According to 2009 research reported in Social Science Quarterly, "people with unpopular names have a higher risk of criminality than people with popular ones."
Once again, we have people forgetting that "correlation does not imply causation." You can't determine you child's criminal record by choosing their name at birth. Nevertheless, here is what the researchers did, and the conclusions some people are making, based on it.
Step one: find 15,012 boys born between 1987 and 1991. Step two: sort them by first name. Step three: analyze the crimes they committed in adolescence. Step four: count the number of crimes for each name.
Analysis: "Boys with popular names committed the fewest. Boys with unpopular committed the most."
You can see the problems, can't you? The researchers themselves acknowledged them, but reporters who have written about it seem to ignore the weaknesses of the study. They don't understand that "correlation does not imply causation."
Nothing was controlled in this study.
How many of the parents of these boys were criminals? Could it be that criminals give their kids unusual names more than law-abiders? Having criminal parents might make a difference.
What was the socioeconomic status of the families? There is more crime in low-income families, and there are differences in name preferences found in different socioeconomic levels. Being born into poverty might make a difference.
Where are the girls in this study? Would the same correlation be seen among girls? (If you are looking for an idea for some research, there's an idea.)
What about popular names outside of that five-year period?
BTW: The most popular name: Michael. The least popular: Preston and Alex.
You are wondering about my grandson? A few days ago he used one of the Facebook apps to find out how many people in the world have his first and middle names. According to it, he is the only "Dalton Grady" in the world. Being the only one with that name seems to me to be the very defintion of an "unpopular" name. I guess I better call his mother and tell her that he is destined to become a criminal.
I hate to think about the future of my other grandson, Slade Levi. How many of those can there be in the world?
December 5, 2009
December 3, 2009
Mammogram Madness
Why have so many women gotten so mad about a government task force's recent recommendation that women can wait 10 years longer before getting annual mammograms?
I have heard numerous women through the years complain about the annual procedure because it is exposure to x-rays, uncomfortable, inconvenient, costly, not 100% accurate, and other reasons. (Don't ask why I was involved in those conversations.) You would think that being able to put them off for 10 years would create a sigh of relief. Why not?
Every woman is a unique individual, of course, but Cognitive Dissonance Theory offers a suggestion.
"I am intelligent. I am now told that I have been doing something that is a total waste of time, exposing myself to x-rays. It has cost me time and money. I trusted people who supposedly knew what they were talking about and it now it turns out that they don't. I feel like an idiot."
That is cognitive dissonance: I think I am intelligent but I have been doing something stupid. How do I get rid of that dissonance? Three possible ways: 1) change the behavior, 2) change my cognition about myself, or 3) come up with a new cognition.
Behavior is in the past. Can't change it. I don't like the option of now thinking I am an idiot instead of smart. That leaves door number three - I have a new cognition about the "experts." Either the experts I trusted or the new experts with the new recommendations.
Cognitive dissonance resolved. "I'M not the idiot here, THEY are!"
But wait. What about the evidence from the new research? Social psychology comes to the rescue here, too. Once a schema has been activated it is almost impossible to replace it with a new one. That is psych-speak for, "It is almost impossible to change people's minds when they have held to something for a long time, or held to it strongly."
New evidence can't change our minds. We ignore information that contradicts what we already believe. We pay attention only to what supports our belief. We interpret ambiguous data as supportive.
"I still believe the original research." Why? "The people behind the new research can't be trusted. They are part of the new government health plan that doesn't want to play for things!"
We also tend to give too much importance to our personal experience: "My cousin's neighbor's wife's breast cancer was detected by a mammogram in her 40s, and that saved her life. See, they are wrong!"
Did the government really believe that this would be easy? They should have talked to a social psychologist.
By the way, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 32. Detected by her doctor. My daughter was diagnosed at 39 when genetic testing revealed that she carries the gene that causes cancer. Her mammograms did not detect it. They are both cancer survivors. Fortunately, my other daughter does not carry the gene.
