Sunday, March 13, 2011

Facebook and Love: Why Women Are Attracted to Guys Who Play Hard to Get

Facebook and Love: Why Women Are Attracted to Guys Who Play Hard to Get


On Valentine's Day, it's tempting to check your wall every 10 min. to see if that cute guy from the bar last week has poked you. But a recent Psychological Science study by researchers at the University of Virginia and Harvard says you will probably like him more if he ignores you than if he posts flirty messages.

The study complicates decades of research on the “reciprocity principle,” which says that people fancy others who show fondness for them. As psychologists Erin Whitchurch, Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert explain the principle, “If we want to know how much Sarah likes Bob, a good predictor is how much she thinks Bob likes her.” (More on TIME.com: 5 Little-Known Truths About American Sex Lives)

But recent research on non-romantic attractions — how much consumers like a certain product, say — shows that there can be pleasure in uncertainty. If you discover that your lottery ticket is a winner, you feel happier when you don't yet know the precise amount of your coming treasure than you do when you instantly learn its value. Or take Christmas: kids (and adults) often enjoy the anticipation of Santa's visit more than the actual presents he brings.

As the authors write, “When people are certain that a positive event has occurred, they begin to adapt to it.” That adaptation makes it all less thrilling. By contrast, “when people are uncertain about an important outcome, they can hardly think about anything else.”

This expectancy can create a “self-perception effect,” a psychological phenomenon first described by the respected researcher Daryl Bem in the late '60s. Bem noted that people often form attitudes about themselves by observing their own behaviors. In this case, the self-perception effect would roughly translate to “I must like him if I keep checking my wall to see if he pops up.”

To test whether the uncertainty theory applies to romantic attraction, Whitchurch, Wilson and Gilbert devised a simple experiment. They recruited 47 women from the University of Virginia and told them they would be participating in a study exploring whether Facebook is a useful dating site. The researchers also said several male students from the University of Michigan and UCLA had viewed their profiles — which was a lie. The male students were fictional. (More on TIME.com: Texting Leads to Sex Sooner--And Easier Break-Ups Later)

Each participant was told she would see the Facebook profiles of four of the guys. Then the participants were randomly split into three groups. In Group 1, each woman was told that the four guys had all said they expected to like her best. In Group 2, each woman was told she would see profiles of four men who had given her average ratings.

Finally, the women in Group 3 were told that their four men might be those who liked them most and might be those who thought they were average. This was the uncertainty group.

Then all the participants rated the men according to how much they liked them, how much they wanted to work with them on a class project, and — cutting to the chase — how much they wanted to hook up with them.

The results confirmed the reciprocity principle — the women in Group 2 had less desire for the guys whose profiles they saw than the women Group 1, who saw the profiles of the guys who thought they were hot. But the women in Group 3, the uncertainty group, were even more attracted to their men — men whose feelings they didn't know. As the authors write, “Women were more attracted to men when there was only a 50% chance that the men liked them best than when there was a 100% chance that the men liked them the best.” (More on TIME.com: Will Facebook Steal Online Dating Sites' Girl?)

In short, guys, you're right to play hard to get. This Valentine's, you can spark her attention by not poking her.

***

Follow my psychology columns on Twitter @JohnAshleyCloud

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Pain reduced by changing what you look at

Pain reduced by changing what you look at

This won't hurt... much: Patrick Haggard gives science reporter Rebecca Morelle a first-hand look at the pain experiments

Related Stories

What you look at can influence how much pain you feel, a study has revealed.

Contrary to many people's compulsion to look away during a painful event such as an injection, scientists found that looking at your body - in this case the hand - reduces the pain experienced.

The team also showed that magnifying the hand to make it appear larger cut pain levels further still.

The study, published in Psychological Science, is shedding light on how the brain processes pain.

The researchers say that gaining a better understanding of this could lead to new treatments.

Look away?

The University College London (UCL) and University of Milan-Bicocca research, which was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), was carried out with the help of 18 volunteers.

The scientists applied a heat probe to each participant's hand, gradually increasing the temperature. As soon as this began to feel painful, the probe was removed and the temperature was recorded.

Patrick Haggard, professor of cognitive neuroscience from UCL, explained: "This gives us a measure of the pain threshold, and it is a safe and reliable way of testing when the brain pathways that underline pain become active."

Image of preparing an injection Many people look away during a painful experience like an injection

The scientists then used a set of mirrors to manipulate what the volunteers saw.

The team found that volunteers could tolerate on average 3C more heat when they were looking at their hand in the mirror, compared with when their hand was obscured by a block of wood.

Professor Haggard said: "You always advise children not to look when they are having an injection or a blood sample taken, but we have found that looking at the body is analgesic - just looking at the body reduces pain levels.

"So my advice would be to look at your arm, but try to avoid seeing the needle - if that's possible. "

Brain pain

In another experiment, the researchers used convex mirrors to enlarge the appearance of the participant's hand. They found that doing so meant the volunteers were able to tolerate higher temperatures.

Conversely, when the team made the volunteers' hands look smaller, their pain threshold decreased.

MRI of brain The studies are helping to show how pain is processed in the brain

The researchers said the fact that pain levels were directly proportional to the size the body was viewed at was helping them to better understand the neurological basis of pain.

