgressor.” He cites studies showing the when a victim receives an explanation and an apology, the desire for revenge decreases. Similarly research suggests that doctors who apologize to patients when they have made a mistake may decrease their risk of a lawsuit.

McCullough also says that sometimes the most helpful thing a wronged party can do is to create conditions that make it easier for the person who hurt you to be honest about what they did and to take responsibility. He says, “You’re not giving the person a free pass, but it may be in your best interest to stay open to an apology and to help pave a road that would allow the offender to make it up to you.”

He concludes, “Revenge may make you feel better for a moment. but making the effort to repair a valuable relationship can pay bigger dividends over a lifetime.”

The Importance of Mind-set

November 17, 2017

This post is based on article by Sharon Jayson in the Health Section of the 4 July 2017 issue of the Washington Post titled, “Want to slow down your aging process” Mind-set can be key, oldest seniors say.

For elders, staying vital may be about more than physical or mental agility. Research has found that society’s focus on youth culture and negative stereotypes about aging prompt memory loss and stress. However, older adults who want to dispel notions of becoming feeble have growing ranks to emulate.

Warren Barger, who is 95 earned five gold medals and set a new national high-jump recored in the 95-99 age bracket at competitions held in Birmingham, Alabama. He says that his secret of life is to wake up every morning with something to do. Healthy memory blog readers should recognize this as what the Japanese call ikigai. Warren says that he thinks that some people are old because they allow themselves to get old. When people ask him how I’m able to do what I can do, he says that he never quits trying. Warren is a former insurance salesman and church music director, who plays golf and pickleball once a week and badminton twice a week. He mows his lawn, volunteers weekly at his church, and sings in the senior choir.

David Weiss, an assistant professor of sociomedical science and psychology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University published a study that found that those who don’t accept the inevitability of aging can “counteract the detrimental and self-fulfilling consequences of negative age stereotypes.” He says the his research looks at why no one wants to be old. “They want to set themselves apart from the negatively viewed age group. They just want to distance themselves from stereotypes: ‘I’m just not like the stereotype. I’m different.’ Adults who believe that age is just a number showed better memory performance, but adults who believed aging is set in stone and fixed had fixed had a decrease in memory performance and a stronger stress reaction.” Readers of the healthy memory blog should recognize this as having a growth mindset about which many healthymemory blog posts have been written.

Social psychologist Becca Levy of the Yale School of Public Health said that her studies have found an increase in negative age stereotypes over the past two centuries. She said, “Part of it is due to media and marketing. An ageist culture produces many more negative stereotypes.”

Research published this year by Sarah Barber, an assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco University found that people blamed routine forgetfulness on their age—as in saying they had had a “senior moment”—because popular wisdom reinforces stereotypes of age-related memory decline. The negative stereotypes about aging made older adults over-attribute every day memory losses we all have to age.” Readers of the healthy memory blog should be aware that memory failures are part of being human. They occur throughout our lives, and it is a mistake to attribute them to aging. Read the healthy memory blog posts, “The Myth of Cognitivee Decline” and “More on the Myth of Cognitive Decline.”

Remember Dr. Ruth (Weistheimer) of television fame? She advises older people to “do as many things that are enjoyable to them as possible and to not sit at home and say “I’m too old to be out there.”

Carl Reiner, the 95-year old writer, comedian, director, and creator of the 1960s-era “The Dick Van Dyke Show” has written his 22nd book, “Too Busy to Die.” He is working on two more books, which are expected to be published at Thanksgiving. Reiner and his longtime friend Mel Brooks, who turned 91 on June 28, have dinner at Reiner’s house most evenings unless the comedic genius behind such classics as “Blazzing Saddles” and “The Producers” is away on business.

So, the key to successful aging is mind-set, having a growth mind-set, and having a reason to get up in the morning, ikigai, having a purpose in life. To this end HM recommends a book by Victor J. Stretcher titled “Life on Purpose: How Living for What Matters Most Changes Everything.” You’ll find many healthymemoty blog posts based on this book. .

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Surprising Prediction from Some Knowledgeable Individuals

November 12, 2017

There have been many healthymemory blog posts on the risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) from head blows suffered playing football. Sportscaster Bob Costas, Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, and Christine Brennan were headliners at the University of Maryland’s 12th Shirley Povich Symposium. This panel touched on something that would have been difficult to imagine 14 years ago: a future without football.

Costas said that the most substantial—existential—the existential issue—is the nature of football itself. “The nature of football is this: Unless and until there is some technology which we cannot even imagine, let alone has been developed, that would make this inherently dangerous game not marginally safer but acceptably safe, the cracks in the foundation are there. The day-to-day issues, serious as they may be, they may come and go. But you cannot change the basic nature of the game. I certainly would not let, if I had an athletically gifted 12- or 13-year old sone, I would not let him play football.”

Costas rejected those who are quick to dismiss football’s concussion crisis as part of a “left-wing conspiracy to undermine something that is quintessentially American.” Costa said, “The truth is the truth,” referencing the memoir “Truth Doesn’t Have a Side,” by Bennet Omalu, the researcher credited with discovering CTE.” Costa continued, “Some of the best people I’ve met in sports have been football people, but the reality is that this game destroys people’s brains…That’s the fundamental fact of football, and to me is the biggest story in American sports.”

Kornheiser suggested that football eventually will go the way of horse racing and boxing, two other sports that once were wildly popular. “It’s not going to happen this year, and it’s not going to happen in five or 10 years, but Bob is right: At some point, the cultural wheel turns just a little bit, almost imperceptibly, and parents say, ‘I don’t want my kid to play.’ And then it becomes only the province of the poor, who want it for economic reasons to get up and out, and if they don’t find a way to make it safe—and we don’t see how they will—as great as it is, as much fun as it is…the games not going to be around. It’s not.”

The preceding was taken from as article by Scott Allen in the Sports Section of the 9 November 2017 issue of the Washington Post.

HM has argued previously that the game might be changed by making certain adjustments. One would be to put weight restrictions on the participants so that very large individuals would not have an advantage. There would also be restrictions against hard hitting in blocking or tackling. This might even lead to a faster more exciting version of the game. Players might prefer this version because it minimizes the possibility of disabling injuries. And fans might enjoy a faster, more sophisticated version of the game. The popularity of this game would depend on what really attracts people to watch. A fast moving sophisticated game, or the violence of the game.
© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Ikigai Fosters Healthy Aging

October 3, 2017

This post is based on an article by Judith Graham in the Health Section of the 26 September 2017 issue of the Washington Post titled “Healthy Aging.” Ikigai is a topic that has been addressed in many healthy memory blog posts. It is a Japanese word meaning to have a purpose in life.

Ms. Graham writes, “Over the past two decades dozens of studies have shown that seniors with a sense of purpose in life are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, disabilities, heart attacks or strokes, and more likely to live longer than people without this kind of underlying motivation. “

The article continues by summarizing a report in JAMA Psychiatry that older adults with a solid sense of purpose tend to retain strong hand grips and walking speeds, which are key indicators of how rapidly people are aging. Seniors with a sense of purpose may be more physically active and take better care of their health. Patrick Hill, an assistant professor of psychology and brain sciences at Washington University in St. Louis says, “Purposeful individuals tend to be less reactive to stressors and more engaged, generally, in their daily lives, which can promote cognitive and physical health.”

Now the question becomes how to achieve ikigai. Obviously taking care of a loved one qualifies. Doing important volunteer is another. And we can create our own sources of ikigai. If there are any degrees that need to be completed, they can be completed. Or you can start work on a new degree. A formal education system is not needed. Goals can consist of learning new bodies of knowledge using the internet and the public library. This healthy memory blog is a source of ikigai for HM.

Ikigai is important for everyone, not just the aging. The healthy memory blog post “Loneliness” discussed the problem of loneliness among the young and means of dealing with it. One means was to find a project you can be devoted to can achieve ikigai to the point that you’ll no longer feel lonely.

This what Steve Cole at UCLA writes about loneliness, “finding a sense of purpose and meaning in life can overcome the negative effects of loneliness. If you think of lonely people as having a world view of threat and hostility, this study suggests that you can attack this underlying psychology by becoming engaged in help others, trying to make the world a better place. I’m kind of excited about that as an obliques attack on loneliness.” All of this fits in with with the work of Victor J. Stretcher, which he describes in his book, “Life on Purpose: How Living for What Matters Changes Everything.” There have been many healthy memory posts based on this book.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Progress in Developing a Way to Diagnose CTE

October 1, 2017

Much of this post is based on an article by Rick Maese titled “Breakthrough may lead to ability to diagnose CTE in living football players in the Sports section of the 27 September 2017 issue of the Washington Post.

There have been many previous posts, including the immediately preceding one, on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE by researchers from Boston University and the VA Boston Healthcare System studied the brains of 23 former football players who were diagnosed with CTE, in addition to those of 50 non-athletes who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and 18 non-athlete controls. They found significantly elevated levels of a protein related to inflammation called CCL11 in the group of ex-players compared with non-athletes. Dr. Ann McKee, the neuropathologist credited with some of the most high-profile CTE diagnoses was encouraged but cautioned that more research is needed. Until this discovery the diagnosis needed to be performed on cadavers. Now the diagnosis can be made on the living. The hope is that research into the prevention and treatment of the disease can begin to move forward.

Let us indulge in the fantasy that CTE can be cured and consider what the ramifications of that might be. The NFL might be encouraged to continue playing the game as it is currently played and treat players who developed CTE. Their fear is that changing the game could reduce fans and revenues.

But for everyone else, the basic problem would remain. The immediately preceding post discussed children. Why we would ever consider putting them at risk? The same goes for players in secondary schools. Then there is the college game. The college game is also concerned with revenues. It is ironic that institutions whose goal is to foster the development of brains and minds engages in activities the puts the brain and mind at risk. However, one gets the impression that at some schools the brain and mind might well take second place to football. At the University of Alabama, for example, the outside linebacker coach earns more than the president of the university.

