A jaundiced view of management

Source unknown. Thank you to Cas for sending this to me. I do not really know any organization quite as bad as this, but read Bob Sutton's The No Ass Hole Rule for some good examples.

Dilbert on bullshitting and (lack of) leadership

From Dilbert by Scott Adams.

CP Conference 2010 - More brain profiling nonsense

Please, not whole brain learning and brain profiling again! A paper on IQ and EQ (sigh!) turns out to be the outdated, and thoroughly discredited, ideas of whole brain learning and brain profiling. The presenter (whom I'll leave anonymous), presented as if his own research, a concoction of whole brain learning, brain profiling and Gardner's multiple intelligences. For good measure he threw in Goleman's views of emotional intelligence (the less scientific version of EI) and Rosenthal and Jacobson's research on the influence of teacher expectations on learners' performance (the Pygmalion Effect).

The only aspect of his approach that was new to me, was his attempts to localize each of Gardner's intelligences to specific brain quadrants. These brain quadrants do not make anatomical sense and localization of higher level functions is contrary to current views of brain organization.

On being challenged about the pseudoscientific nature of his approach, his predicatable response was that his approach worked. To questions about possible confirmation bias, he had no answer.

Some of my previous (extensive) posts on some of these issues were:

Left brain, right brain, whole brain:

Mind myth 2: Left brain right brain.

Brain profiling:

Mind myth 5: Brain profiling.
"Genetic" brain profiling in rugby.

Multiple intelligences and learning styles:

Mind myth 7: Learning styles and multiple intelligences

CP Conference 2010 - Dr. I.P. Desai: Inclusive Education

It's CP Conference time again, this year held in Durban and organized by the A.M. Moolla Spes Nova School. I find it hard to believe that a year has passed since the previous conference, which I (with the Gauteng Cerebral Palsy Association) organized.

The Jimmy Craig Memorial Lecture was by Dr. I.P. Desai, retired professor in Education from the University of Melbourne, Australia. It dealt with inclusive education. A somewhat jaded topic by now, but in South African circumstances still topical. Dr. Desai's conclusion from literature and experience - inclusive education works where the necessary support is given to teachers and learners with disabilities. Nothing new there.

A question I had - is there a publication bias in this field that prevents negative findings from being published? From past literature reviews this seemed to me to be the case - the evidence for the effectiveness of inclusive education seemed just too good to be true (I'm not arguing with the principle and that it's mostly the right thing to do). While it is hard to question the philosophy of and necessity for inclusive education, the difficulties in implementation seem to be glossed over. Dr. Desai agreed that such a publication bias may exist. Moral imperatives and political correctness may sometimes have precedence over scientific evidence (my interpretation, not his).

Localizing g in the brain!

Deric Bownds from MindBlog reports on a fascinating study by Adolphs, Damasio, et al., that found an association between general intelligence (g) and:

"... damage to a remarkably circumscribed, although distributed, network in frontal and parietal cortex, critically including white matter association tracts and frontopolar cortex. They suggest hat general intelligence draws on connections between regions that integrate verbal, visuospatial, working memory, and executive processes."

Bownds quotes from their discussion:

"The largest overlap between WAIS subtests and g was found for Arithmetic, Similarities, Information, and Digit Span; the former two tests also exhibited the greatest conjunction with g. These subtests assess verbal knowledge about the world, verbal reasoning, and abstraction, as well as working memory capacity, and are associated with the left inferior frontal gyrus, the superior longitudinal/arcuate fascicule, and to some degree with parietal cortex. This suggests that g draws on the combination of conceptual knowledge and working memory, and that the communication between areas associated with these capacities is of crucial importance."

The actual article is available here.

Ritalin increases brain plasticity

From ScienceDaily: Ritalin Boosts Learning by Increasing Brain Plasticity. The report states that Ritalin not only improves concentration, but also increases the speed of learning (at least in animal models). It does this by increasing brain plasticity, especially in the amygdala. Antonello Bonci, the lead scientist, stated:

"We found that a dopamine receptor, known as the D2 receptor, controls the ability to stay focused on a task -- the well-known benefit of Ritalin," said Patricia Janak, PhD, co-senior author on the paper. "But we also discovered that another dopamine receptor, D1, underlies learning efficiency."