Professor Haggard said: "We know quite a lot about the pathways that carry pain signals from the body to the brain, but we know rather less about how the brain processes these signals once they arrive.

"Our interest has been in the relationship between the experience of pain and the representation that your brain makes of your own body.

"And we've shown there is an interesting interaction between the brain's visual networks and the brain's pain networks."

The researchers hope that understanding more about the science that underpins pain could one day help to lead to new treatments for chronic conditions.

Dr Flavia Mancini, lead author of the paper, said: "Psychological therapies for pain usually focus on the source of pain, for example by changing expectations or attention.

"However, thinking beyond the pain stimulus, to our body itself, may lead to novel clinical treatments."

Start Quote

Increasingly there is an interest in what the brain does to pain signals”

End Quote Dr Paul Nandi University College Hospital

And doctors say this is vital.

Dr Paul Nandi, a consultant in pain medicine at University College London Hospital's Pain Management Centre, said: "Pain is an enormous problem in the National Health Service and in society generally.

"We do not have precise figures, but it affects several million people in the UK, and it has a huge impact on quality of life.

"It also produces a huge economic burden - if you look at chronic back pain alone, it is estimated that it costs £16bn per annum.

"But this is still widely under-appreciated, and hasn't received the same attention and resources as other areas perceived as 'exciting' in the medical profession."

However, he said that studies like this could help to drive more research.

Dr Nandi explained: "A lot of research in the past few years has focussed on identifying targets in the nervous systems that can be used for treatments.

"But increasingly there is an interest in what the brain does to pain signals, and I think this will be a very exciting field for research in the next few years."

Source

Do Denmark's immigration laws breach human rights?

Do Denmark's immigration laws breach human rights?

Mock marriage performed by activists during a demonstration outside the Danish parliament The tough law on marriages involving a foreign-born spouse has led to satirical mock weddings

Related Stories

Critics of Denmark's tightening rules on immigration and integration say the country is violating European norms, including human rights legislation. How much has Denmark's approach to these issues been transformed under pressure from a right-wing populist party?

It looks, at first, like a familiar Scandinavian scene.

Outside the Danish parliament in Copenhagen, an international crowd mixing Danish citizens, immigrants from all kinds of backgrounds, is enjoying music and theatre.

"Afro-Danes" are here, reflecting Denmark's long interest in African developments and its past offers of asylum to those fleeing conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.

The crowd laughs as a couple stage a mock marriage. An official asks whether they are marrying "purely for immigration purposes" and "plan to live in a ghetto".

Behind the humour, there is serious anxiety. Denmark has recently tightened its immigration laws again, with a points system designed to make it more difficult for "family reunion" to bring foreigners into the country through marriage.

And the language of "ghettoes", warnings of a threat to "Danish values", are now heard routinely in political and popular debate.

Points system

There are new stricter requirements for would-be immigrants, and for those already in Denmark, who wish to marry a Dane. This is in addition to the already high minimum age of 24 for both the Danish and the foreign would-be spouse, proof of financial independence and an "active commitment to Danish society".

Anti-DPP protestors outside the Danish parliament Opponents of the new points system made their feelings known outside the Danish parliament

The new points system had Thomas Miller, a Dane, and his Mexican wife Carolina so worried they might now have to leave Denmark, that they went to lobby MPs in parliament.

"We are both graduates, we have been living in Denmark for eight years, working and paying our taxes, with no debts to the public system. Despite this, she would get no points," says Thomas.

"It's as if they don't want Danes to marry foreigners anymore. It's very worrying," Carolina adds.

"I'm speechless, it's so unjust," says Thomas. "It's all about the stick, there's no carrot."

Human rights breaches

European and international bodies have pointed out that some of these laws and regulations could be in breach of human rights legislation.

LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMMES

  • The first part of Europe: Driving on the Right about Denmark and Sweden is available on the BBC iPlayer
  • Part two about Austria and Germany is on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 15 February at 1600 GMT

Professor Margot Horspool, a specialist in European law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, says that the restrictions on marrying foreigners "almost certainly breach European Union law in respect of discrimination as to ethnic origin, and possibly as to age".

She also believes the rules may violate EU legal protection of "the right to family life".

Another tightening of the rules prohibits state-funded hostels for the homeless from accepting foreigners who do not have permanent residency status. Reports say that this has led to people freezing to death in the sub-zero winter temperatures.

This, suggests Professor Horspool, breaks EU legal commitments not to subject individuals to inhuman or degrading treatment, laws that amount to an "obligation on the member state to ensure that humans are not left out in the street to freeze or indeed to starve."

TO MARRY A FOREIGNER

  • Both the Danish and the foreign partner need to be at least 24 years old
  • The Danish partner needs to post a bond of £7,200 collateral ($11,600)
  • The foreign partner has to pass a language and knowledge test
  • Both need to demonstrate a combined attachment to Denmark greater than to any other country

The Danish government denies that its laws breach human rights, and says the 24-year age restriction is to prevent forced marriages.

Naser Khader, himself of Palestinian and Syrian descent, is now the immigration spokesman for the Conservatives, part of the governing coalition which depends on the votes of the DPP, the anti-immigration Danish People's Party.