The immediately preceding post suggested that the game could be modified to reduce or eliminate head injuries. Football is a fast game that can involve sophisticated offenses and defenses. It seems that the game could be changed so that these features could be maintained and head injuries severely reduced if not eliminated by reducing the hits and the violence. These changes could also reduce the need for linemen to increase their weights to over 300 pounds to be eligible for athletic scholarships. As the number of colleges who actually realize substantial profits for the game is fairly small, this could be the route to go. And perhaps HM is too pessimistic in thinking that it is the violence that has the basic appeal and that professional football could also change.

Much hope is being placed in equipment changes. Unfortunately, in the past this seems to have encouraged harder hitting rather than safer play.
© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Football Before Age 12 Can Lead to Behavior Issues

September 30, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Rick Maese in the Sports section of the 20 September 2017 Issue of the Washington Post.
A study published recently in the medical journal Translational Psychiatry reported that those who participated in football before age 12 were twice as likely to have problems with behavior regulation, apathy, and executive functioning when the get older. Executive functioning includes initiating activities, problem solving, planning, and organizing. The younger football players were three times more likely as those who took up the sport after age 12 to experience symptoms of depression.

One of the authors of this study, Robert Stern is the director of clinical research at Boston University’s Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Center, said “Perhaps that is a window of vulnerability…It makes sense that children whose brains are rapidly developing should not be hitting their heads over and over again. ”An interesting result was that the findings were not affected by the number of concussions the former players reported, meaning the danger posed by football can’t be boiled down simply to big hits to the head. Research is increasingly focusing on the effects associated with the accumulation of smaller hits that a player might more easily shake off during a game or practice. Stern said, “Concussions are a big deal when it comes to short term problems, and it has to be dealt with. But the dialogue out there needs to now start focusing on these repetitive hits that are part of the game and their potential for long term problems.”

Another study was done by researchers from the Wake Forest School of Medicine. They followed a group of 25 players, ages 8 to 13, for a single season, measuring the frequency and severity of helmet impacts. The players underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tests before and after the season, and they showed significant changes in the brain’s white matter. White matter affects learning and brain functions, modulating the distribution of action potentials, acting as a relay and coordinating communication between different brain regions.
None of the participants in that study showed signs or symptoms of concussions, and the players who suffered more hits saw more significant changes to the brain.

The healthy memory blog has many posts on chronic traumatic encephalopathy. At the professional level the damage caused by playing football is costly, and apparently the brain is adversely affected at very young ages.

Football is a very interesting and complicated game, but modifications of the game could make it much safer. This might not be possible at the professional level, because the violence is a big part of the appeal of the game. However, these modifications should be made for young people. Colleges and universities should also consider modifications to make the game safer. It is ironic that institutions whose purpose is education and building healthy brains pursue a sport that damages brains.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Mindfulness Against Stress and Racism

July 30, 2017

This post is inspired by an article titled “Stress of poverty, racism raise risk of Alzheimer’s for African Americans, new research suggests” by Frederick Kunkle in the 17 July 2017 Issue of the Washington Post.

Recent research into racial disparities among people with Alzheimer’s disease suggests that social conditions, including stress of poverty and racism, substantially raise risks of dementia for Africa Americans. Four independent studies found that conditions that affect blacks disproportionately compared with other groups—such as poor living conditions and stressful events such as the loss of a sibling, the divorce of one’s parents or chronic unemployment—have severe consequences for brain health later on.

A study at the University of Wisconsin found that stress literally takes years off a person’s life in terms of brain function—an average of four years for African Americans, compared with 1.5 years for whites. A different Wisconsin study showed that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with later decline in cognitive function and even the biomarkers linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

One of the best, if not the best, means of coping with stress is meditation. Meditation places the mind and its worries at rest. It increases the ability of the mind not to focus on stress and opens up the possibilities of ideas for overcoming stress.

If mindfulness were taught universally in schools, people would already have these coping skills. Mindfulness, universally taught, has the potential for mitigating, if not defeating, racism. Research has also found that mindfulness taught in the schools can propagate up to the parents and siblings of the students. So the benefits go beyond the students themselves.

Growth mindsets, in addition to fostering healthy memories, also have the prospect of enhancing economic outcomes. To understand how, consider Scott Adams book “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.” Entering “Scott Adams” into the search block of the healthy memory blog will yield healthy memory blog posts based on this book.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

An AI Armageddon

July 27, 2017

This post is inspired by an article by Cleve R. Wootson, Jr. in the July 24, 2017 Washington Post article titled, “What is technology leader Musk’s great fear? An AI Armageddon”.

Before addressing an AI Armageddon Musk speaks of his company Neuralink, which would devise ways to connect the human brain to computers. He said that an internet-connected brain plug would allow someone to learn something as fast at it takes to download a book. Everytime HM downloads a book to his iPad he wonders, if only… However, HM knows some psychology and neuroscience, topics in which Musk and Kurzweil have little understanding. Kurzweil is taking steps to prolong his life until his brain can be uploaded to silicon. What these brilliant men do not understand is that silicon and protoplasm require different memory systems. They are fundamentally incompatible. Now there is promising research where recordings are made from the rat’s hippocampi while they are learning to perform specific tasks. Then they will try to play these recordings into the hippocampi of different rats and see how well they can perform the tasks performed by the previous rats. This type of research, which stays in the biological domain, can provide the basis for developing brain aids for people suffering from dementia, or who have had brain injuries. The key here is that they are staying in the biological domain.

This biological silicon interface needs to be addressed. And it would be determined that this transfer of information would not be instantaneous, it would be quite time consuming. And even if this is solved, both the brain and the human are quite complicated and there needs to be time for consolidation and other processes. Even then there is the brain mind distinction. Readers of this blog should know that the mind is not contained within the brain, but rather the brain is contained within the mind.

Now that that’s taken care off, let’s move on to Armageddon. Many wise men have warned us of this danger. Previous healthy memory posts, More on Revising Beliefs, being one of them reviewed the movie “Collosus: the Forbin Project.” The movie takes place during the height of the cold war when there was a realistic fear that a nuclear war would begin that would destroy all life on earth. Consequently, the United States created the Forbin Project to create Colossus. The purpose of Colossus was to prevent a nuclear war before it began or to conduct a war once it had begun. Shortly after they turn on Colossus, the find it acting strangely. They discover that it is interacting with the Soviet version of Colossus. The Soviets had found a similar need to develop such a system. The two systems communicate with each other and come to the conclusion that these humans are not capable of safely conducting their own affairs. In the movie the Soviets capitulate to the computers and the Americans try to resist but ultimately fail.

So here is an example of beneficent AI; one that prevents humanity from destroying itself. But this is a singular case of beneficent AI. The tendency is to fear AI and predict either the demise of humanity or a horrendous existence. But consider that perhaps this fear is based on our projecting our nature on to silicon. Consider that our nature may be a function of biology, and absent biology, these fears don’t exist.

One benefit of technology is that the risks of nuclear warfare seem to have been reduced. Modern warfare is conducted by technology. So the Russians do not threaten us with weapons; rather they had technology and tried to influence the election by hacking into our systems. This much is known by the intelligence community. The Russians conducted warfare on the United States and tried to have their candidate, Donald Trump, elected. Whether they succeeded in electing Donald Trump cannot be known in spite of claims that he still would have been elected. But regardless of whether their hacking campaign produced the result, they definitely have the candidate they wanted.

Remember the pictures of Trump in the Oval Office with his Russian buddies (Only Russians were allowed in the Oval Office). He’s grinning from ear to ear boasting about how he fired his FBI Director and providing them with classified intelligence that compromised an ally. Then he tries to establish a secure means of communication with the Russians using their own systems. He complains about the Russian investigation, especially those that involve his personal finances. Why is he fearful? If he is innocent, he will be cleared, and the best thing would be to facilitate the investigation rather than try to obstruct and invalidate it. Time will tell.

How could a country like the United States elect an uncouth, mercurial character who is a brazen liar and who could not pass an elementary exam on civics? Perhaps we are ready for an intervention of benign AI.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

 

Technology and Maturity

June 29, 2017

Sally Jenkins is one of my favorite writers. She writes substantive articles on sports for the Washington Post. She is an outstanding writer and what she writes on any topic is worth reading. Unfortunately, few of her articles are directly relevant to the Healthymemory blog. Fortunately, this current article “Women’s college athletes don’t need another cuddling parent, They need a couch” in the 25 June 2017 Washington Post is relevant. This article is relevant as it identifies certain adverse effects of technology.

The following is cited directly from the article. “According to a 2016 NCAA survey 76% of all Division I female athletes said they would like to go home to their moms and dads more often and 64% said they communicate with their parents at least once a day, a number that rises t0 73% among women’s basketball players. And nearly a third reported feeling overwhelmed.”

Social psychologists say that these numbers “reflect a larger trend in all college students that is attributable at least in part to a culture of hovering parental-involvement, participation trophies and constant connectivity via smartphones and social media, which has not made adolescents more secure and independent, but less.”

Since 2012 there has been a pronounced increase in mental health issues on campuses. Nearly 58% of students report anxiety and 35% experience depression, according to annual freshmen surveys and other assessments.

Research psychologist Jean Twenge wrote a forthcoming book, pointedly entitled “IGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood and What That Means for the Rest of Us.” She writes that the new generation of students is preoccupied with safety. “Including what they call emotional safety. Perhaps because they grew up interacting online through text, where words can incur damage.”

Along with this anxiety, iGens have unrealistic expectations and exaggerated opinions of themselves. Nearly 60% of high school students say they expect to get a graduate degree. In reality, just 9 to 10% actually will. 47% of Division I women’s basketball players think it’s at least “somewhat likely” they will play professional or Olympic ball. In reality, the WNBA drafts just 0.9% of the players.

Dr. Twenge writes that if you compare IGEN to GEN-Xers or boomers, they are much more likely to say their abilities are ‘above average.’

Perhaps not all, but definitely some, and likely a large % of these problems are due to the adverse effects of technology

 

Can Democracy Survive the Internet?

April 24, 2017

The title of this post is part of the title of a column by Dan Balz in the 23 April 2017 issue of the Washington Post.  The complete title of the column is “A scholar asks, ‘Can democracy survive the internet?’  The scholar in question is Nathaniel Persily a law professor at Stanford University.  He has written an article in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Democracy with the same title as this post.