Fascinating stuff that bears looking into.

See the research abstract here.

Children not overmedicated?

There is a general concern that children are overmedicated, especially with psychotropic medication such as Ritalin. While in South Africa, the dosages used are typically lower than in the U.S.A., the same concern exists here. Judith Warner, columnist for the New York Times, started investigating this issue six years ago. Whereas she started out biased against the use of medication for childhood developmental disorders, against expectations she had to change her mind.

Here are some excerpts from a review of her book, We've got Issues:
Children and Parents in the Age of Medication:

"A couple of simple truths have become clear,” she writes with the passion of a new convert. “That the suffering of children with mental health issues (and their parents) is very real. That almost no parent takes the issue of psychiatric diagnosis lightly or rushes to ‘drug’ his or her child; and that responsible child psychiatrists don’t, either. And that many children’s lives are essentially saved by medication, particularly when it’s combined with evidence-based forms of therapy."

and

"But the big picture is far brighter than its components. Ms. Warner argues that child psychiatry is actually one of the major public health success stories of our time. As one expert tells her, when it comes to mental health, “the horse is out of the barn by adulthood.” Treating troubled children is more than symptom management for a calmer classroom: the medications seem actually to change the structure of the brain, helping it develop in what all evidence indicates is the right direction. More children in treatment should spell the beginnings of a healthier adult world."

Warner's conclusions are interesting and one has to recognize her intellectual honesty in coming to change her mind. One has to, however, recognize that her "research" method was not much more than the collection of anecdotes. For a more critical review of her book, read Alison Gopnick in The Slate.

Sarcasm and the right hemisphere

Jonah Lehrer from Frontal Cortex posted on the cognitive challenge posed by sarcasm:

"Sarcasm is a cognitive challenge. In order to get the sarcastic sentiment, we can't simply decode the utterance, or decipher the literal meaning of the sentence. Instead, we have to understand the meaning of the words in their larger social context. For example, if it's a beautiful day outside - the sun is shining, etc - and somebody states "What a nice day!," there is no sarcasm; the sentence makes perfect sense. However, if the same statement is uttered on a rainy day, then there is a clear contradiction, which leads to an interpretation of sarcasm. (We typically exaggerate the expression of sarcastic statements, thus making it easier to pick up the verbal/social contradiction.) Psychologists refer to such utterances as an incongruent word-emotion situation."

He continues to point out the involvement of the right hemisphere in processing sarcasm. I've previously posted on this in the context of contextual processing (unintended pun) and Cook's model of topographic callosal inhibition. Read more about it in my post on the left brain right brain myth.

Scientific consensus

Steven Novella from Neurologica posted on the value of scientific consensus and how it differs from the logical fallacy of an argument from authority. Some selected quotes:

"... we advocate rigorous and robust scientific methodology as the best way of understanding nature, we trust this process to some degree. We understand there can be fraud or sloppy studies, but generally if the research of others is all pointing toward one answer, we trust that research and its conclusions.

... science is complex, and few people can master more than a fairly narrow range of scientific expertise. And so outside our area of expertise (which is all of science for non-scientists) the best approach to take, in my opinion, is a hybrid approach – first, try to understand what is the consensus of scientific opinion.

... those interested in science will want to understand the evidence directly and how it relates to the consensus. But at the same time it must be recognized that a non-expert understanding of the evidence is a mere shadow of expert understanding.

... it is extreme hubris to substitute one’s frail non-expert assessment of a detailed scientific discipline for the consensus of opinion of scientific experts."

Novella continues to also point out that consensus of opinion is not always right – it is just usually right. He addresses important issues and I would recommend reading his whole post.

Increasing brain plasticity through diet

The Independent reports on research that indicates that brain plasticity is improved by the availability of magnesium to the brain.

"The international team of researchers from MIT, Tel Aviv University (TAU), Tsinghua University in Beijing and University of Toronto found an increase in 'brain magnesium enhances both short-term synaptic facilitation and long-term potentiation (LTP) and improves learning and memory functions.'"

Said Inna Slusky, PhD:

"We are really pleased with the positive results of our studies, but on the negative side, we've also been able to show that today's over-the-counter magnesium supplements don't really work. They do not get into the brain."