He defends the toughened immigration policies: "We have a lot of people with an immigrant background who married cousins from their parents' villages, who came to Denmark with no language skills, education or work experience and became a great cost to Danish society."

"Denmark should welcome anybody who wants to contribute to this society, but we don't want people who don't want to contribute," he adds.

Populism

All this is part, say critics, of a decade-long transformation in Denmark's approach to immigration and integration, under pressure from the populist Danish People's party, the DPP.

Pia Kjaersgaard DPP leader Pia Kjaersgaard enjoys holding the balance of power in parliament

The DPP is led by Pia Kjaersgaard, a former social worker in an old people's home. "We founded the party because of too many immigrants," she says.

She likes to present a homely, common sense image. "I am very powerful," she told me, "but I am also just a housewife and mother".

Denmark's Muslim population are the party's particular focus. There are many Muslims, its says, who are unwilling to integrate and hostile to "Danish values" such as free speech.

The "cartoons crisis" in 2005 boosted DPP support, when a Danish newspaper published cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed. Many Muslims in Denmark and abroad objected, some violently.

The party has yet to win more than around 15% of the vote in elections. But what has given it such influence is Denmark's coalition politics. For a decade ruling parties have depended on DPP MPs to get legislation through.

In return, the DPP has secured other parties' agreement to ever stricter rules on immigration and integration.

Toeger Seidenfaden The late Toeger Seidenfaden regretted many Danish politicians' decreasing interest in human rights

This has "made everyone aware of [the DPP's] power," the late Toger Seidenfaden, Denmark's top political commentator, told me shortly before his death last month. The DPP has become "highly visible", and is seen as the "winner of the game", he said.

Mainstream parties originally tried to ignore the DPP or dismiss it as "not house-trained", unworthy of political attention.

But more recently several parties have abandoned that stance, accepting the DPP as permanent part of the political and parliamentary scene.

In Denmark, as in many other European countries, new populist parties and movements are moving from the margins and shaping the way immigration and integration is debated.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

Here is a better question:

Since when did the government have a right to restrict whom I can and cannot marry?

This question is absurd. Governments make people's lives easier. They do not step into them or on them.

This is a clear violation of every ethical mandate since the dawn of time til now.

I cannot marry my spouse because she/he does not meet your requirements? Shame on Denmark. How crazy a system, it's pathetic in it's idea let alone in trying to apply it to the real world.

It even has an arbitrary age guideline of 24....

Monday, January 24, 2011

Is it fair to pay bankers big bonuses?

Is it fair to pay bankers big bonuses?

Bankers on scales of justice, illustration by Neal Fox

It's bonus season for bankers, including at banks bailed out by taxpayers. Is this just? Great thinkers like Aristotle have mulled such questions for centuries, says philosopher Mark Vernon.

Is it fair and just to pay bankers big bonuses?

You can seek an answer in three different ways, according to the three traditions of moral philosophy that dominate in our times, which are also explored in BBC Four's Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century.

The first answer can be summed up in a word: happiness.

Find out more

  • Harvard's Michael Sandel wrestles with ethical dilemmas such as torture and bank bonuses
  • Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century on BBC Four, Monday 24 Jan at 2100 GMT

It's associated with the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who argued that if you want to know the right thing to do, ask yourself what will increase the happiness of most people, and decrease pain.

Is it the size of the bonuses paid to bankers that so riles the public? The utilitarian could stress that growth, wealth and GDP contribute much to the happiness of all. These depend upon a functioning banking system.

And banks, in turn, need investment bankers to turn a profit. If those bankers are best incentivised by the promise of large bonuses, then so be it. Indirectly, that makes everyone happier.

Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832

The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people works well as a way of doing justice.

After all, who doesn't want happiness? Make it the subject of your politics and you don't have to worry if people are from the left or right, secular or religious.

But utilitarianism concludes that torture is right. One person suffers, but many live more happily as a result. Many are uncomfortable with this.

The utilitarian would also consider the amount of outrage and unhappiness that large bonuses generate in the population at large. There may come a point when the happiness generated by profitable banks outweighs the unhappiness of protests at the bonuses.

But then again, banks are so fundamental to our economy, and the economy is so fundamental to our happiness, that it seems unlikely this tipping point will be reached - as indeed the British government seems to have concluded.

The second tradition might come to a broadly similar view, but for different reasons.

Protest against bank bonuses outside RBS The tax take isn't enough to head off protests

It too can be summed up in a word - dignity - and is associated with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

The starting point now is respect for the rights of investment bankers. They are protected by their contracts of employment, and those contracts state that they should be paid large bonuses when their efforts generate profits.

Further, the bankers secured their jobs in a free market, one that others are perfectly at liberty to enter too.

So, if you think bonuses are wrong because you miss out as a result - perhaps by having to pay more taxes - then one answer would be, change your career. The City awaits you too.

Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804

Individuals have rights, he argued, a universal principle based on reason. After all, if I don't always and everywhere respect your rights, why should you treat me with the respect I'd hope for.

Nowhere does this matter more than when it comes to individual liberty, the exercising of free will.

Only this great strength is also a weakness. We are connected. If your community is crime-ridden or poverty-stricken, no amount of individual freedom will enable you to live well.