Before proceeding, let HM remind you that the original purpose of the internet was to increase communication among scientists and engineers.  Tim Berners-Lee created and gave the technology that gave birth to the World Wide Web.  He gave it to the world for free to fulfill its true potential as a tool which serves all of the humanity. The healthy memory blog post “Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out on Fake News” related some of the concerns he has regarding where the web is going.

Persily’s concerns go much further.  And they go way beyond Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  He notes that foreign attempts to interfere with what should be a sovereign enterprise are only one factor to be examined.  Persily argues that the 2016 campaign broke down previously established rules and distinctions “between insiders and outsiders, earned media and advertising, media and non-media, legacy media and new media, news and entertainment and even foreign and domestic sources of campaign communication.”  One of the primary reasons Trump won was that Trump realized the potential rewards of exploiting what the internet offered, and conducted his campaign through new, unconventional means.

Persily writes that Trump realized, “That it was more important to swamp the communication environment than it was to advocate for a particular belief or fight for the truth of a particular story.”  Persily notes that the Internet reacted to the Trump campaign, “like an ecosystem welcoming a new and foreign species.  His candidacy triggered new strategies and promoted established Internet forces.  Some of these (such as the ‘alt-right’ ) were moved by ideological affinity, while others sought to profit financially or further a geopolitical agenda.  Those who worry about the implications of the 2016 campaign are left to wonder whether it illustrates the vulnerabilities of democracy in the Internet age, especially when it comes to the integrity of the information voters access as they choose between candidates.”

Persily quotes a study by a group of scholars that said, “Retweets of Trump’s posts are a significant predictor of concurrent news coverage…which may imply that he unleashes ‘tweetstorms’ when his coverage is low.”

Persily also writes about the 2016 campaign, “the prevalence of bots in spreading propaganda  and fake news appears to have reached new heights.  One study found that between 16 September and 21 October 2016, bots produced about a fifth of all tweets related to the upcoming election.  Across all three presidential debates, pro-Trump twitter bots generated about four times as many tweets as pro-Clinton bots.  During the final debate in particular, that figure rose to seven times as many.”

Clearly, Persily raises an extremely provocative, disturbing, and important question.

Pedestrian Deaths Soar in the Uneven Battles with Cars

April 2, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article written by Ashley Halsey III in the 30 March 2017 issue of the Washington Post.  Pedestrian deaths soared by 25% nationally between 2010 and 2015.  Pedestrians now account for 15% of all traffic deaths.  Preliminary data for 2016 indicate that a the number of pedestrian deaths increased by 11% over 2015, with 6,000 people being killed in collisions with vehicles.  A number of reasons for this increase were noted, but the one that caught HM’s eyes was the use of smartphones—both by drivers and people on foot.

The article includes engineering and safety measures that need to be undertaken to reduce pedestrian deaths.  HM applauds these efforts, but this post is devoted to the measures pedestrians need to take to protect themselves.

The first is to not use smartphones, both as drivers and pedestrians.   Many, many healthy memory posts have been written on the dangers of distracted driving.  The personal risks to smartphone use by pedestrians are even greater.  I’ve seen pedestrians walking, engrossed in their smartphones, who step into traffic without checking for oncoming vehicles.  The HM has almost hit several of these pedestrians.  Fortunately he did not.  But an accident with one of these pedestrians would have haunted him for the rest of his life even though he would not have been at fault.

There are a couple of reasons pedestrians might be so careless.  One is that they have never ever been hit by a vehicle, so they think vehicles are not going to hit them.  What they fail to realize is that drivers certainly do not want to hit drivers, but drivers need to be given sufficient time to respond to avoid a collision.

Pedestrians also seem to assume a symmetry between their perception of automobiles and the automobile drivers’ perception of them.  This problem is particularly acute at night.  Although it is easy for pedestrians to see cars with their blazing lights, pedestrians are small usually dressed in dark clothing, which can make them almost impossible to see.

When HM was in public schools there were posters that were prominently displayed, “Where white at night.”  What has happened to these signs?  They need to be resurrected and placed in many prominent places.  Today reflectors are more readily available, but why don’t pedestrians make more use of them?

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Good Example of What Tim Berners-Lee Fears

March 31, 2017

It can be found in an article by Anthony Failoa and Stephanie Kirchner on page A8 in the 25 March issue of the Washington Post titled, “In Germany, online hate stokes right-wing violence”.

The Reichsburgers are an expanding movement in Germany with similarities to what are known as sovereign citizens groups in the United States.  Reichsburgers  reject the legitimacy of the federal government, seeing politicians and bureaucrats as usurpers.  After authorities  seized illegal weapons from his home, they charged Bangert, a Reichsburger, and five accomplices with plotting attacks on police officers, Jewish centers and refugee shelters.

Jan Rathje, a project leader at the Amadeu Antonio Foundation says, “It’s an international phenomenon of people claiming there are conspiracies going on, people with an anti-Semitic worldview who are also against Muslims, immigrants, and the federal government.  He continued, we’ve reached a point where it’s not just talk.  This kind of thinking is turning violent.”

Preliminary figures for last year show that at least 12,503 crimes were committed by far-right extremists—914 of which were violent.  The worst act was the fatal shooting of a German police officer by a Reichsburger member.  The preliminary figures roughly compete with levels in 2015, but they amount to a leap of nearly 20% from 2014.

Of course, Germans are especially sensitive about this as one time they were governed by Nazis.  Officials say they last time numbers surged this high was in the early 1990s, when Germany recorded a large but short-term jump in neo-Nazi activity following reunification.  Authorities believe the the surge is due, in part, by the arrival of early, mostly Muslim, asylum seekers.   Last year, there were nearly 10 anti-migrant attacks per day, ranging from vandalism to arson, to severe beatings.  Officials say the rise of conspiracy theorist websites, inflammatory fake news, and anti-federal government/right-wing activism have thrown more factors into the mix.

The Reichsburger movement consist of nearly 10,000 individuals who reject the authority of federal, state and city governments.  Some claim that the last real German government was the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler.  Although the Reichsburger movement may be uniquely German, its type of fringe thinking is universal.  German intelligence officials describe some of the tools used by the members, such as fake passports and documents used to declare their own governments, are nearly identical to those used by American sovereign citizens groups.

In October, a 49-year old Reichsburger  declared his home an “independent state,” shot and killed a police officer assigned to seize his hoarded weapons.  Last August, a former “Mr. Germany” and 13 of his supporters tried to prevent his eviction from his “sovereign home” by shooting at police.  Police fired back, severely injuring Ursache.  Two officers were also hurt.  This raid, along with the raid of 11 other apartments found evidence against Bangert and five other people suspected of having formed a far-right extremist network  They are believed by prosecutors to have been planning armed attacks agains police officers, asylum seekers, and Jews.

As the title of the Washington Post article suggests, online hate is stoking much of this right-wing violence.  It would be interesting to compare the number of right wing hate groups in Germany with right wing hate groups in the US.  This article provides some limited information on Germany.

To find evidence about dangerous hate groups in the US go to https://www.splcenter.org
At one time the FBI monitored these dangerous groups.  HM hopes they are continuing these activities.  However, The Southern Poverty Law Center does more than just monitor these groups.  They have programs that have reformed members of these hate groups, and they continue to develop more programs for this essential service.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An Infuriating Article About Alzheimer’s

February 11, 2017

And that article is “After many disappointments, the search for Alzheimer’s drugs is more urgent than ever by Melissa Bailey in the Health Section of the 7 February 2017 issue of the Washington Post.  Regular readers of the healthy memory blog should understand why HM is infuriated.  See the healthy memory post, “The Myth of Alzheimer’s.”  The senior author of this book is Peter J. Whitehouse, M.D., Ph.D..  Dr. Whitehouse conducted research for many years into drugs for Alzheimer’s.  He came to the conclusion that effective drugs would never be found, and that research should be concentrated on activities that would prevent, mitigate, or help people suffering with Alzheimer’s.  He remains quite confident that a drug research is a dead end.  Yet it continues.

The reason for this is  money.  Money is in the drugs.  It is especially infuriating that the government is funding this research.  Congress funds this research because it has the appearance of dealing with a serious problem. However, in the highly unlikely case that drugs are found, the drug companies would charge exorbitant fees for them.  Remember that the United States is the only advanced country that does not control drug costs, so perhaps the adjective “advanced” is incorrect.

This drug research is targeted at the neurofibrillary plaque and neurofibril tangles that are the defining symptoms of Alzheimer’s.  Research on the protein tau, is conducted for its role in creating tangles in the brain.  Anti-amyloid drugs  will not work.  Yet there have been many people who have these defining symptoms, but who never exhibit any of the cognitive or behavioral symptoms of Alzheimer’s.  Many people have died, mentally sharp, not knowing that they had Alzheimer’s disease.  By far this is the most significant fact about Alzheimer’s that is rarely, if ever, mentioned.  Apparently, Melissa Bailey, the author of this article, is oblivious of this fact.

The explanation offered for these individuals who have the physical markers, but none of the behavioral symptoms, is that they have built up a cognitive reserve.  Cognitive activity along with a healthy lifestyle greatly decrease the probability of cognitive symptoms.  Just having a purpose in life reduces the risk of cognitive decline by half (see the Healthymemory blog post, “Ikigai Cuts the Risk of Alzheimer’s in Half”).

Consequently the healthy memory blog strongly recommends growth mindsets throughout one’s life.  Becoming a cognitive couch potato greatly increases the risk of Alzheimer’s (enter “Stupidity Pandemic” into the healthy memory blog) to learn more about these risks.

Although there is a widespread use of technology, this technology is used in a superficial manner (see the healthy memory blog post “Notes on Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age”).  One of the best examples of this is the woman was asked what she thought of “Obamacare”?  She was against it, but when asked what she thought of “The Affordable Care Act,” she thought that was a good idea.

Given the stupidity pandemic and little critical thinking, the incidence of Alzheimer’s will likely increase.  And drugs will not come to the rescue.  People need to start thinking, thinking with purpose, and thinking more deeply.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Politics Needs Science

January 22, 2017

The article in the 21 January 2017 issue of the Washington Post by Sarah Kaplan titled “New group encourages scientists to enter politics” was good news.  STEM the Divide is a group that will push to have more scientists involved in politics.  This initiative was set up by the political action committee 314 Action.  The goal  is to connect people with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and math to the expertise and money needed to run a successful campaign.   The article stated that scientists who have been interested in getting into politics were rarely encouraged and sometimes discouraged.