I have heard numerous women through the years complain about the annual procedure because it is exposure to x-rays, uncomfortable, inconvenient, costly, not 100% accurate, and other reasons. (Don't ask why I was involved in those conversations.) You would think that being able to put them off for 10 years would create a sigh of relief. Why not?
Every woman is a unique individual, of course, but Cognitive Dissonance Theory offers a suggestion.
"I am intelligent. I am now told that I have been doing something that is a total waste of time, exposing myself to x-rays. It has cost me time and money. I trusted people who supposedly knew what they were talking about and it now it turns out that they don't. I feel like an idiot."
That is cognitive dissonance: I think I am intelligent but I have been doing something stupid. How do I get rid of that dissonance? Three possible ways: 1) change the behavior, 2) change my cognition about myself, or 3) come up with a new cognition.
Behavior is in the past. Can't change it. I don't like the option of now thinking I am an idiot instead of smart. That leaves door number three - I have a new cognition about the "experts." Either the experts I trusted or the new experts with the new recommendations.
Cognitive dissonance resolved. "I'M not the idiot here, THEY are!"
But wait. What about the evidence from the new research? Social psychology comes to the rescue here, too. Once a schema has been activated it is almost impossible to replace it with a new one. That is psych-speak for, "It is almost impossible to change people's minds when they have held to something for a long time, or held to it strongly."
New evidence can't change our minds. We ignore information that contradicts what we already believe. We pay attention only to what supports our belief. We interpret ambiguous data as supportive.
"I still believe the original research." Why? "The people behind the new research can't be trusted. They are part of the new government health plan that doesn't want to play for things!"
We also tend to give too much importance to our personal experience: "My cousin's neighbor's wife's breast cancer was detected by a mammogram in her 40s, and that saved her life. See, they are wrong!"
Did the government really believe that this would be easy? They should have talked to a social psychologist.
By the way, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 32. Detected by her doctor. My daughter was diagnosed at 39 when genetic testing revealed that she carries the gene that causes cancer. Her mammograms did not detect it. They are both cancer survivors. Fortunately, my other daughter does not carry the gene.
December 2, 2009
What Are You, Tiger?
Former President Richard Nixon is on record as supporting the termination of pregnancies of bi-racial couples. A Justice of the Peace in Florida recently refused to marry a bi-racial couple. What did they have in common? Their "concern" over the psychological welfare of the children of mixed-race couples.
Are their concerns justified? Do children of mixed-raced couples grow up "conflicted and unhappy"? Do they have more identity problems than other kids?
I am embarrassed to confess that there was a time - long, long ago - when I believed that they do. I was young, inexperienced, uneducated, and wrong. I am now old, experienced, educated, and right. At least according to an article in the Journal of Social Issues.
Well, technically, the article doesn't say that I am old, experienced or educated. But it does say that I am right when I now say that having mixed-raced parents is not a precursor of adjustment problems for a child.
The research says, "Multiracial kids have few problems establishing a comfortable identity, particularly if they embrace all aspects of their heritage rather than just one."
POP QUIZ: Would you say that Tiger Woods has done okay establishing his identity?
He is a great example of a multiracial kid who has "embraced all aspects of his heritage." He is Caucasian, Thai, Chinese, African American, and Native American. When he was a teenager he got tired of people asking him, "What are you, Tiger?" He made up a term to include every aspect of his heritage: "I am Cablinasian."
Children who have no reason to believe they will have identity problems will not have any more identity problems than most kids.
Are their concerns justified? Do children of mixed-raced couples grow up "conflicted and unhappy"? Do they have more identity problems than other kids?
I am embarrassed to confess that there was a time - long, long ago - when I believed that they do. I was young, inexperienced, uneducated, and wrong. I am now old, experienced, educated, and right. At least according to an article in the Journal of Social Issues.
Well, technically, the article doesn't say that I am old, experienced or educated. But it does say that I am right when I now say that having mixed-raced parents is not a precursor of adjustment problems for a child.