Only that doesn't seem very satisfactory. Not everyone can be a banker.

Further, banks exist to serve the community. They are supposed to hold our money and lend it out, in order to facilitate the process of wealth generation - wealth that is for the good of all. This is to say that large bonuses offend our sense of the common good.

So this leads to the third answer, which is encapsulated in a word too: virtue.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that justice is as much about the place you live in, and whether everyone can live in it well. It's called the common good. So, whether or not the common good is served by large bonuses is an issue to consider, according to him.

Another is to think of the virtues that bonuses instil in the bankers. Do bonuses make them better bankers?

Aristotle 384-322 BC

By living well, he meant we all have the chance to achieve excellence in what we do and who we are.

This requires education, emulation of heroes, participation in your community, and contributing to the common good.

But we value our individual liberty. Doesn't caring for others mean giving things up? We also have to debate what the good life is about, and are bound to disagree.

It could well be argued that excessive incentives cloud good judgement, which the good investment bankers needs. Rather, they breed greed, a fault that arguably contributed to the banking collapse of 2008. If you follow this logic, then bonuses should be cut.

Three arguments, then.

Does paying large bonuses increase everyone's happiness, because the banks do well? Should we respect the rights of the bankers, who are owed the cash?

Or do we need to think more about the common good, and what banks are for?

Mark Vernon, the author of Philosophy For The Curious and Ethics For The Curious, will tackle more modern dilemmas on this page throughout the week. Tomorrow, should Christian B&Bs accept gay couples?


Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

I'm surprised they choose Benthem to explain utilitarianism when John Stuart Mill could be said to be a more famous Utilitarian. It should also be noted Utilitarianism does not care what the intention of a person is, that as long as it causes good, it's good; even with an evil intention.(This is something Kant would be fervently against)

The answer this school of philosophy provides is always unacceptable because it allows the oppression of one group of people for the happiness of the majority. This is something I deem unacceptable and as a result I have no interest in discussing it's choice.


Then we move onto Kant whom was famous for asking us to derive maxims about ourselves, and to create laws based on those maxims. That we knew the common good and we should follow laws as we would want them imposed on us.

They seemed to ascribe dignity to him, but he himself would use the term Justice.
He asked us to make a rational decision on whether a law should be followed or not, based on if it were imposed on us.

Using that standard, no, even if I were a banker, I would not believe bonuses to be Just if it means the environment they create is dangerous to our whole economic system.

As far as Aristotle goes, his teacher Plato would choose the word harmony, or something similar most likely. He spoke about people living in a harmonious way. A way that did not infringe on the rights of others.

Plato, in his famous book The Republic, mentions that even 2 people who are unjust can destroy a society of Just people, and in order for harmony to take place, all people need to justly treat each other Justly, or as they deserve.

So for the sake of this harmony, as it seems these bonuses are so offensive, it would be clear that they would be disallowed.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Palestinian 'offers' in peace process - papers leaked

Palestinian 'offers' in peace process - papers leaked

A Palestinian youth hurls a stone at Israeli border police during clashes in the east Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Issawiya on 3 December 2010 There are regular protests in East Jerusalem as Israeli settlement-building continues

Leaked documents released by al-Jazeera TV suggest Palestinian negotiators agreed to Israel keeping large parts of illegally occupied East Jerusalem.

The TV channel says it has thousands of confidential records covering the peace process between 2000 and 2010.

The papers also reportedly show Palestinian leaders proposing a joint committee to take over Jerusalem's holy sites of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

The BBC has been unable to independently verify the documents.

Al-Jazeera says it has 16,076 confidential records of meetings, emails, communications between Palestinian, Israeli and US leaders.

The papers are believed to have leaked from the Palestinian side.

The alleged offers relating to East Jerusalem are the most controversial, as the issue has been a huge stumbling block in Mideast talks and both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, settling close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements.

Increasing frustration

The View from Washington

The 'Palestine Papers' are nothing like as embarrassing as the recent dump of diplomatic cables on the Wikileaks website for the US administration but will cause some angst.

The reportedly curt dismissals by some US politicians of Palestinian pleas do not fit with the message of even-handedness that President Obama tried to put across in his 2009 Cairo speech - though any student of international realpolitik would be unsurprised by the tone.

But more seriously, the leaks - and the concessions reportedly offered by the Palestinian negotiating team - undermine the position of the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority (PA) and will, US officials will probably fear, boost the cause of Hamas - a group the US (and the EU) refuses to deal with and both brand a 'terrorist organisation'.

Any undermining of the PA will, in Washington's eyes, only make a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that much more difficult.

According to al-Jazeera, in May 2008, Ahmed Qureia, the lead Palestinian negotiator at the time, proposed that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem except Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim), in a bid to reach a final deal.

"This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition," he reportedly said, pointing out that this was a bigger concession than made at Camp David talks in 2000.

The Israelis apparently rejected the concession as inadequate and made no offer in return.

PLO leaders also privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere, according to the leaked documents.

And Palestinian negotiators were reported to be willing to discuss limiting the number of Palestinian refugees returning to 100,000 over 10 years.