Shaughnessy Naughton  is the founder of this organization.  When asked whether this raised a risk of politicizing science—framing scientific questions as ideological questions, rather than matters of fact—Naughton argued that that ship has already sailed.  Her  response follows:  “People might think that science is above politics, as it should be, but increasingly we see that politics is not above bringing itself into science.  At a certain point, there’s diminishing returns to not getting involved.”  HM would change “diminishing returns” to “serious existential dangers.”

Moreover, the question she was posed, “framing scientific questions as ideological issues, rather than as matters of fact,” betrays the erroneous concept that science is simply a bunch of facts.  Science can be an ideology, an ideology that should provide the basis for governing.  Science is not a monolithic entity, but rather a set of methodologies devoted to arriving at truth in the various disciplines.  This truth is arrived at by reasoning and data.  Moreover, it is fluid in that as circumstances or facts change, truth is corrected or refined.  Science provides the basis for our standard of living, and it can be argued that social problems are due to the failure to apply scientific approaches to social problems.

A good example of this is medical care in the United States.  Medical care in the United States is the most expensive in the world, with results suitable for a third world country.  All other advanced countries provide superior medical care for all their citizens at a fraction of the costs in the United States.  The Affordable Care Act was the best that could be done given the political environment.  One party wants either to exclude the federal government entirely or severely limit its participation due to ideology.  They use fear, lies, and misinformation to destroy attempts to bring the United States into line with the truly advanced countries of the world.

A good question is why this is the case.  The general argument is against big government.  Any argument about the size of government without considering the question of  what the government can best do versus what private industry can best do is moronic.  Yet it is repeated ad nauseum.

People say that they are followers of Reaganism with great pride.  Ronald Reagan is also regarded as a great communicator, which he was.  But what is overlooked is the reason his ideas were so easy to communicate is that they were so simple.  Reagan demanded that his staff provide brief descriptions of the issues so he could formulate brief descriptions of his policy.

The problem is that simple ideas do not adequately solve complex problems. For example, people will say that they believe in free markets.  One would be hard pressed to find many economists who do not believe in free markets, but they also realize that free markets do not remain free for long.  They are manipulated and monopolies emerge.  The manipulations achieve a variety of ends, one being the financial collapse of 2008.

Moreover, there are always complaints about the excessive regulations that come from big government.  Just think back over time and consider what life would be like without government regulations.  How long would the work week be?  What would salaries be without the minimum wage?  If these are exclusively left to “market forces” they would leave the majority of people in misery.  Were it not for unions, it is quite likely that Marx’s prediction of the revolution of the proletariat would have occurred.  But Marx’s analysis was superficial and did not consider the possibility of workers organizing to achieve a decent wage and working conditions.

Government regulations have also goaded businesses into actions that benefited them.  Gas mileage standards is an example.  And God protect us from what the atmosphere would be like absent government regulations.  One of the costs that decreased the competitiveness of the US Auto Industry in the international market, were the costs of medical insurance.  Had medical insurance been provided by the government, the industry would have been more competitive.  Their ideology acted against their business interests.

One of the most disturbing actions that Trump has promised to undertake is the dismantling of financial regulations taken to prevent another market collapse.  It should be obvious by now that the financial industry does not self regulate.  Smart manipulators cash in, while everyone else in the country and the country itself collapses.

The argument here is not that business is evil and government is good.  There are ample examples of government being a monster.  The reality is that the individual citizen stands between two giants, business and government.  Either one can step on and crush the individual citizen.  The citizen needs to be watchful of both and play each against the other to get the best result.

How should this be done?  By employing science, conducting research, and analyzing data to decide what policies are, and who should do what.  This does not guarantee a good result, but science is self correcting.  So when something does not work, the reason why it didn’t work will be studied, and new approaches will be developed and evaluated.

The fundamental problem is with the individual voter.  Thee is ample evidence that voters do not vote in their own interest.  See the healthy memory blog post, “The Low Information Electorate.” It is also true that voters are governed by their emotions rather than carefully considered opinions.  Previous posts have argued that decisions of most people are governed by their guts, which are System 1 processes.  That certainly is the best explanation of the results of the 2016 presidential election.  People need to invoke their System 2 processes.   System 2 processes require cognitive effort.  The vernacular term for them is thinking.  Entering “System 1” or “System 2” or “Kahneman” into the healthymemory blog search block should yield ample posts on this topic.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An Example from Lies Incorporated

January 19, 2017

This example was reported in the 7 Jan 2017 issue of the Washington Post.  The title of the article by Anthony Faiolo and Stephanie Kirchner is “Breitbart report triggers a backlash in Germany.”

The article begins, “Berlin—It was every God-fearing Christian’s worst nightmare about Muslim refugees.  “Revealed”, the Breitbart News Headline screamed, “1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve.”  The only problem:  Police say that’s not what happened that night in the western city of Dortmund.”

So what did the police say?  They did not dispute that several incidents took place that night, but nothing to the extremes suggested by the Breitbart report.  They said the evening was comparatively calmer than previous New Years Eves.

The motivation for the false report is clear, To foster the alt-right agenda to create fear of the Moslems.  And this is Breitbart’s mission—to spread propaganda for the alt-right.  This swill is harmful to peace in the world, and pollutes healthy memories.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Did Corporate PR Initiate the Post-Fact Era?

December 28, 2016

This post is based on an article published in the Washington Post by Ari Rabit-Havt titled “Big business taught politicians a better way to lie.”  The article begins, “Donald Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes recently told WAMU’s Diane Reahm that ‘there’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.’”  Rabin-Havt continues, “She’s right and that’s the problem.  We now disagree not just on our political philosophies, but on whether the facts are true.  In this world, Hughes’s  observation is the last self-evident truth:  Facts are a thing of the past. …Americans may find it impossible to debate politics clearly because of a lack of agreement on basic matters of fact; that was certainly the case during this year’s election.  And no one has taken more advantage of this than Trump…”

Rabin-Havt does not credit Trump for creating this world.  He says that this is a result of a decades-long strategy devised by a number of public affairs practitioners who recognized that lies were the most potent weapon in the fight against progress and that Trump emulated some of these disinformation techniques gleaned from big business during his campaign.

Sixty-three years ago the tobacco industry had a problem, namely the compelling evidence of the severe damage smoking did to one’s health.  John Hill, the founder of the Public Relations conglomerate Hill & Knowlton, recommended that they form a public relations institute, to argue that their products were safe.  Together with the tobacco executives Hill created public relations operation veiled as a scientific institute, to argue that their products were safe.  They created the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, a sham organization designed to spread corporate propaganda to mislead the media, policymakers and the public at large.

Rather than trying to convince the majority of Americans that cigarettes did not cause cancer, they sought to muddy the waters and create a second truth.  One truth emanated from the bulk of  the scientific community and the other from a cadre of people primarily in the employment of the tobacco industry.

Although their efforts to muddy the waters were successful for a time, truth eventually prevailed.  So it appears that Hughes’ statements and Rabin-Havt’s conclusion are a bit overstated.  Nevertheless, they are real.  And this same scene is being repeated regarding global warming.  The clear consensus is that global warming is real and the consequences a dangerous.  Unfortunately, this is portrayed on networks that include both Fox and the PBS New hours by having one representative of each position on their shows.  Although this appears to be even-handed, what is lost on the general public is that the overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real.

There is a more realistic position is that global warming is occurring, but how quickly it is occurring is debatable.  This is not arguing that it is not occurring or that it is, as Trump said, a hoax introduced by China.  Here one needs to outline both the probability of the risks of different models and the costs of delaying different remedies.
With respect to the problem global warming, it is clear what the motivation is and by whom to either deny or to downplay global warming.  And these industries have big bucks to fund questionable research.  It is interesting that certain critiques of global warming contend that scientists finding evidence of global warming are motivated by the money they receive from research grants.  Comparing the funding of these researchers against the funding of big oil is like comparing some guy in his back yard burning leaves with the Chicago fire.  But these people cannot think in terms of truth, rather they think in terms of beliefs and how to argue their beliefs.

There has been a larger victim of these science efforts funded by special interests is a general loss of confidence in science and the establishment.  Both Brexit and Trump are examples of his loss of confidence in the establishment.

Rabin-Havt’s article also mentions Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels” critique to the Affordable Care Act.  The acceptance of this critique indicates there is virtually no limit to the stink of fecal material people will swallow.  And Sarah Palin’s being a candidate for the Vice-President of the United States is an indication of the pathetic state of American politics.

The situation has worsened with the alt-Right movement (see the Healthymemory blog post, “Sick Memory).  This has become a profitable industry.   At least with the examples of bad science done by businesses for their financial industry, they actually conducted research.  One of the reasons that the alt-Right industry is so profitable is that it requires no research.  Just think of something and post it.  Build upon other lies to create even more fantastic lies.

All of the efforts are bad for our memories and contribute to the Stupidity Pandemic discussed in the previous post.  It calls for critical thinking using System 2 attentional processing.  Truth is our only hope.  It needs to be constantly sought.  Beliefs need to be periodically reconsidered for flaws and needs for correction.  Facts, true facts, need to be considered.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Sleep-deprived Drivers are as Dangerous as Drunk Drivers

December 9, 2016

This post is based on an article by Ashley Halsey III titled “Sleep-deprived drivers have plenty in common with drunk drivers, on page A2 of the 7 December 2016 edition of the Washington Post.  Her article is based on a report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety released 6 December.   According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about 35% of people get fewer than the needed seven hours of sleep, and 12% say that they sleep for five hours or less.

