Terrorism Paranoia Reportedly Kills 1,600 After 9/11

According to a (unfortunately) short piece at Discover Magazine, 1,600 people died as a result of terrorism paranoia during 2002. According to the piece…

"In the aftermath of 9/11, many Americans were so afraid of flying that they chose to drive instead. That decision, based on the perceived threat of another airliner hijacking, led to 1,600 casualties in the following year."

This excerpt is part of, what appears to be, a super-short review of Daniel Gardner's book, "The Science of Fear."

What they don't explain is where that 1,600 number comes from. Is that the increase in traffic fatalities? Is that the number of fatalities that came out of the increased traffic on the highway?

Pound360 supposes you have to read the book to find out. What, is Discover Magazine publishing it? Why spare the details? Tell us more! Pound360 ain't book people.

Coffee Aroma Reduces Stress in Lab Tests

Pound360 is a bit skeptical of this story since is smacks of new age pseudo-science. But researchers have found the aroma of coffee has a stress-relieving affect on sleep-deprived lab rats, reports WebMD (via CBS).

These are real affects, too. In the rats' brains, activity in 17 genes and protein changes were detected.

We suppose it makes some sense. When you smell something, your nose is picking up particles from the air. So it's possible those particles could make their way into your blood stream and affect the body's chemistry. But if it's that simple, what are the hundreds (thousands?) of other smells we experience over the course of a day doing to our bodies?

Researchers Identify Brain's Adventure Zone

Neuroscientists have located a region of the brain, the ventral striatum, that shows increased activity "when subjects chose unusual objects in controlled tests," reports Reuters. Stimulation of this region was followed by a reward: the release of dopamine. This suggests an evolutionary advantage to being adventurous. "It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run."

But beware. The daring may also be susceptible to marketing hype, gambling and drug addiction.

Connection Found Between Road Rage, Bumper Stickers

This is pretty funny. A University of Colorado study finds people who "personalized their cars" are more prone (16 percent, in fact) to road rage reports Discover Magazine.

Personalization items or, "territory markers" as the researchers referred to them (territory markers!), include bumper stickers, seat covers, special paint jobs, etc. according to a Slashdot snippet on the subject.

Of course, the more territorial markers you see, the more territorial (crazy) a person is, and the more likely they are to run you off the road for forgetting to use your turn signal, flip you off for talking on your cell phone and so on.

But it's not what's on the stickers that count. Whether they're stickers for world peace or gun control, it's the quantity of stickers that's connected to road rage. Also, territorial markers were a better indicator of one's likelihood for aggressive driving than other factors such as how expensive their car was (or was not).

(Photo by Aine D)

Why Do We Sleep? Science Struggles for an Answer

Sleep is risky. Imagine you're a wild animal. When you're asleep, you're particularly vulnerable to attack. What's more, you could be out doing something more productive like searching for food or a mate. So why hasn't evolution selected out sleepers? There are plenty of ideas, but in short, we just don't know.

Recently 60 Minutes spent half their broadcast looking at the mystery of sleep. First, sleep is just as essential as food for survival. In tests, rats die just as quickly from sleep deprivation as they do from starvation. Sleep is also connected to staying in shape, building memory, maintaining chemical balance in our bodies and keeping emotions in check. Despite this, the average night of sleep for Americans has fallen from 8 hours to 6.7 since 1960.

Part 1 (13:01)


Part 2 (12:36)

Mind getting slow? That's (Probably) a Good Thing.

As Pound360 gets older, we find it more-and-more difficult to make it through magazine articles in one consistent read. We have to read, and re-read paragraphs. Often, we jump back-and-forth in the piece to connect the dots. We used to think our brains were falling apart as we aged. But it could be just the opposite according to neurology book "Progress in Brain Research," reports the NY Times.

According to the article, "the aging brain is simply taking in more data and trying to sift through a clutter of information, often to its long-term benefit." It's the classic definition of wisdom. As we age, "the mind is able to assimilate data and put it in its proper place."

Of course, this isn't always the case. Thirteen percent of Americans over the age of 65 get Alzheimer's, so their brains are actually falling apart.

How Coffee Fights Devastating Mental Disease

Pound360 regularly hears from (habitual) coffee drinkers feeling guilty about their indulgence. We often ask, how often and how much do you drink? We're not doctors here at Pound360, and our advice is worthless, but we figure if you drink regularly (build up a tolerance), then a couple (maybe five) cups a day won't do you much harm.

In fact, in some studies, the more coffee you drink, the more it protects you from some diseases.