These are all highly sensitive issues and have previously been non-negotiable.

Current peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been suspended for months, ostensibly over Israel's refusal to stop building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

The BBC's Wyre Davies, in Jerusalem, says that for years, the same Palestinian leaders have been talking with Israeli and American negotiators - but getting nowhere.

Our correspondent says there has been increasing frustration and protest among many Palestinians over what they see as Israeli expansion and the weakness of their own leaders - a view that will be reinforced by the leak of these documents.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who features in many of the leaked papers, appeared on Al Jazeera Arabic TV on Sunday to strenuously deny that he had made these sorts of offers.

Source

Alien Hand Syndrome sees woman attacked by her own hand

Alien Hand Syndrome sees woman attacked by her own hand

An operation to control her epilepsy left Karen Byrne with no control of her left hand

Imagine being attacked by one of your own hands, which repeatedly tries to slap and punch you. Or you go into a shop and when you try to turn right, one of your legs decides it wants to go left, leaving you walking round in circles.

Last summer I met 55-year-old Karen Byrne in New Jersey, who suffers from Alien Hand Syndrome.

Her left hand, and occasionally her left leg, behaves as if it were under the control of an alien intelligence.

Karen's condition is fascinating, not just because it is so strange but because it tells us something surprising about how our own brains work.

It started after Karen had surgery at 27 to control her epilepsy, which had dominated her life since she was 10.

Surgery to cure epilepsy usually involves identifying and then cutting out a small section of the brain, where the abnormal electrical signals originate.

When this does not work, or when the damaged area cannot be identified, patients may be offered something more radical. In Karen's case her surgeon cut her corpus callosum, a band of nervous fibres which keeps the two halves of the brain in constant contact.

Start Quote

It would take things out of my handbag and I wouldn't realise so I would walk away; I lost a lot of things before I realised what was going on”

End Quote Karen Byrne

Cutting the corpus callosum cured Karen's epilepsy, but left her with a completely different problem. Karen told me that initially everything seemed to be fine. Then her doctors noticed some extremely odd behaviour.

"Dr O'Connor said 'Karen what are you doing? Your hand's undressing you'. Until he said that I had no idea that my left hand was opening up the buttons of my shirt.

"So I start rebuttoning with the right hand and, as soon as I stopped, the left hand started unbuttoning them. So he put an emergency call through to one of the other doctors and said, 'Mike you've got to get here right away, we've got a problem'."

Out of control

Karen had emerged from the operation with a left hand that was out of control.

"I'd light a cigarette, balance it on an ashtray, and then my left hand would reach forward and stub it out. It would take things out of my handbag and I wouldn't realise so I would walk away. I lost a lot of things before I realised what was going on."

Karen Byrne and Dr Michael Mosley Karen said the condition had been brought under control with medication

Karen's problem was caused by a power struggle going on inside her head. A normal brain consists of two hemispheres which communicate with each other via the corpus callosum.

The left hemisphere, which controls the right arm and leg, tends to be where language skills reside. The right hemisphere, which controls the left arm and leg, is largely responsible for spatial awareness and recognising patterns.

Usually the more analytical left hemisphere dominates, having the final say in the actions we perform.

The discovery of hemispherical dominance has its roots in the 1940s, when surgeons first decided to treat epilepsy by cutting the corpus callosum. After they had recovered, the patients appeared normal. But in psychology circles they became legends.

That is because these patients would, in time, reveal something that to me is truly astonishing - the two halves of our brains each contain a kind of separate consciousness. Each hemisphere is capable of its own independent will.

Brain experiments

The man who did many of the experiments that first proved this was neurobiologist, Roger Sperry.

In a particularly striking experiment, which he filmed, we can watch one of the split brain patients trying to solve a puzzle. The puzzle required rearranging blocks so they matched the pattern on a picture.

First the man tried solving it with his left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere), and that hand was pretty good at it.

Then Sperry asked the patient to use his right hand (controlled by the left hemisphere). And this hand clearly did not have a clue what to do. So the left hand tried to help, but the right hand did not want help, so they ended up fighting like two young children.

Experiments like this led Sperry to conclude that "each hemisphere is a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting".

In 1981 Sperry received a Nobel prize for his work. But in a cruel twist of fate, by then he was suffering from a fatal degenerative brain disease, called kuru, probably picked up in the early days of his research while splitting brains.

Most people who have had their corpus collosum cut appear normal afterwards. You could cross them in the street and you would not know anything had happened.

Karen was unlucky. After the operation, the right side of her brain refused to be dominated by the left.

She has suffered from Alien Hand Syndrome for 18 years, but fortunately for Karen her doctors have now found a medication that seems to have brought the right side of her brain back under some form of control.

Even so I felt it was tactful, when I said goodbye, to give both hands a firm "thank you" shake.

Karen's story features in The Brain: A Secret History - Broken Brains BBC Four, Thu 20 Jan 2100GMT, repeated Tue 25 Jan 2300GMT or online via iPlayer (UK only) at the above link.

Source

Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives

Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel Sun / Eric Sultan / Landov

If there were any doubt about the direction in which the government of Israel is headed, another clear marker emerged in the overheated air of a Knesset committee room on Monday.