Previous research by the AAA Foundation found that 21% of fatal crashes involved a sleep-deprived driver.  This new report uses data from the National Motor Vehicle’s Crash Causation Survey to asses how much driving ability decreases based on the lack of sleep.  The executive director of the foundation, David Yang, says that the new research shows that a driver who has slept for less than five hours has a crash risk comparable to someone driving drunk.  The report says that those who slept for less than 4 of the past 24 hours had an 11.5% higher risk of getting into a crash; drivers who slept 4-5 hours had a 4.3% higher risk; 5-7 hours had a 1.9% higher risk; and 6-7 hours had a 1.3% higher risk.  The following caveat is added to these results:  “The study may underestimate the risk of driving while sleep-deprived, because data on crashes that occurred between midnight and 6 a.m. were not available, and other studies have shown that the effects of sleep deprivation…are greatest during the morning hours.”

Tom Calcagni of AAA’s Mid-Atlantic Office said, “The crash risk associated with having slept less than 4 hours is comparable to the crash risk associated with a blood-alcohol content of roughly .12 to .15.  The legal limit is .08.

So add driving while being sleepy to the other activities you should not do while driving:  texting and talking on the phone regardless of whether your hands are free or not, and drunk driving.

The importance of sleep to health in general should not be underestimated.  Our brains are very active while we sleep, consolidating memories and cleaning up junk in the brain.  By failing to get enough sleep we are effectively damaging our brains.  This damage might eventually lead to dementia and Alzheimer’s.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Research Ties Fake News to Russia

November 28, 2016

The title of this post is identical to a front page story by Craig Timberg in the 25 November 2016 issue of the Washington Post.  The article begins, “The flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump, and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.”

The article continues, “Russia’s increasingly sophisticated machinery—including thousands of bonnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts—echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers.  The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with the nuclear-armed Russia.”

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment.  The sophistication of these Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news.”

Research was done by Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute has been tracking Russian propaganda since 2014 along with two other researchers,s  Andrew Weisburg and J.M. Berger.  This research can be found at warontherocks.com, “Trolling for Trump:  How Russia is Trying to Destroy our Democracy.”

Another group, PropOrNot, http://www.propornot.com/
plans to release its own findings today showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

Here are some tips for identifying fake news:

Examine the url, which sometimes are subtly changed.
Does the photo looked photoshopped or unrealistic (drop into Google images)
Cross check with other news sources.
Think about installing Chrome plug-ins to identify bad stuff.

Does Talk By Trump Constitute a Threat?

November 7, 2016

This post is based on an article by the same title written by Colby Itkowitz in the 1 November 2016 issue of the Washington Post in the Metro Section.  This article is about a winner of a MacArthur Award, which is better known as the “Genius” Award.  She used her award to fund the Dangerous Speech Project.  Her name is Susan Benesch, a law professor at American University, who also is a Harvard University faculty associate.

As a young lawyer, she did international work in the aftermath of the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s.  Beseech was drawn to the question of whether one could detect warning signs for genocide before one occurred.  She did her first field study for the Dangerous Speech Project in Kenya leading up to its presidential election held in March 2013.  While there she helped oversee several projects that sought to diminish the impact of dangerous-speech, including one writing four episodes of a popular Kenyan courtroom comedy in which the actors discredited inflammatory statements.  This election produced little violence.

According to Benesch, to rise to he level of dangerous speech, at least two of these five indicators must be true:

A powerful speaker with a high degree of influence over the audience.

The audience has grievances and fears that the speaker can cultivate.

A speech act that is clearly understood as a call to violence.

A social or historical context that is propitious for violence, for any of a variety of reasons, including long-standing competition between groups for resources, lack of efforts to solve grievances or previous episodes of violence.

A means of dissemination that is influential in itself, for example because it is the sole or primary sources of news for the relevant audience.

She concludes that Trump does not meet these criteria.  HM disagrees.  He thinks the first two have clearly been met, and that Fox News could constitute a third indicator.  She rightly concludes that what appear to be calls to violence have been presented in an ambiguous manner.

There will be a data point in several days, which should tell us who reached the correct conclusion.  HM sincerely hopes he is wrong.

Vote for Christian Values, Not for Trump

November 2, 2016

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Dustin Wahl, Paige Cutler, and Alexander Forbes in the 26 October, 2016 issue of the Washington Post.  The authors are  students of Liberty University who are incensed by the president of their university endorsing Donald Trump.

The article notes that Mark DeMoss, the chair of Liberty’s executive committed criticized Trump’s “politics of personal insult,” saying “It’s not Christ-like behavior that Liberty has spent 40 years promoting with its students.”  For this statement he was asked to resign from the executive committee.  Demoss left Liberty University ending his decades-long career of service to Liberty University.

Last week the students began circulating a statement titled “Liberty Against Trump” expressing their opposition to President Falwell’s endorsement and disassociating themselves from Trump.  So far, more than 2,000 Liberty students and faculty have sighed the statement.

The Post article continues, “”Evangelical conservatives who vote for Trump to get a favorable Supreme Court must realize that doing so requires trusting the words of the most unabashedly untruthful presidential candidate in modern history.  Trump has changed his position on nearly every issue of importance at least once, sometimes in mid-speech.  There is little reason to believe that he is worried about the same issue we are.  It makes more sense to believe that Trump is happy many Christians are worried because it allows him to do what all demagogues do:  offer strength in time of fear.”

They continue, “ Trump is the antithesis of our values; there is no reason to revisit his vices here.  Most non-Christians recognize Trump as amoral and self-centered.  If we ignore this fact and buy in to his promise of strength, what will it tell the world about how seriously we Christians esteem our values.”

HM applauds these students for their intelligence and their courage.  But he feels compelled to say something about many, if not most, evangelicals.  They do not understand that the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees, among other rights, the freedom of religion for the individual.  The Constitution makes a clear distinction between church and state to the effect that neither impinges on the other.  So we can each believe what we want and worship as we want, as long as we do not trample on the rights of others.  But what many evangelicals regard as religious freedom is their right to impose their religious beliefs on others by changing laws and the interpretation of laws of the land.  When this is done they are imposing on the religious beliefs of others as well as secular humanists, who also have beliefs.  What they are doing is identical to the Sharia they find so repugnant in Islam.  What hypocrites they are!.  They do not perceive the mote in their own eye (Matt 7:3).

A classical religious debate is which is more important: beliefs or deeds.  HM argues that it is unequivocally deeds.  Beliefs are specific to religions and religions are institutions created by human beings.  Beliefs are the special sauce, if you will, to either frighten or attract people to the particular religion.  However, GOD is eternal and predates all religions.  HM believes that deeds are important to GOD and that GOD is indifferent to beliefs.  HM believes that GOD has given us brains and expects us to use them.  These students used their brains and came to correct conclusions different from their religious leader.  I would encourage readers to do the same.  When churches are encouraging questionable practices, you can likely find a church closer to your understanding as to what GOD wants.  There are plenty of churches from which to choose.  But a church is not required.  Individuals can develop their own relationship with GOD through prayer and meditation.  A church is only required when social interactions are important.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Wealth and Empathy

October 30, 2016

This post is motivated by an Opinion piece in the Outlook Section of the 23 October issue of the Washington Post by Karen Weese.  The title of the piece is “How can you tell if someone is kind?  Ask how rich they are.”

Past healthy memory blog posts have reported arguments by some who say that humans have the quality of empathy, which computers can never have.  HM has never bought these arguments.  One might argue that computers might not be able to feel empathy, computers can, and perhaps already have, shown the capacity to show empathy.  Moreover, this facility will increase over time.  If you read some of the healthymemory blog posts based on the book “Progress,” one finds scant historical evidence for empathy. Current events lead to the belief that perhaps most of the world’s problems can be attributed to a famine of empathy.

Ms. Weese begins with an anecdote about the tips she and a friend left at a Denny’s restaurant.  The bill was $11 and her friend tossed a $5 tip on the table.  Ms Weese was amazed.  Her friend worked as a caregiver and was raising two children on less than $19k a year.  Her friend explained, cocking her head at their waitress, who was visibly pregnant and speed-walking from table to table with laden platters in the busy restaurant.  “She’s been on her feet for probably six hours already and has three more to go, she has a baby on the way, you know she’s exhausted, and somehow she still took great care of us like she’s supposed to.  She needs it more than I do.”

Reese writes that “There’s little question that people find it easier to give when they see something of themselves in the recipient.”  She notes that families of cancer survivors participate eagerly in fundraising walks.  She also argues that it is also why hedge fund manager John Paulson gave $400 million last year to endowment rich Harvard University, and not to, say, Habitat for Humanity.

A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that affluent people in homogeneously wealthy zip codes are less generous than equally affluent people in mixed-income communities.  People in homogeneous rich communities are less likely to see homeless people.

A study by Yale professor Michael Kraus found that when shown human faces with different expressions, lower-income participants are better than their more affluent counterparts at identifying the emotions correctly.

University of California psychology professors Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner recorded video at four way stop signs.  They found that the drivers of Toyotas and other inexpensive cars were four times less likely to cut off other drivers than the people steering BMWs and other high-end cars.  In a related experiment, drivers of more modest cars were more likely to respect the right-of-way of pedestrians in a cross-walk, while half the drivers of high-end cars motored right past them.  Other experiments have shown that lower income subjects were less likely than high income subjects to cheat, lie, and help themselves to a jar of candy meant for kids.

Other research has shown that just thinking about money can make people act more selfishly.  An experiment by University of Minnesota professor Kathleen Vohs primed some study participants with images of money or asked them to unscramble lists of words than included terms like “cash” and “bill”.  They were less likely than the unprimed participants to give money to a hypothetical charity.  And when a research assistant appeared to accidentally drop a box of pencils on the floor right beside the participants, money-primed subjects were less willing to help pick them up.

Of course, the question is why does this difference occur.  Initial evidence indicates that the difference can be found in brain activity.  When Keely Muscatell of the University of North Carolina Keely Muscatell showed high and low income subjects photos of human faces with accompanying human stories, the brains of the low-income subjects demonstrated much more activity in the areas associated with empathy than the rich subjects’ brains.

When Jennifer Stellar of the University of Toronto showed videos of children at St. Jude’s hospital undergoing medical procedures, lower-income viewers exhibited more heart-rate deceleration than their higher-income counterparts.  Scientists use heart-rate deceleration as a measure of compassion.

So, how can rich people become more empathetic?  Other research has found that rich subjects began to act more empathetically toward others when shown a vivid, emotional video about kids in poverty.

