Aide Memoire 3

Time for an Aide Memoire again. Stuff that I want to note and maybe return to again some time in the future.

From Bob Sutton: On research that shows that people who complain get an unfair advantage, squeaky wheels get oiled.

From Think Differently: On the 10% rule in sport and other competitive environments.

From Scientific Blogging: A "laymen's" meta-analysis of the evidence for homeopathy, using Google Scholar.

From Mindblog: "Shrinking the shrinks", a call for higher scientific standards for training psychotherapists.

From Science Daily: About the lack of an evidence base for much of psychotherapy.

From Scientific Blogging: Another expose of Brain Gym.

From Tom Peters: Try Civility for success.

From BPS Research Digest: Nagging things that prominent psychologists don't understand about themselves.

From Bob Sutton: His Top Ten Flawed, Suspect, and Incomplete Assumptions about Managing People.

From Scientific Blogging: Sit up straight, as mom always told you to do, is good for self image too!

From Scientific Blogging: Smartness in a bottle, another post on the campus use of drugs for cognitive enhancement, in this case Nootropics.

From eSkeptic: Paranormal Wall Street on how failed Wall Street tycoons are turning to psychics for advice.

Are we hard wired to believe or to doubt?

Jeremy Dean from Psyblog poses the question whether the mind's default position if for us to be naturally critical or naturally gullible. He states:

"It's not just that some people do and some people don't; in fact all our minds are built with the same first instinct, the same first reaction to new information. But what is it: do we believe first or do we first understand, so that belief (or disbelief) comes later?"

Deane points out that philosophers Descartes and Spinoza represented opposing views on this. Descartes believed that we understand first, then believe or disbelieve. According to Spinoza, however, we initially believe and only later change our mind when more evidence comes to light.

Who was right? According to Dean, the consensus scientific view is that we believe first and ask questions later. This has an evolutionary survival advantage in that we can more efficiently avoid danger or grab opportunities that present themselves. This view ties in with a previous posting on Occam's Donkey in which I quoted Michael Shermer on the preference of the human mind for anecdotal evidence above scientific evidence. According to Shermer this is due to an evolutionary imperative to pay attention to perceived danger, with false positives (i.e. false alarms) being relatively harmless, but false negatives (perceiving there to be no danger when in fact there is) potentially fatal.

Critical thinking and being skeptical is thus hard work and goes against our natural instincts!

Shermer's original article in the Scientific American can be found here.

The leadership myth

Madeleine McGrath, writing as the guest blogger on Tom Peter's blog, points out the success of Angela Merkel in Germany, despite being lacking in charisma:

"There have been comments on her rather dour and austere demeanor. She is said to lack charisma, with her communication style described at best as calm and measured. She is not perceived as a visionary, and certainly does not have the public profile of the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. She had an uneasy relationship with the Social Democrats, her previous coalition partners. Some commentators say that the caution she learned growing up in Eastern Europe has led to a reluctance to take risks as a leader. All in all, she's scoring pretty low on leadership characteristics by my reckoning.

And yet her leadership of the German people through this troubled economic period has built for her an enviable reputation as a statesperson who is reliable and trustworthy."

McGrath suggests that in the current world crisis the era of the superstar leader in both politics and business may be over. In her opinion substance is now preferred over style. I agree, but may I suggest that that should always be the case?

Tu Quoque by the Vatigan

The Guardian recently reported as follows on a statement by the Vatigan:

"The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."

I expect to hear the Tu Quoque ("you too") fallacy from school children, not from an esteemed organization like the Catholic church. How much more damage and misery will it allow a minority of priests to cause before it acts decisively? As the father of an adolescent son, I find the excuse that priests were not paedophiles because their victims were adolescents, offensive.

Quacks, eat your heart out!

To misquote Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a quack, this is a quack!" Your common, garden variety quack can only watch this guy in envy:


The advert, which is typical of many similar ones seen in South Africa, was handed to me at a robot (South Africanism for a traffic light).

Nandos, a South African fast food franchise known for its excellent satirical advertising campaigns, currently has an advert that takes the micky out of quack adverts. I captured it on my cell phone camera:


Don't call me, I'm on my way to Nandos!

Higher incidence of dementia in former rugby players?

The New York times recently reported on a study that suggested a much higher incidence of dementia among former NFL players (similar to Rugby Union) than among the general population - up to 19 times more than the normal rate for males aged 30 to 49. I have not yet seen the actual research and this should obviously be interpreted with caution. I know of no similar statistics for Rugby Union, as played in South Africa. Given, however, the high incidence of concussion in the local game and the cavalier attitude sometimes towards incidents of concussion, it is certainly something that bears looking into.