On the table was a bill proposed by Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Is Our Home), the right-wing party headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The measure called for stripping the citizenship of any Israeli convicted of espionage, but the only Israelis under discussion were the country's Arab minority. The move follows a loyalty oath that Lieberman would make a condition for acquiring citizenship; calls for bans on Jews from renting property to Arabs; and street demonstrations demanding prohibitions on dating between Arab boys and Jewish girls. (Watch TIME's video "Israel Prepares to Deport Children of Migrant Workers.")

Did the espionage measure have merit? The debate could have been more illuminating. "You're a fascist, " a lawmaker from a leading Arab party told the sponsor. "You're a big traitor, not a small one," the sponsor shot back. "You support spies."

There was, however, expert advice from Israel's internal security service. Shin Bet, the shadowy domestic intelligence body charged with keeping the public safe from terrorism, delicately informed the lawmakers that it had no use for their sledgehammer. "Too broad and lacking in balancing mechanisms," the agency said of the bill.

When even the secret police suggest that a measure goes too far, elected panels might find occasion for pause. Not the Knesset's Internal Security Committee, which passed the bill before midday, tucking one more brick into the wall of controversial legislation that the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been constructing since last fall. Just last week, the coalition prompted cries of McCarthyism when it moved to crack down on Israeli human-rights organizations deemed suspicious by a government that increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty. (Watch a TIME video on the water crisis in the West Bank.)

Taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states, Netanyahu encouraged support for the law, appointing a panel to investigate independent organizations that are critical of government actions. These include Breaking the Silence, a group of former Israeli soldiers that has published a book of testimonies detailing human-rights abuses, which the former soldiers say they witnessed while serving in the West Bank; the rights group B'Tselem, which documents abuses by settlers and security forces in the West Bank; Gisha, which monitors the plight of Palestinians caught between Hamas and Israeli collective punishment in the Gaza Strip; and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, which recently reported in gruesome detail the plight of African economic immigrants, who are commonly referred to "infiltrators."

The measure passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin, prompting a stunned response from quarters both expected and not. Outside the government, a group of leading intellectuals issued a letter declaring that the bill's supporters "will be remembered as being the ones who attempted to smash what is left of democracy in Israel and impose a fascist regime." Even inside Netanyahu's coalition, minister without portfolio Benny Begin, the arch-conservative son of Menachim Begin, told Israeli Radio that the measure broke from the conservatism he knew: "This decision sends a warning signal — here is darkness." (See pictures of young Palestinians in the age of Israel's security wall.)

Ron Pundak, a historian who runs the Peres Center for Peace, sees the current atmosphere of Israeli politics as the ugliest in the nation's history. "It's totally abnormal," he says. "From my point of view, this is reminiscent of the dark ages of different places in the world in the 1930s. Maybe not Germany, but Italy, maybe Argentina later. I fear we are reaching a slippery slope, if we are not already there."

Many analysts attribute the new public emphasis on "loyalty" to the ascendancy of Lieberman, whose support base of immigrants from former Soviet countries is more likely than "veteran" Israelis to openly call Arabs their enemy. The Foreign Minister has openly advocated getting rid of much of Israel's Arab minority by drawing the borders of a Palestinian state to include their towns. Lieberman's hostility to Arabs finds support in the leadership of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox religious party equally crucial to Netanyahu's coalition.

But the confrontational posturing of leaders like Lieberman slides along grooves worn deeply into the Israeli mind-set. By calling the Turkish government "liars" last month, the Foreign Minister may have helped scotch a carefully brokered rapprochement over last year's flotilla fiasco, in which nine Turks died at the hands of Israeli commandos. But self-righteous indignation is a staple position for an Israeli public whose default assumption is that Israel is always the injured party.

Last week, after a Palestinian woman died after inhaling tear gas that was fired by Israeli troops, army spokesmen mounted a whisper campaign suggesting that she had died of natural causes. The unlikely, anonymous explanation was played prominently by Israeli newspapers. Those who said otherwise stood accused of trying to delegitimize the Israel Defense Forces.

Pollsters point out that, thanks to the vagaries of coalition politics in a proportional-representation parliamentary system that exaggerates the influence of minority parties, Israel's government is more extreme than the citizenry that elected it. But Netanyahu has shown no sign of reining in those elements of his support base that draw the most critical international attention. On Sunday, bulldozers demolished an old hotel in the Sheikh Jarrah section of Jerusalem, making way for a Jewish housing development in an Arab neighborhood. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it a "disturbing" development in a city Jews and Palestinians would be expected to share in any peace settlement.

"The genie is still small enough to put back in the bottle," says Pundak, the historian. "But there's nobody to do it."


Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

Time, like other publications, have been saying this for years. Israel does not seem interested in peace and it's politics are getting more dangerous by the year.

The cause seems to be this mixture of religion and nationalism. It's dangerous, and it causes people to look past a governments mistakes because it seems to becoming as holy as the religion itself; which is absurd when you take the time to think about it.

The reality is, governments need to be accountable and throwing a holy shroud over them, and asking them to conquer land in occupied territories, is a recipe for disaster. Worse still is the media in Israel that is not getting the story out properly and thus causing the Israeli people to support this movement of mass destruction to continue on unhindered and fully supported.