Regardless of wealth, it is well known that people respond better to the plight of a single case than that of a whole group.  This has been termed the “identifiable victim bias.”

Reese ends her piece as follows: “Perhaps all of us who do not worry about where our next meal is coming from could stand to widen our lens.”

HM believes that meditation will increase empathy.  Should it not increase empathy, then it is not being done properly.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Are Video Games Luring Men From the Workforce?

October 29, 2016

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Ana Swanson in the 24 September issue of the Washington Post.  It begins with the story of a high school graduate who has dropped out of the workforce because he finds little satisfaction in the part-time, low wage jobs he’s had since graduating from high school.  Instead he plays video games, including FIFA 16 and Rocket League on Xbox One and Pokemon Go on his smartphone.

The article notes that of last year 22% of the men between the ages of 21 and  30 with less than a bachelor’s degree reported not working at all in the previous year.  This is up from 9.5% in 2000.  These young men have replaced 75% of the time they used to spend working with time on the computer mostly playing video games.

From 2004 to 2007, before the recession, unemployed men averaged 5.7 hours on he computer, whereas employed men average 3.4 hours. This included video game time.  After the recession, between 2011 to 2014 unemployed men average 12.2 hours per week, whereas employed men averaged 4.7 hours.  With respect to video games from 2004-07 unemployed men averaged 3.4 hours per week versus 2.1 hours fro employed men.  During the period from 2011-2014 unemployed men average 8.6 hours playing video games verses 3.2 hours for employed men.

Researchers are arguing that these increases in game playing are partially  due to the games appeal having been increased. The estimate runs from one-fifth to one-third of the decreased work is attributable to the rising appeal of video games.  HM believes that prior to these games most unemployed were confronted primarily to daytime television, which provided a strong inducement to seek work.  Today video games provide an entertaining alternative to seeking work.  As the games improve and become more sophisticated, the argument is that they have become even more appealing.

The article notes that the extremely low cost makes these games even more accessible.  It states that recent research has found that households making $25K to $35K a year spent 92 more minutes a week online that households making $100K or more per year.

The article also notes that for the first time since the 1930s more U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are living with their parents than with romantic partners according to the Pew Research center.

The article argues that these men are happy.  HM feels that this happiness is likely to be short-lived, and that there is a serious risk that these men will end up as adults who are stunted intellectually and emotionally.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

2016 Labor Day Post

September 5, 2016

It is a healthymemory tradition that on or about Labor Day, HM laments about the adulthood and retirement he was promised in elementary school in the 1950s.  During this time it was highly unusual for mothers to work.  One of the primary benefits from technology was to be a large amount of leisure.  The economist John Maynard Keynes predicted in 1930 that the work week would shrink to 15 hours by 2030.  Actually, technology advanced further and faster than was predicted.  Wi fi and smart phones were never imagined, along with the internet.  Now more people, including mothers, are working more hours.  What happened?

Current economies are based on Gross Domestic Products (GDPs).  Economic growth requires increasing GDPs.  Eventually this model runs out of resources and steam.  Yet we have to work more and consume more to foster this growth.

Not only has technology advanced, product quality has improved.  An inexpensive watch has the same accuracy as a ROLEX.  People pay for more expensive products for prestige.  There is ample research showing that scotch drinkers pay substantially more for high quality scotch yet are unable to distinguish the difference when drinking blind.  Scotch drinkers are just provided as an example.  Premiums are paid for many products for prestige, not for the utility of the product.

Voters grovel at the feet of politicians for jobs.  Jobs lost to trade are a primary focus in the current elections in the United States.   However, the trade problem is minuscule compared to the lost of jobs that will be taken by technology.

The following data and projections have been taken from David Ignatius’s column in the 12 August 2016 Washington Post article titled “When robots take all the jobs.”  McKinsey & Co. estimate that  in manufacturing, 59% of activities could be automated, and that includes 90% of what welders, cutters, solderers and brazers do.  In food service and accommodations, 73% of the work could be performed by machines.  In retailing, 53% of the jobs could be lost.  If computers can be programmed to understand speech as well as humans do, 66% of jobs in finance and insurance could be replaced.  So, to use the vernacular, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

Economic security can be addressed by a greatly expanded earned-income tax credit, or by large public works programs.  But the topic of the immediately preceding post, a Universal Basic Income, is inevitable or violence will break out and public disorder will become the order of the day.

Under a Universal Basic Income, everyone would have enough income to live comfortably.   To increase one’s standard of living, or to purchase prestige, employment would be required.  But people could drop out of the economy and pursue an education, training, artistic pursuits,, travel, whatever would increase the quality of life.

The reader should be aware that this view of automation creating enormous job losses is not shared by all.  So some regard this as a pseudo problem.  But HM would still argue for changes that would provide the freedom and leisure activities that would result from technology that were promised him back in the nineteen fifties.  HM has retired, so he finally has leisure time.  His wish applies to all that there be vastly increased amount of leisure time.

Consider reading or rereading HM blog posts, “Gross National Happiness (GNH) and “The Wellbeing of Nations: Meaning, Motive, and Measurement.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Computers in Our Brains

August 25, 2016

This post is based primarily on an article by Elizabeth Dworkin in the 17 April 2106 issue of the Washington Post titled “Putting a computer in your brain is no longer science fiction.”  It describe the research done by Silicon technology entrepreneur Bryan Johnson at his company Kernel, website is kernel.com.  It does not appear that Johnson has already put a computer into the brain, but rather is in the process of designing a computer to put into the brain.  The article also cites work by biomedical researcher Theodore Berger who has worked on a chip-assisted hippocampus for rats.  This work has yet to advance to humans.  And it probably will be many years before any fruits from this research will be realized.

This post is filed under transactive memory, which included posts on using external technology to build a healthy memory.  Now work is progressing on moving computer technology inside the brain.  Of course, anything that assists memory health will be welcomed.

An interesting conjecture is how this new technology would be used.  The statistics reported in the immediately preceding post made HM wonder to what extent people were making use of the biological memory they had.  It may be that when some people age their cognitive activity decreases.  And it may be that this failure to use it that is the primary cause of dementia.  This appears to be even more likely when there is evidence that people who have the defining physical features of Alzheimer’s never show any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms.

So a reasonable question is how many people would benefit from computer implants?  It would be surprising if no one benefited, but it is not a forgone conclusion that everyone would benefit.  Some people might shut down cognitively even given a computer enhancements.  Of course, this is just a conjecture by HM.

HM would hope that people would still engage in the activities advocated by HM, to include growth mindsets, meditation, and mindfulness, in addition to general practices for personal health.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Why Facts Don’t Matter

August 15, 2016

The title of this post is identical to the title of a column written by David Ignatius in the 5 August edition of the Washington Post.  Ignatius began his column by asking, “How did Donald Trump win the Republican nomination despite clear evidence that he had misrepresented or falsified key issues throughout his campaign?”  Also read or reread the healthy memory blog posts “Donald Trump is Bending Reality to Get Into the American Psyche” and “Trick or Tweet or Both?  How Social Media is Messing Up Politics.”  Trump makes outrageous statements, contradicts himself, and betrays a woeful ignorance about government and international relations, and makes claims that he is going to fix problems without providing any plans as to how he is going to fix them.  Nevertheless, people say that they are going to vote for him.  When pressed they say that are unhappy with current politics and the country is going in the wrong direction.  To this HM asks, so the bridge is crowded and slow moving, does that mean you are going to jump off the bridge, even though you don’t know that you’ll survive the jump or that you might be eaten by the crocodiles in the water?

There have been prior posts about the confirmation bias and the backfire effect.  The confirmation bias refers to our bias to believe statements or facts that are in consonance with our beliefs.  The backfire effect refers to the effect when efforts to correct misinformation actually strengthen beliefs in the misinformation.  Ignatius is referencing an article by Christopher Graves in the February 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review.  Research by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifer showed the persistence of the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2005 and 2006 after the United States had publicly admitted that they didn’t exist.  They concluded “The results show that direct factual contradictions can actually strengthen ideologically founded factual belief.

Graves also examined how attempts of debunk myths can reinforce them, simply by repeating the untruth.  This study in the Journal of Consumer Research is titled “How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations.  It seems that people remember the assertion and forget whether it’s a lie.  The authors wrote, “The more often older adults were told that a given claim was false, the more likely they were to accept it as true after several days have passed.”

Graves noted that when critics challenge false assertions, say, Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims cheered in New Jersey when the twin towers fell—their refutations can threaten people rather than convince them. And when people feel threatened, they round up their wagons and defend their beliefs.  Ego involvement generates large mental efforts to defend their erroneous beliefs.    Not only does the Big Lie Work, but small lies also work

Social scientists understand  why the buttons that Trump’s campaign pushes are so effective.  “When the GOP nominee paints a dark picture of a violent, frightening American, he triggers the “fight or flight’ response that is hard-wired in or brains.  For the body politic, it can produce a kind of panic attack.

So attempts to correct misinformation can backfire and have the opposite effect.  So what can be done?  Some possible approaches will be found in the next HM post.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Risks of Acetaminophen

May 27, 2016

Acetaminophen is the most common drug ingredient in the United States.  It is an ingredient in more then 600 medicines.  About a quarter of all Americans take acetaminophen every week.  However, there are risks to acetaminophen according to an article by Amy Ellis Nutt  in the Health Section of the May 17 2016 edition of the Washington Post, titled, “You don’t feel my pain? Blame acetaminophen.”

The article report research published online  in the journal Social  Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience conducted  by scientists from the National Institutes of Health and Ohio State University.  The results come from two experiments involving more than 200 college students.

In one experiment 80 participants were asked to drink a liquid.  Half the participants received something containing 1,000 milligrams of acetaminopheh.  The other half constituted the control group that drank something without the drug.  An hour later all were asked  to rate the pain experienced by characteristics in eight different fictional scenarios.  In some of the stories, the characters went through a physical trauma, whereas in others an emotional trauma.  In general, those who had taken the acetaminophen rated the pain of the characters as less severe than those who had taken the placebo.