Recently, a new study shows (one cup of) coffee can help fend off Alzheimer's. Actually, it's the caffeine in coffee that scientists suspect "blocks the ability of cholesterol to move from the blood into the brain," reports the Telegraph.

What's cholesterol have to do with Alzheimer's? According to the Telegraph, "Cholesterol increases proteins in the brain which break off, forming "plaques" that cause Alzheimer's."

For more on the benefits of coffee (there are many), check out this post: Coffee More Healthy Than Fruit Juice?

The Impact of Drugs on History

A review at the NY Times of Daniel Lord Smail's "On Deep History and the Brain" looks at how "self-modifications of our mental states" have guided the path of human history. In other words, it's a "neurohistory" book.

One example from the article: Arabian coffee stimulated "mind, body, conversation and creativity" when it hit shops in Europe. Another example, using slave labor in the Caribbean to grow sugar. This lead to cheap rum, which in turn numbed the working classes.

Basically, there are two types of mood-altering mechanisms. First, there's "teletropic" mechanisms, which are used to affect others. There are two examples in the Times piece. One, a baby crying "arouses its mother's instinct to care." Two, a preacher's sermon "relieves parishioners of stress hormones."

The second mood-altering mechanism, used to alter one's own mental state, is called "autotropic." For example, drinking coffee, taking a shot of whisky and popping anti-depressants would be autropic mood-altering mechanisms. And it's these that Smail's book focus on.

But it's not just drugs (caffeine, alcohol or nicotine) that can alter moods. "Books are also autotropic devices, regulating attention and mood."

A question to consider. While autotropic stimulation is an intentional act. Is it an intentional attempt to move society forward? Smail would argue it's not. And Pound360 agrees. People wouldn't simply drink rum because it made it easier to handle their mundane, difficult factory jobs. There would have to be a more immediate, clear self-benefit, and there is: the pleasure of inebriation.

No Easy Battles in War to Keep Mental Edge

None of us want to die a senile old man or woman detached from memories of the glory days and surrounded by strangers that call themselves your spouse, children or grandchildren. So among other things, Americans are spending millions on “brain exercise” computer programs, reports the NY Times.

But do these things actually work? Given how fast we’re increasing spending on these products, you’d think so. In 2005 we spent about $2 million dollars on brain exercise programs. This year, analysts expect the market to reach $80 million. But you might as well be taking your money to a casino. The problem, according to the Times, is that these brain exercise products are more “inspired by science” than actually “proven.”

In general, brain exercises (like Sudoku, learning a new language, a slick software program, etc.) only provide mental advantages “specific to the trained task.” Unfortunately, this kind of stuff falls short when it comes to “general mental fitness.”

What really works? Hard, painful, regular exercise, reports the Times. Exercise helps maintain something called “executive function” in the mind. Such functions include memory, focus, processing speed, response speed and so on. Exercise also reduces the risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Scientists don’t know exactly why exercise works, but here are some of the leading ideas:

• “Slows the age-related shrinkage of the frontal cortex”
• May increase capillaries in the brain
• Improves cardio health which lowers risk for mind-damaging strokes and heart attacks
• Releases “growth factors… proteins that increase the number of connections between neurons”

Does Time Slow In Times of Crisis?

A few years ago, I read an article in Discover magazine referencing an experiment suggesting the brain perceives time more slowly during a shocking event (something many of us suspect). To show this, the experimenters set up a device that very quickly flashed numbers, and had volunteers watch it as they fell backwards from a tower (they had a bungee cord attached to their ankles or something). Normally, you wouldn’t be able to read the numbers because they flashed so quickly. But when falling, subjects could actually describe the numbers they saw.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find this article online. And that’s too bad because I just read a piece at LiveScience.com that contradicts it.

In the LiveScience article, they reference the falling experiment described above, but contest that none of the volunteers could read the numbers on the device, called a perceptual chronometer. However, I did find an article at the BBC where someone in freefall made out a 98 on a perceptual chronometer when the real number was 96. Close enough to call? Not really. We need more data!

Another possible reason that time seems to slow during times of crisis is explained in the LiveScience piece. According to researchers, when an emergency breaks out, the part of your brain known as the amygdale kicks into high gear. When this happens, “an extra set of memories” causes “richer and denser memories.” And according to the experts, “the more memory you have of an event, the longer you believe it took."

So why does the last hour of work seem to drag on for four or five hours? That’s a mystery for another post.

Happiness is People Failing Around You?