The independent tribunal in the Hague has already ruled that the occupied territories need to be relinquished for reasons of Justice and inequity. When that occurs, we will see the signs of a possibly peace deal.

Until then, everyone needs to remember, criticizing the Israeli government is essential to keeping it in line and in check.

What government can be trusted to be good without criticism? Any? No none of them.

That's why Thomas Jefferson always promoted a strong and robust 4th branch of government known as the media, to keep the government level and true.

We've known for hundreds of years, governments have to be accountable for their actions.

Why is Israel any different? Why is a mistake there any less of a mistake? Why is murder or injustice there any different?

It, as every other government, needs to be held accountable for it's actions. This accountability will then create an atmosphere where Justice will thrive.


Is there a genius in all of us?

Is there a genius in all of us?

Boy

Those who think geniuses are born and not made should think again, says author David Shenk.

Where do athletic and artistic abilities come from? With phrases like "gifted musician", "natural athlete" and "innate intelligence", we have long assumed that talent is a genetic thing some of us have and others don't.

But new science suggests the source of abilities is much more interesting and improvisational. It turns out that everything we are is a developmental process and this includes what we get from our genes.

A century ago, geneticists saw genes as robot actors, always uttering the same lines in exactly the same way, and much of the public is still stuck with this old idea. In recent years, though, scientists have seen a dramatic upgrade in their understanding of heredity.

They now know that genes interact with their surroundings, getting turned on and off all the time. In effect, the same genes have different effects depending on who they are talking to.

Malleable

"There are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment," says Michael Meaney, a professor at McGill University in Canada.

Start Quote

David Shenk

It would be folly to suggest that anyone can literally do or become anything. But the new science tells us that it's equally foolish to think that mediocrity is built into most of us”

End Quote David Shenk Author of The Genius in All of Us

"And there are no environmental factors that function independently of the genome. [A trait] emerges only from the interaction of gene and environment."

This means that everything about us - our personalities, our intelligence, our abilities - are actually determined by the lives we lead. The very notion of "innate" no longer holds together.

"In each case the individual animal starts its life with the capacity to develop in a number of distinctly different ways," says Patrick Bateson, a biologist at Cambridge University.

"The individual animal starts its life with the capacity to develop in a number of distinctly different ways. Like a jukebox, the individual has the potential to play a number of different developmental tunes. The particular developmental tune it does play is selected by [the environment] in which the individual is growing up."

Is it that genes don't matter? Of course not. We're all different and have different theoretical potentials from one another. There was never any chance of me being Cristiano Ronaldo. Only tiny Cristiano Ronaldo had a chance of being the Cristiano Ronaldo we know now.

But we also have to understand that he could have turned out to be quite a different person, with different abilities. His future football magnificence was not carved in genetic stone.

Doomed

This new developmental paradigm is a big idea to swallow, considering how much effort has gone into persuading us that each of us inherits a fixed amount of intelligence, and that most of us are doomed to be mediocre.

How a London cabbie's brain grows

Taxi

London cabbies famously navigate one of the most complex cities in the world.

In 1999, neurologist Eleanor Maguire conducted MRI scans on their brains and compared them with the brain scans of others.

In contrast with non-cabbies, experienced taxi drivers had a greatly enlarged posterior hippocampus - that part of the brain that specialises in recalling spatial representations.

What's more, the size of cabbies' hippocampi correlated directly with each driver's experience: the longer the driving career, the larger the posterior hippocampus.

That showed that spatial tasks were actively changing cabbies' brains. This was perfectly consistent with studies of violinists, Braille readers, meditation practitioners, and recovering stroke victims.

Our brains adapt in response to the demands we put on them.

The notion of a fixed IQ has been with us for almost a century. Yet the original inventor of the IQ test, Alfred Binet, had quite the opposite opinion, and the science turns out to favour Binet.

"Intelligence represents a set of competencies in development," said Robert Sternberg from Tufts University in the US in 2005, after many decades of study.

Talent researchers Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Kevin Rathunde and Samuel Whalen agree.

"High academic achievers are not necessarily born 'smarter' than others," they write in their book Talented Teenagers, "but work harder and develop more self-discipline."

James Flynn of the University of Otago in New Zealand has documented how IQ scores themselves have steadily risen over the century - which, after careful analysis, he ascribes to increased cultural sophistication. In other words, we've all gotten smarter as our culture has sharpened us.

Most profoundly, Carol Dweck from Stanford University in the US, has demonstrated that students who understand intelligence is malleable rather than fixed are much more intellectually ambitious and successful.

The same dynamic applies to talent. This explains why today's top runners, swimmers, bicyclists, chess players, violinists and on and on, are so much more skilful than in previous generations.

All of these abilities are dependent on a slow, incremental process which various micro-cultures have figured out how to improve. Until recently, the nature of this improvement was merely intuitive and all but invisible to scientists and other observers.

Soft and sculptable

But in recent years, a whole new field of "expertise studies", led by Florida State University psychologist Anders Ericsson, has emerged which is cleverly documenting the sources and methods of such tiny, incremental improvements.

Cristiano Ronaldo Born to be a footballer?