The second experiment exposed participants to brief blasts of white noise.  As one who has experienced brief blasts of white noise, these are extremely discomforting.  They were then asked to rate the pain of another (anonymous) study participant who had also been subjected to the blasts of white noise.  Research participants who had received acetaminophen rated the pain of this anonymous individual as being less severe than those who had taken the placebo.

In another test in which participants had to judge online skits involving social rejection, they showed the same effects as in the noise experiments.  “In this case, the participants had the chance to empathize with the suffering of someone who they thought was going through a socially painful experience.  Still those who took the acetaminophen  showed a reduction in empathy.  They weren’t as concerned about the rejected person’s hurt feelings.

This research built on previous studies identifying a brain region that appears to be key to a person’s empathic response.  The anterior insula, located deep in the folds between the front and side of the brain, is a place where mind and body are integrated.  It also plays a key role in awareness, including emotional awareness.  The less pain a person feels, the less able he or she is to empathize with someone else’s pain.

The researchers note, “Because empathy regulates prosocial and antisocial behavior, this drug-induced reduction in empathy raise concerns about the broader social side effects of acetaminophen.”

Liberator of Knowledge from Tyranny of Profit

April 11, 2016

This post is motivated by an article by Michael S. Rosenwald  in the April 6, 2016 edition of the Washington Post titled,”Thief? Or Liberator of Knowledge from the Tyranny of Profit?”  The title of this healthy memory post should indicate my position on the title of the article.  The article is about a 27-year-old graduate student from Kazakhstan Alexandra Elbakyan who is operating a searchable online database of nearly 50 million stolen scholarly journal articles.

The basis for the posts I publish on this blog come from books I have purchased.  There are additional magazines and journals that I receive on the basis of professional organizations to which  I belong  and to which I pay dues.  Sometimes I find an interesting article from a source to which I do not have free access, but discover an unjustifiable fee to purchase the article.

It is a tad ironic that one of the purposes of these scientific organizations to which I belong is to disseminate scientific knowledge.  Yet they charge for the dissemination of this knowledge, and these publications constitute a significant part of the income for these organizations.

At one time this publication process might have been justifiable when it was based on paper.  However, in the digital age this publication process is no longer justifiable.  There are annoyingly long publication delays in the print medium, whereas the dissemination of information should be fast in this new digital age.

One substantial delay is the review process in refereed journals.  This is a matter of independent reviewers reviewing articles and providing input to the journal to determine if the article should be published.  I’ve participated in this process both as an article submitter and an article reviewer.  Often the agreement among the reviewers is not high.  I’ve reviewed articles that I think made a substantive contribution to the field, yet the articles were rejected on the basis of what I regarded to be minor issues.  I don’t believe that it is ever possible to write an article to which there are no objections.  The nature of research requires certain compromises and if these compromises are raised high enough, the article is rejected.

I am of  the strong opinion that this review process is unnecessary.  Usually I can quickly tell whether an article is worth my time.  And I am curious as to what articles I am not seeing due to an unjustified rejection of a good article.  I think the strongest advocates of article reviews are tenured faculty members who must make judgments as to whether junior faculty member should be granted tenure.  The review process allows them to count the numbers of articles published in refereed journals.  Otherwise, there would be the necessity to read an evaluate articles written by these junior faculty members.

Actually, there is a much larger problem that was documented in epidemiologist Ioannidis’s landmark article “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” (PLOS Medicine, 2, 3124. Doi:101371/journal pmed, 0020124, 2005). Subsequent research has confirmed his conclusion. Many articles followed (see the AAA Tranche of Subprime Science (Gelman and Laken, 2014). The problem hit the popular press with the October 19th cover of the Economist broadcasting HOW SCIENCE GOES GOES WRONG (see the healthy memory blog post “Most Published Research Findings are False.”)

I am amazed that this conclusion has received so little public attention.  It means that should your physician give you advice or recommend certain medications or procedures, he is most likely flying by the seat of his pants.  Even if is based on published research, there is a better than even chance that the research is in error.

Moreover, it is this insidious paper publication process that underlies most of this problem.  Journals pride themselves on high rejection rates, yet many of the rejected articles might have been failures to replicate.  The problem is further exacerbated by researchers who do not even bother to submit negative findings to journals because they know that these articles are likely to be rejected.  This is known as the “file drawer” problem which refers to important results that never see the light of day and end up in the file drawer.

So it is clear to me that this conventional publication process needs to be made electronic with all articles being available and all the data on which the articles are based need to be made available.  Most of this research is based on government funding.  So it is especially infuriating that I cannot get articles or data for which I have already paid.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Can Zombies Drive to Work?

March 20, 2016

The title of this post is identical to Chapter 2  of Elizier J. Sternberg’s “Neurologic:  The brain’s Hidden Rationale Behind Our Irrational Behavior.”  I believe all of us who drive have had the experience of driving someplace and having no memory of the drive itself.  We might as well been a Zombie during the drive.  So there you have the answer to the question posed in the title of the chapter.  The chapter is about how our unconscious minds perform well-trained behaviors while doing something else.  Sometimes we can perform some behaviors that have not been previously practiced.  Sternberg provides an example in which a man was able to drive to a house and murder someone without having any conscious awareness of it.  Moreover, he was acquitted of murder at his trial on the grounds that he had no conscious intention of murdering someone and that all this was the result of non conscious processing.

A large part of this chapter is devoted to multi-tasking, and how we are able to multi-task.  However, he never mentions the costs of multi-tasking, and I regard this failure as being not just highly irresponsible, but dangerously irresponsible.  There have been many healthy memory posts on the dangers of multi-tasking.  Enter “multitasking” or “Strayer” into the healthy memory blog search block to find some os these posts.  Sternberg even cites some of  Strayer’s research in the chapter, but never mentions the risk of multi-tasking that is the point of Strayer’s research.

I think a distinction can be made between intentional multi-tasking and unintentional multi-tasking.  Unintentional multi-tasking is more commonly known as distraction or mind wandering.  There was an article in the February 21 Washington Post (A14) by Michael Laris titled “Why Do Metro rail operators keep running red signals?”

Red signals indicate that a train should go no further until the signal changes, just as on the road.  But according to the Federal Transit Administration there have been at least 47 “red signal” violations since the beginning of 1912.  And some of these violations ended just short of some very severe accidents.

It is important to realize that these are not incompetent or careless individuals.  If we understand how our conscious attention works, they can be quite understandable. Under one situation in which there was single tracking, the operator responded to the red signal and stopped.  He waited for the train to pass.  In most cases only one train passes.  However, in this case there was a second train.  As the operator was expecting only a single train, he ignored the red signal and proceeded and found that a second train was coming.  Fortunately, he stopped and a collision was avoided.

In another case, a novice operator out for her first run boarded a train on the wrong track.  This was her first actual day on the job and she was overwhelmed.    She gave the controller the number of the track she was on, but the controller failed to tell her that she was on the wrong train and she proceeded.  Again, the mistake was corrected before a collision occurred.

Another operator was told that a complaint had been levied against her to which she ended to respond.  This distracted and she missed the red signal.

It is not unusual for people to respond and think that they actually performed correctly., but the documented evidence is to the contrary.  Personally, I have had many such experiences where I am virtually certain that I saw or did something, but the facts indicate that I was in error.

It should be noted that similar problems trouble Transportation Security Administration  agents gazing  at X-ray images and surgeons peering into incisions.

It needs to be realized that multitasking always entails costs.  And that cost is more the the sum of the costs of the multiple tasks being performed.  There is also a cost to switching between  between or among the multiple tasks.  If the task is important, concentrate on that task and devote all your attention to it.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Distracted Driving Increasing Pedestrian Deaths

March 17, 2016

An article in the March 8, 2016 Washington Post by Ashley Halsey III is titled “Pedestrian deaths jump, report says.”  The subtitle is “There are more drivers and more walkers, and both are distracted.”  The report is from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA).  The report estimates that the number of pedestrian fatalities jumped by 10% last year, a year-to-year increase that comes after a 19% increase from 2009 to 2014.  This projected 10% increase would bring pedestrian deaths to their highest total since 1996, when 5,449 pedestrians were killed.

Driver deaths are decreasing due to better designed cars.  There are a variety of reasons for the increased pedestrian deaths, but distracted driving is either at the top or near the top of the list.  A number that is not given is the number of pedestrian deaths caused by pedestrians being on their phones.  This is a matter of smartphones making their users dumb and dead.  I’ve seen pedestrians so engrossed in their smartphones that they step directly into traffic without looking.  One of my abiding fears is that I’ll run into one of these people.  The fact that the pedestrian was responsible  would not prevent me from my personal trauma.

Another factor bearing on pedestrian deaths is walking at night.  I see two problems here.  One is that many pedestrians seem to think that there is a symmetry between what they see and what the driver sees, but the cars are big and illuminated and the pedestrian is small and in the dark.  This problem is further exacerbated by dark clothing.  When I was in school there were posters telling us to wear white after dark. Whatever became of those posters, in particular, and wearing light clothes, in particular.

To see more posts on the problems of distracted driving enter “Strayer”  in the search block of the healthy memory blog.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

CTE Goes Beyond the NFL

March 11, 2016

CTE stands for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.  Previous healthymrmory posts titled Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), and Watching Football, Feeling Guilty have discussed this devastating brain condition.  After much legal action the NFL has set up a mechanism for compensating players who suffer from this disease.  It is estimated that at least one-third of NFL players will suffer from early onset Alzheimer’s.  Others can  suffer symptoms that border on, if not cross, insanity and this insanity causes them to commit suicide.

The Sports section of the March 4, 2016 Washington Post contained two articles on CTE.  One article ty Rick Maese is titled “Chastain will donate brain for research.”  This is Brandi Chasten who played parts of 12 years for he U.S. national soccer team, helping the American win a pair of Olympic gold medals and two World Cup titles.  She has become an advocate for making soccer a safer sport, urging youth leagues to ban heading the ball by athletes under age 14.  Her brain eventually will go to the brain bank run by the Concussion Legacy Foundation, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Boston University School of Medicine.  Currently only 4 of the 307 brains in this brain bank are from women.  This shortcoming is especially important because the female brain may be more prone to injury and adverse long-term outcome that the male brain .  Injury data  for both college and high school athletics has found that women suffer more concussions than men who compete in similar sports.