Supplements not being effective, the alternative is eating magnesium-rich foods such as spinach, almonds, cashews, soybeans, oatmeal, halibut and even chocolate pudding.

See the actual study in Neuron.

Why consumers buy snake oil

Steven Novella from Neurologica reports on a behavioural economics analysis of why people buy snake oil (and modern supplements) even when its ineffectiveness is apparent. It boils down to: "What can I lose?" I've previously blogged on this in Snake oil for rusty snakes and quoted this delightful remark by author Terry Pratchett just after being diagnosed with early onset Alzheimers:

"Some of them wanted to sell me snake oil and I’m not necessarily going to dismiss all of these, as I have never found a rusty snake."

Here are some selected quotes from Novella's discussion of research by Werner Troesken:

"... people still wanted to buy patent medicines, even after their previous experience with such products resulted in failure.

... Troesken’s basic model – medicines do not work, consumers judge them solely on whether or not they work, and consumers correctly perceive that they do not.

... consumers felt that they had little to lose and the world to gain, leading to repeated experimentation with, and even high demand for, patent medicines."

Other factors for the continued popularity of snake oil, as pointed out by Novella, include the effect of false positives (false anecdotal "evidence") and the placebo effect. Of particular interest is that the very success of science based medicine leads to people living longer and their age related ailments creating a larger market for snake oil.

Novella makes the point that, based on the above, it cannot be expected that market forces will result in better and more effective health products, or even keep entirely worthless or even harmful health products from the marketplace.

Some genetic and epigenetic correlates of vulnerability and resilience

Hat tip to Andy Smarick from Flypaper for alerting me to a fascinating article by David Dobbs in The Atlantic. It relates to the interaction between genetic and environmental factors to produce either vulnerable or resilient phenotypes based on the same risk allele. The specific risk allele is one for ADHD and externalizing behaviours.

Dobbs explained as follows:

"Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society’s most creative, successful, and happy people."

Related: Can the right kinds of play teach self-control?

Music training helps with dyslexia?

By now it is known that the so-called Mozart Effect is a myth. Just listening to music does not have the specific cognitive benefits claimed.

There has, however, been some research suggesting that music training and playing a musical instrument does have cognitive benefits. It is known that lack of phonemic awareness is one of the most important determinants of dyslexia.

Prof. Nina Kraus, Hugh Knowles Professor of Neurobiology, Physiology and Communication Sciences at Northwestern University, recently claimed that music training enhances brainstem sensitivity to speech sounds. She added:

"Playing an instrument may help youngsters better process speech in noisy classrooms and more accurately interpret the nuances of language that are conveyed by subtle changes in the human voice."

According to ScienceDaily, her and other neuroscientists' research suggest that music education can be an effective strategy in helping typically developing children as well as children with developmental dyslexia or autism more accurately encode speech. Something to think about for schools who have scrapped music training.

but, a contrary view that came to my attention later:

Music therapy no help to dyslexics.

Related: Children who grow up in noisy homes may have lower verbal abilities.

Repeat after me: "Teaching to learning styles does not work"

I despair of ever weaning gullible teachers of the nonsense of teaching to learning style. Educational consultants are not going drop learning style theory from their repertoire while there is good money to be made. Thank your to Donald Clark and Wil Thalheimer for the following from the Association of Psychological Science:

"We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all." (p. 105)

Reference: Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.

Concussion is serious, really

From ScienceDaily, Mild traumatic brain injury, not so mild after all. I've blogged before here and here about the negligent manner in which childhood concussion is often handled, especially at sporting events. ScienceDaily reports on the molecular mechanisms involved in mild brain injuries, as determined by a team led by Douglas Smith, MD, the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair and professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

"Despite the prevalence and impact of mTBI, little is known about how mTBI affects nerve cells and connections in the brain, and therefore clinical outcomes after injury. Smith and colleagues have begun to amass data from human and animal studies on mTBI at 2-4 days after injury using advanced neuroimaging techniques. They have found distinct changes throughout the white matter in the brain. Also, protein markers of brain pathology were identified after mTBI in the blood of mTBI patients."

This is significant, especially in view of the greater importance ascribed to white matter and to disconnection syndromes in modern neuroscience.