Bit by bit, they're gathering a better and better understanding of how different attitudes, teaching styles and precise types of practice and exercise push people along very different pathways.

Does your child have the potential to develop into a world-class athlete, a virtuoso musician, or a brilliant Nobel-winning scientist?

It would be folly to suggest that anyone can literally do or become anything. But the new science tells us that it's equally foolish to think that mediocrity is built into most of us, or that any of us can know our true limits before we've applied enormous resources and invested vast amounts of time.

Our abilities are not set in genetic stone. They are soft and sculptable, far into adulthood. With humility, with hope, and with extraordinary determination, greatness is something to which any kid - of any age - can aspire.

David Shenk is the author of The Genius in All of Us.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary


This is something I've been telling people for a very long time. With the rising of epigenetics and our greater understanding of genetics in general, you find that nature has lost the battle to nurture.

People are 99.9% genetically the same, as they are 99% the same to a chimpanzee. Only few differences make us genetically different.

People are formed, not created. They aren't genetically destined to be great actors, or to become amazing pilots, or biologists.

As I've always said, knowledge is "Not aptitude but APPETITE." If your appetite for something lacks, your knowledge in it will lack. If you hate learning about something, why would you be expected to be a scholar or leader in that field? You won't, it's as simple as that.

If you absolutely crave a particular thing, chances are you will thrive in it.

Someone once asked a child prodigy why they were so amazingly good at piano. As I watched them on the television, I adored their reply: "Practicing piano was always fun for me, so I never saw it as work when I had to do it", they said.[paraphrasing]

They enjoyed the hard work, and their appetite for the material was insatiable. That's what makes a Genius. It's your attracting to a thing, not some miraculous adenine-thymine connection.

Keith Olbermann Is Out at MSNBC—Immediately

Keith Olbermann Is Out at MSNBC—Immediately


Talk about a Special Comment: Keith Olbermann announced on air that tonight's edition of Countdown on MSNBC will be his last—specifically, that he was "told" it would be his last show—a move that was quickly confirmed by the network with a brief announcement:

MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract. The last broadcast of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors.

Neither Olbermann nor the network gave a reason why he's leaving. But after the jump, a few quick thoughts about the move, and its possible repercussions:

* This is not the first time Olbermann has left a high-profile broadcasting job. In fact, it's not the first time he's left MSNBC. In an earlier iteration of his career, and of MSNBC's identity, he hosted a primetime news show for the network, which he publicly complained about in 1998 after the job required him to constantly focus—overfocus, he felt—on the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. He quit soon after. (Here's an column I wrote at Salon at the time about the "one-man psychodrama" of Olbermann's tenure.)

* Olbermann's current stint at MSNBC has been no shorter on drama and conflict, as you know if you follow cable news at all. There have been disputes with MSNBC's management; behind-the-scenes complaints among NBC News staff about how opinion hosts like Olbermann reflected on the larger organization; the frequent feuds with Bill O'Reilly and Fox News that bubbled over into the newspapers; and his suspension last year over campaign donations that violated network policy. I can't say whether a similar dispute with management was behind this announcement until someone explains or another shoe drops; suffice it to say that people don't generally suddenly leave multimillion-dollar TV jobs for happy reasons. (In his last remarks, he thanked the colleagues who "fought with me and for me," though it's not clear if that referred to a battle in recent days.)

* MSNBC immediately goes to its plan B, moving host Lawrence O'Donnell into the 8 p.m. slot and Ed Schultz to 10 p.m. The addition of O'Donnell, who's done well enough comparatively for the network, leaves it in better shape to weather its star's departure, but this still leaves the network with a sudden big hole in competitive primetime. It also may create something of an opportunity for CNN, which has been tussling with MSNBC for second place in primetime (when it hasn't fallen behind its own sibling HLN). Granted, its new show Parker-Spitzer has been no competition at 8 p.m., and I wouldn't bet much that it will pick up much even with Olbermann gone. But CNN has shown at least the possibility of getting traction this week with Piers Morgan's new show (though it's very early). At the very least, it could give CNN (disclosure: a Time Warner company like TIME) a shot at shaking things up.

* On the other hand, with enough hosts to fill primetime, if MSNBC management felt Olbermann had become more trouble than he was worth, maybe they felt comfortable enough at this juncture to rip the Band-Aid off now—or maybe soon-to-be-new-NBC bosses Comcast did. (In which case, we'll have to see if any changes at MSNBC are limited to Olbermann's show.)

* But that's not the only place there are opportunities here. Again, much depends on why Olbermann is leaving and what his plans are. But the man has a big following and was a ratings pillar for MSNBC. And while I've criticized some of his rhetoric and arias here, he's also sharp, funny, gifted with language and a natural in front of a camera. He could bring a ready audience with him wherever he decides to go next—assuming he goes anywhere at all—whether it's back into sports broadcasting or to another news network. (Already on Twitter, Hollywood Reporter critic Tim Goodman has thrown out the maybe-not-entirely-crazy suggestion that Fox News sign Olby—instant "balance" and a proven voice [who used to work for Fox Sports].)

All of this, of course, depends on what other shoes are suspended in the air, and where they drop. For now, it's good night, and good luck. We'll see who needs that luck the most.

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four