The research says, "Multiracial kids have few problems establishing a comfortable identity, particularly if they embrace all aspects of their heritage rather than just one."
POP QUIZ: Would you say that Tiger Woods has done okay establishing his identity?
He is a great example of a multiracial kid who has "embraced all aspects of his heritage." He is Caucasian, Thai, Chinese, African American, and Native American. When he was a teenager he got tired of people asking him, "What are you, Tiger?" He made up a term to include every aspect of his heritage: "I am Cablinasian."
Children who have no reason to believe they will have identity problems will not have any more identity problems than most kids.
November 30, 2009
Extrinsic or Intrinsic Motivation
In my adjustment psychology classes we talk about the #1 key to achievement in your professional life -- being intrinsically motivated.
Extrinsically motivated workers are driven by externals -- money, recognition, promotion, etc. They typically do the minimal amount of work required to earned the money, keep from getting fired, etc.
Intrinsically motivated workers are driven by internals -- desire to excel, learn or grow, or the good feeling from a job well done. They do more than is required.
The difference often shows up in students.
"Dr. Grady, will this be on the test?"
"Dr. Grady, do I need to take notes on this?"
"Dr. Grady, do we have to come to class to pass the course, or can we just show up for the tests?"
"Dr. Grady, how long do the Blog summaries have to be?"
Extrinsically motivated workers are driven by externals -- money, recognition, promotion, etc. They typically do the minimal amount of work required to earned the money, keep from getting fired, etc.
Intrinsically motivated workers are driven by internals -- desire to excel, learn or grow, or the good feeling from a job well done. They do more than is required.
The difference often shows up in students.
"Dr. Grady, will this be on the test?"
"Dr. Grady, do I need to take notes on this?"
"Dr. Grady, do we have to come to class to pass the course, or can we just show up for the tests?"
"Dr. Grady, how long do the Blog summaries have to be?"
November 29, 2009
Fruit Flies Need Sleep Too
Scientists like to use fruit flies for genetic research because a generation is only two months long. It doesn't take long to study the effects of a genetic mutation on subsequent generations. Some research reported in the December 7, 2009 Time reveals that if you alter one of the genes that regulates sleep, so that a fruit fly doesn't sleep, it "causes its brain to get overloaded, since it misses out on neuronal pruning that goes on during sleep, as weak connections among brain cells are wiped out."
Who knew that fruit flies needed sleep, for the same reasons that humans need it?
"Neuronal pruning" is required in humans, too. We seem to be born "hard wired" with the neural connections we need for elementary cognitive functioning. Every experience we have creates more neural connections, so we have more and more sophisticated cognitive abilities.
Neural connections that are not used are pruned, like pruning back branches on a tree so the other branches can be healthy and strong. This is why parents need to provide as enriching an environment for their children as possible, so that more connections are made, instead of connections being pruned back.
This neural pruning takes place while we sleep.
This may be why we never "fill up" our brain's long-term memory. Memories live in the neural connections. Unnecessary memories are pruned, freeing up space for more essential memories.
In the words of the Time article, "By erasing the phone number you had to remember for only a day or the details of a movie you didn't like, you free your brain to learn better things tomorrow."
Like my psychology lecture.
Who knew that fruit flies needed sleep, for the same reasons that humans need it?
"Neuronal pruning" is required in humans, too. We seem to be born "hard wired" with the neural connections we need for elementary cognitive functioning. Every experience we have creates more neural connections, so we have more and more sophisticated cognitive abilities.
Neural connections that are not used are pruned, like pruning back branches on a tree so the other branches can be healthy and strong. This is why parents need to provide as enriching an environment for their children as possible, so that more connections are made, instead of connections being pruned back.
This neural pruning takes place while we sleep.
This may be why we never "fill up" our brain's long-term memory. Memories live in the neural connections. Unnecessary memories are pruned, freeing up space for more essential memories.
In the words of the Time article, "By erasing the phone number you had to remember for only a day or the details of a movie you didn't like, you free your brain to learn better things tomorrow."
Like my psychology lecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
