[tips] Parachutes and gravitational challenge
It's been so quiet in TIPSland that I thought this item, which was posted on another list, might bring some comic relief from all that grading. Enjoy. Title: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 Miguel --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31523 or send a blank email to leave-31523-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
re: [tips] Parachutes and gravitational challenge
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 03:20:15 -0800, Miguel Roig wrote: It's been so quiet in TIPSland that I thought this item, which was posted on another list, might bring some comic relief from all that grading. I have the feeling that the volume of discussion on Tips is probably going to be low for a while for a variety of reasons. I'm sure that each of us have our own reasons for this. Enjoy. Title: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 If you check the date on the article, you'll see that the article was published back in 2003 and in December when the BMJ has its Christmas satire/cheer/whatever issue (one has to remember that this is physician humor which means that non-physicians sometimes wonder where the satire/humor/whatever is; see the following for an example: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/12/satire-or-not.html -- I'm sure that clinical psychologists make similar types of jokes that are funny to other clinicians but are lost on non-clinicians). A colleague pointed out the BMJ parachute article to me a few years ago and the colleague thought it was as funny as all get out. At first I wasn't sure why the colleague thought that the article was funny. The colleague was not much of an experimentalist and did a lot of observational studies -- it seemed that the implicit message was see, you don't need a control group to do research, just commonsense! Anyway, I tried to point out that one didn't need to have a control group in this kind of situation, just a record of the number of injuries and deaths that occurred when people used parachutes, such as: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=251515 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064486801342 and http://bjsportmed.com/content/41/6/356.abstract and so on. There is a wonderful scene in the movie The Bridge Over the River Kwai where the William Holden character points out that he doesn't have any experience parachute jumping (secretly hoping that this would get him out of the mission) and the Jack Hawkins character checks to see if they can arrange a couple of practice jumps before they go off on their mission. Hawkins comes back and says that it's best that they skip training jumps because the probability of an injury increases with the number of jumps (as it turns out, one member of the commando crew dies when his parachute is caught in a tree). Whether what the Hawkins character says is true or not is not the point (there are a number of major factual errors in the movie and book but one has to assume that factual truth has to serve poetic truth in such cases) because parachute jumping is in fact a dangerous activity that one needs to be very careful about. Okay, just to show that I'm a humorless scrooge, here are some other bits of humor. First, psychology jokes: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201303/top-10-psychology-jokes Shrink jokes: http://forums.psychcentral.com/general-social-chat/157078-whats-your-favorite-joke-about-shrinks-please-share.html More psychology jokes: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/got-a-psychology-joke.384462/ NOTE: From the above website: Stanley Milgram: Electrical Contractorand Psychologists like to do it on the couch And so on. Make it an A-1 day! -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31526 or send a blank email to leave-31526-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Political globalization of schizophrenia
Recent international misdeeds have been blamed on schizophrenia by their perpetrators. The sign language interpreter at Mandela's memorial said that he was hearing voices and having a schizophrenic attack on stage and that might explain his gibberish deaf language signing word salad. The Boston marathon bomber who was killed also appeared to be hearing voices and suffering from schizophrenia. These events would seem to imply that that there is an international external validity to schizophrenia that can be dramatized on the world stage. Of all the psychological disorders,isn't schz the only one that exists in all cultures? And hasn't the MMPI been validated cross-culturally? Is there a Torrey Fuller in Tipsville? michael --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31531 or send a blank email to leave-31531-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Parachutes and gravitational challenge
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 06:48:36 -0800, David Epstein wrote: On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, MiguelRoig went: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 I have *cited* that paper in a serious context, as this snippet will show: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22parachutes+protect+against+the+effects+of+free+fall%22 Not to take anything away from David's fine achievement ;-) but scholar.google.com indicates that (as of this moment) there are 557 citations to the Smith and Pell (2003) article. I leave it to the researcher with too much time on his/her hands (or an excess of research assistants) to determine whether all of the citations (a) got the point of the original article, (b) realized that it was satire, and (c) cited it in an appropriate way like David did. Below is the context of David's citation of Smith and Pell: |We examined whether simultaneous abstinence from heroin |and cocaine could be achieved by combining individualized (flexible) |high-dose (100 mg) methadone and voucher-based CM in |heroin- and cocaine-dependent individuals. We ended the study |before reaching our planned sample size, partly due to slow |accrual, and partly because we had begun to suspect that a clinical |trial comparing flexible high-dose methadone to fixed lower-dose |methadone was becoming like a clinical trial of whether parachutes |protect against the effects of free fall (Smith and Pell, 2003). |Therefore, we were surprised to find that our flexible/high-dose |methadone participants were less likely to achieve simultaneous |abstinence from heroin and cocaine than participants receiving |a lower, fixed dose, and that they did not even show a |greater likelihood of abstinence from heroin alone. (p82) However, there may be something special about the Smith and Pell (2003) article because the somewhat similar article by Upper (1974) only has 31 cites (as of this moment). See: Upper, D. (1974). THE UNSUCCESSFUL SELF-TREATMENT OF A CASE OF WRITER'S BLOCK. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(3), 497-497. or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu P.S. I really should take David to task about not comparing the effect size from his study to that found in Smith and Pell, otherwise how would we know that the two studies are actually comparable. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31530 or send a blank email to leave-31530-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Stunning motion illusion
And for my second post of the day, check out this stunning motion illusion posted by Marc Breelove's Biopsychology newslist: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/15/optical_illusion_motion_using_vertical_slits.html Miguel --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31532 or send a blank email to leave-31532-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Sources of happiness