Another article by Steven Goff titled, “Concussion symptoms lead D.C. United’s Arnaud to retire” reviews how Davy Arnand is retiring because he has been unable to shake the symptoms he’s suffered from recent concussions.  He said that he had been unable to shake the “drunk, dizzy feeling” of a head injury suffered heading the ball in practice last summer.  Other  soccer players, Bryan Namoff, Josh Gros, Alecko Eskandarin, Devan McTavish, and Taylor Twellman are other players who have been forced into retirement by head injuries.

Dr. Bennet Heakandu Omalu who discovered, diagnosed, and define the condition is especially concerned about youth playing football.  Their brains are especially vulnerable at those ages.

I find it ironic when athletics, whose primary objective is, or should be, health result is serious debilitating conditions.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Too Much Carbon Dioxide May Cloud Our Thinking

March 8, 2016

The title of this post is the same as the title of an article by Marlene Cimons in the Health Section of the March 1, 2016 Washington Post.  The bottom line is that due to two recent studies, we have something new about which to be concerned, and a reason to be even more concerned about global warming.    Until recently it was thought that carbon dioxide  was harmless except at what was regarded as extremely high levels of 5,000 parts per million (PPM) or more.

In 2012 scientists at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory decided to conduct their study after finding two small Hungarian studies suggesting that indoor carbon dioxide was harmful at levels lower than 5,000 ppm.  The study found  significant reductions on six scales to decision-making performance at carbon dioxide levels of 1,000 ppm and large reductions on seven of the scales  (that is one additional scale) at 2,500 ppm.  In other words that even at 1,000 ppm there were some adverse effects on decision making,and 2500 produced dysfunctional performance.

Outdoor concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air are around 400 ppm.  Building operators have tried to keep levels blow 1,000 ppm as an indication of adequate general ventilation, not be cause they were concerned about carbon dioxide itself.  Indoor levels can reach  several thousand ppm with concentrations in classrooms occasionally exceeding 3,000 ppm.

Researchers at Harvard and from SUNY Upstate Medical Center used similar testing methods but monitored performance over a longer period confirming the results from the 2012 study.  These researchers studied the effects of different concentration of air pollutants including carbon dioxide as well as performance under high and low ventilation.  Cognitive scores were 61% higher on days with low concentrations if pollutants, compared with the same participants’ scores when they spent  in a low-ventilation environment with elevated levels of pollutants, and 101% better on days with the most ventilation.

For seven of the nine areas of productive decision-making, the average scores decreased as the level of carbon dioxide grew higher.  Compared with the two days of high ventilation, cognitive function scores were 15% lower on the day with moderate carbon dioxide, about 945 ppm and 50% lower  on the day with carbon dioxide concentrations around 1,400 ppm.

Joseph Allen, an assistant professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health suggests that spending money to increase ventilation in office buildings would be very cost-effective for employers by estimating the cost of doubling indoor ventilation rates at $40 per person annually against a productivity gain of $6500 per person per year.

So there is ample justification for improving building environmentally and for being concerned by global warming.

I am curious about the long-term effects of breathing high levels of carbon dioxide.  I am also curious as to whether increased oxygen intake  can improve performance.  Perhaps there is justification for oxygen heavy rooms or for facilities where people can take an extra shot of oxygen.  s

Wealth and Leisure Go Hand in Hand—except in the U.S.

March 6, 2016

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article b Christopher Ingraham in the Business section of the 28 February 2016 issue of the Washington Post.  That wealth and leisure go hand in hand has been a belief held by many, economists included.  Quite some time ago the famous economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that his grandchildren would have 15-hour work weeks due in part  to increased productivity from new machines and technology.  There have been many healthy memory posts on this topic (enter “Why Are We Working So Hard” in the healthymemory search block).  I’ve mentioned many times that when I was in elementary school back in the fifties that we were told that we would have ample free time today due to technology.  At that time it was unusual for women with children to work.  Today it appears that everyone is working more hours, so what happened to the benefits to technology?

Two economists, Charles  Jones and Peter Klenow have examined the number of hours worked as a function of the fraction of per person GDP.   So the value for the U.S is 1, and the values for other country are some percentage of 1.  The average annual number of hours worked per capita in the U.S is 877.  The only countries in the study with a higher number are Malawi, India, and Mexico.  The average number of hours worked per capita in France is 535 hours.   So the average number of hours worked in France is less than two-thirds as much as the average hours worked in the U.S.  The average number of hours worked in Italy and the United Kingdom are slightly higher than in France.

The standard of living of these countries is close to that of the U.S.  Moreover, the social  amenities offered in these countries are often superior to those offered in the U.S.   For example, medical care is free in the United Kingdom.  Not only is medical care free, but statistics indicate that the quality of medical care is superior in the United Kingdom.

So why is this the case in the United States, and why do citizens in the U.S. tolerate this situation?  I think this situation in the United States is not beneficial to health, in general, and memory health, in particular.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

World Economic Forum (WEF) Projects that 5 Million Jobs Will Be Lost to New Technologies by 2020

January 26, 2016

The Washington Post article on which this blog post is based can be found in the 20th January  2016  edition on page A13 in the article written by Jena McGregor.  The theme of the 2016 gathering is the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  This is the term it uses to describe the accelerating pace of technological changes.  It emphasizes changes that are “blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres,” which is the combination of things such as artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, and 3-D printing.  It projects that by 2020, 7.1 million jobs are expected to be lost vs. only 2 million jobs gained.   The WEF study predicts different magnitudes of effects depending on gender.  The repot estimates that in absolute terms, men will face about three jobs lost for every job gained, whereas women will face more than five jobs lost for every job gained.  Now the astute reader will realized that this breakdown does not square with the overall number of jobs lost even given the difference in gender losses.  Whether this is due to the WEF report or the report on the WEF report is unknown.  My queries to the author were not answered.  Another study by Oxford University researchers estimated that 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be taken by robots in the next two decades.

The good news is that about a third of the skills that will be most desirable in 2020 aren’t even considered important today.  Social skills such as persuasion and emotional intelligence are expected to be more in demand that limited technical skills.  so are creativity, active listening, and critical thinking.

So the good news means that the new jobs are likely to be more desirable that the old jobs that are being lost.  There still will likely be an increase in unemployment unless other measures are taken, such as shorter work days, many more vacation days, and opportunities for personal development.  I’ve written in previous healtymemory blog posts that when I was in elementary school in the fifties, the prediction was that there would be much more leisure today as the result of technology.  That has not materialized.  Moreover back then it was unusually for mothers to work.  And the technology that emerged is well beyond the technology that was envisioned.  So why are we working so hard.   A priority needs to be given to quality of life rather than gross domestic product (GDP) (see the healthy memory blog post, “The Well-Being of Nations:  Meaning, Motive, and Measurement”).

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Ann Applebaum’s Column on Facebook

December 14, 2015

The title of her column was Undoing Facebook’s damage.  Anyone who has read any of my sixteen previous posts about Facebook should be aware that I am not a fan.  However, I must applaud Mark Zukerberg and his wife on their pledge to give away $45 billion dollars.  Nevertheless, I also applaud Anne Applebaum for her column.  Here is her advice “…use it to undo the terrible damage done by Facebook and other forms of social media to democratic debate and civilized discussion all over the world.”  She goes on to say that weak democracies suffer the most.  Given the extensive damage done in the USA, that is an extraordinary amount of damage.  Just let me cite one example, the conversion of Moslems to radical jihadism.  This is a problem most acutely felt by Moslems, in general, and by the parents of those converted, in particular.

Of course, this was not Zukerberg’s intention. Rather it is an unintended and rather extreme consequence.   Applebaum goes on to write, “The longer-term impact of disinformation is profound:  Eventually it means that nobody believes anything.”

Readers of the healthy memory blog should be aware that it is extremely difficult to disabuse people of their false beliefs.  Moreover there are organizations who produce false information.   This has become an activity with its own name, agnogenesis.

So an activity is needed to counter agnognesis. Disagnogensis?  Please help, Mr. Zukerberg.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. 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 healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A New School of Thoughtfulness

October 29, 2015

The title of this blog post is the title of an article in the Local Living section of the October 8, 2015 Washington Post.  It was an article about teaching thoughtfulness in the public schools. The subtitle to this article is “These educators teach kids to take their breath and practice mindfulness,” and the article is by Rachel Pomerance.  I so wish that this had been taught in the public schools when I attended them.  I would have been a better student and  better human being.  I have only been working on thoughtfulness these past several years after I started the healthy memory blog.

Research has convincingly linked mindfulness to improved focus, mood, and behavior.  The movement has ballooned and has spread from health-care institutions to Fortune 500 companies, the military and athletics.  Now it is increasingly being used at schools and with children.  It is here that mindfulness has its major impact.  Students are learning skills that will benefit them their entire lives provided they keep working at them.  And these skill will have strong benefits on learning.

Mindfulness provides a mental reset button, freeing one from a crush of distraction, swell of anger, or parade of fears and regrets that can dominate thoughts and derail behavior.  Thoughtfulness exercises  include counting breaths, focus on one of the five senses, anchors to turn to when one’s thoughts wander.

The article notes that the idea of getting squirmy kids to sit still or angst-ridden teens to meditate might seem far fetched.   But it finds that kids often do take to it, readily turning  to the practice as a way to self-soothe, and they take these techniques home with them.

One fourth grade student said, “When I’m made and get into a fight with my brother or anyone in the family, I go up to my room, and I start breathing and doing mindfulness. It calms me down a little so things get back to normal.”

A classmate says that when she has trouble sleeping, she’ll count her breaths and listen to the ticking of her watch to relax.

Another student said, “I thought it was totally weird at first., then I realized that it totally helped…with everything in my life.”

Yet another student was playing volleyball and getting angry at her losing team.  She said that she was about to yell at them them for not doing the right thing, but then she recalibrated, did not yell, and made positive suggestions.

It appears that mindfulness is being learned by the parents from their children, which they are finding is improving them as parents.

Mindfulness is not some magic switch that can be turned on.  It needs to be practiced and worked at.  Sometimes we fail, but it is important that we also forgive ourselves and work to improve in the future.