Philippe: Yes, and we are getting more snow. It was -10 F this morning (-23 C) and more snow for tonight. But I'm in the country so we handle it better than the cities. The 50/40/10 is probably accurate. It's close to 50% based on data from Caprara et al. (2009) Human optimal functioning: The genetics of positive orientation toward self, life, and the future. _Behavioral Genetics_. Also, Plomin et al recent book Behavioral Genetics (2013) cites 30 to 60% genetics on subjective well being. The last time I looked seriously at twin/heritability research, I was working through gene/environment overlap, for example, gene-environment co-variance; people create their own environments. So the split into 3 simple categories is simplified .. but the 50% is probably close to the mark. And yes, any r squared gives us percent of variance .. by the way, a crude way to estimate heritability is to double the difference between the correlations of MZ and DZ twins. So if r(mz) = .9 and r(dz) = .5, Heritability = 2*(.4) = .80. But there are more elaborate and accurate methods.There is lots of good info in the Wikipedia entry which gets technical very quickly. On simple thing I stress with students is that the 50% figure refers to amount of _variance_ so it cannot be applied to individuals, only populations. JK == John W. Kulig, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Coordinator, Psychology Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Philippe Gervaix phil.gerv...@bluewin.ch To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 4:41:17 PM Subject: [tips] Sources of happiness Hello from the not so snowy side of the ocean! One of my students presented an end of school project on the sources of happiness, and quoted a 50/40/10 proportion as being scientifically established: 50% attributed to genes, 40% to us and 10% left to ouside events. Quite a few popolar books and TV shows here in Europe have taken up on these numbers. A column in yesterday's NY Times caught my attention http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/a-formula-for-happiness.html To review: About half of happiness is genetically determined. Up to an additional 40 percent comes from the things that have occurred in our recent past — but that won’t last very long. That leaves just about 12 percent... Any critical thoughts on my students numbers or the NY Times Sunday morning article? Also, I am looking for a critical review of the researches on twins quoted in the article. BTW, am I mistaken, or doesn't a 0.7 correlation only accounts for 50% of the variance? Have a nice Xmas holiday! Philippe Gervaix phil.gerv...@bluewin.ch Lycée de Burier Montreux Switzerland --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=31508 or send a blank email to leave-31508-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31535 or send a blank email to leave-31535-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Sources of happiness
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Christopher Green wrote: My understanding is that here, as in the intelligence debate, proportions of variance attributable to heredity are only valid for a given level of variance in the environment. Restrict the range of variability in the environment and heredity goes up. Increase the variability of the environment and heredity goes down. In short, it can be a highly misleading statistic unless the environment is somehow artificially standardized. Yes, that was the point I was trying to make with my example. I have never really understood the fascination with heritability estimates. They were developed primarily for agricultural purposes (if I remember correctly: it's been a long time since I studied the history of this area) because knowing the proportion of additive genetic variance to total phenotypic variance helps us to estimate responses to artificial selection. However, even when heritability is zero, genes will still be important contributors to the development of a trait. A heritability of zero simply means that genetic variance is not associated with phenotypic variance. This will occur, for example, when directional selection (or genetic drift) has led to the fixation of genes important for the development of a trait. And there are many other complexities that enter into interpreting heritability. For me, it was useful simply for showing that there were genes in a population that we might want to take a look at. Understanding how these genes were important for the development of a phenotype (i.e., describing gene-environment interactions and epigenetics) was always the goal. I never got very far in this line of work, but many others have since then. Best, Jeff -- - Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology - Scottsdale Community College 9000 E. Chaparral Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Office: SB-123 Phone: (480) 423-6213 Fax: (480) 423-6298 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31543 or send a blank email to leave-31543-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Sources of happiness
My understanding is that here, as in the intelligence debate, proportions of variance attributable to heredity are only valid for a given level of variance in the environment. Restrict the range of variability in the environment and heredity goes up. Increase the variability of the environment and heredity goes down. In short, it can be a highly misleading statistic unless the environment is somehow artificially standardized. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. jeff.ric...@scottsdalecc.edu wrote: On Dec 16, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Philippe Gervaix wrote: One of my students presented an end of school project on the sources of happiness, and quoted a 50/40/10 proportion as being scientifically established: 50% attributed to genes, 40% to us and 10% left to ouside events. On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:58 AM, John Kulig wrote: The 50/40/10 is probably accurate. It's close to 50% based on data from Caprara et al. (2009) Human optimal functioning: The genetics of positive orientation toward self, life, and the future. _Behavioral Genetics_. Also, Plomin et al recent book Behavioral Genetics (2013) cites 30 to 60% genetics on subjective well being. One simple thing I stress with students is that the 50% figure refers to amount of _variance_ so it cannot be applied to individuals, only populations. [emphasis added] Thanks, John. That last sentence is what most people forget when they make statements such as 50% of X is due to genes. And just to clarify John's statement further, heritability refers to the amount of variance in X associated with variation in genes in a particular population (I'm ignoring the difference between broad and narrow heritability): it cannot be generalized to other populations, nor even to that population in the past or the future. The latter is especially important because things change. For example, the heritability of height is quite high currently in developed countries because the majority of people have enough to eat: malnutrition is not a problem for most. Thus, variation in height due to variation in environmental factors is much smaller in developed countries relative to variation in height due to variation in genetic factors. However, during historical time periods when there were wide variations in food consumption in those very same countries, the heritability of height would have been much smaller. I just found the following article, which might be a good one for students who want to understand the concept of heritability better: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889 Best, Jeff P.S. My bona fides: in a former life, I was a young researcher in the area of behavior genetics and evolution. Now, I'm getting to be an old teacher of all kinds of things. -- - Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology - Scottsdale Community College 9000 E. Chaparral Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Office: SB-123 Phone: (480) 423-6213 Fax: (480) 423-6298 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=31539 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-31539-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=31542 or send a blank email to leave-31542-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