A new study reported by Time finds, “reward mechanisms in the brain depend on how well you think other people are doing.” In other words, no matter how well you’re doing at something, as long as you’re getting more than the next guy, you’re happy.

Deny it all you want. But the reasoning here goes “back to Aristotle,” said one researcher; and scientific evidence is piling up in his corner.

In the latest study, the Univeristy of Bonn in Germany hooked people to a brain scanner and had them participate in a series of tasks. For succeeding in the tasks, participants were given varying cash prizes. They were also told how others did on the tasks and how much they received for their performances.

Sure enough, “Players on average were more pleased with a 60 euro prize when the other player got just 30 euros, for example, than they were if both players earned 60 euros.”

The new findings help explain why, despite material gains, people on balance aren’t any happier than they were 50 years ago.

The research also challenges conventional economic principles. Modern economics is based on self-interest driving the market. But it appears as though beating thy neighbor is the true catalyst for drive and innovation.

Kids Prefer Anything (Even Veggies) With a McDonald’s Wrapper

Stanford researchers found kids prefer the taste of food when it’s wrapped in McDonald’s packaging, according to an ABC News report. Basically, they served pairs of identical foods, one in plain wrapping and the other in McDonald’s, to kids. Of course, the kids said the stuff wrapped in McDonald’s packaging was better. Even if it was plain ol’ carrots (60 percent of the kids favored the McDonald’s-branded stuff).

Of course, advertising is the evil culprit. “The results help support calls for limiting marketing to young children,” one doctor told ABC News.

But wouldn’t kids prefer anything wrapped in a colorful wrapper over plain paper? I mean, you could have wrapped one carrot in a red wrapper with white smiley faces, another in plain white paper, and which one do you think the kids would prefer?

Another factor they’re not considering is the actual brand experience. When kids eat McDonald’s it tastes good. Advertising be damned, if you eat something from a certain packaging that tastes good, you’re going to prefer other things from that packaging compared to plain packaging.

I’m not saying advertising has nothing to do with the study results, but I think it’s a much smaller player in the results. And why didn’t ABC News go out and find that angle? I combed through the story, they don’t mention either of the two points I brought up, and I’m sure there are more.

You’re More Easily Manipulated Than You Think

Subliminal triggers may have more of an influence on you than you think, according to a new feature at the New York Times. What’s a subliminal trigger? It could be something as simple as a briefcase. In a 2004 University of Waterloo study, researchers found that contestants in an investment game were more competitive if a briefcase was sitting in the room.

In another study, researchers observed a greater likelihood of study participants cleaning up after a snack if “citrus-scented cleaning fluid” was hidden in the room.

And here’s a strange one. In a Yale study, test subjects were intercepted on their way to the lab and asked to hold a cup of coffee. In some cases the coffee was iced, in others the coffee was hot. But in all cases, the subjects had no idea they were holding the coffee of a lab assistant. Later, the subjects were asked to rate a hypothetical person described in a text. As it turns out, the subjects that held the cold cups of coffee were more likely to rate the person as “colder,” “less social,” and “more selfish” than subjects that held the hot coffee.

Strange, yes?

As it turns out, these subliminal triggers are very powerful. One expert told the times, “once covertly activated, an unconscious goal persists with the same determination that is evident in our conscious pursuits.” This is probably because, “the brain appears to use the very same neural circuits to execute an unconscious act as it does a conscious one.”

But before you go out and try to trick yourself into certain behaviors with subliminal triggers, know this. “Using subtle cues for self-improvement is something like trying to tickle yourself.” According to an expert, “priming doesn’t work if you’re aware of it.”

But what if you enlist the help of a very clever friend?

Is Yawning Contagious?

I noticed a headline at the BBC today, “Why is yawning contagious?” While most of us would agree that yawning is contagious, I’ve never seen any research on this front. So the headline got me to wondering, is yawning contagious? Or is this just a myth?

After doing a bit of research, I couldn’t find the hard evidence I was looking for, but a couple of (seemingly legitimate) sources strongly implied that this was the case.

First, in the above mentioned BBC piece, they note that, “about half of adult humans are prone to contagious yawning.” Second, I stumbled upon a reference page by University of Washington neuroscientist Eric Chudler where he explains, “yawns become contagious to people between the first and second years of life.” Also, the Discovery Channel show, “Mythbusters,” confirmed this myth.

One reason I thought yawning might be contagious is environmental factors, like a lack of oxygen in the air. But Chudler cites a study which shows changes in the air do not affect frequency or durations of yawns.

So why do we yawn and why is it contagious? According to the BBC piece, a new theory suggests, “the purpose of yawning is to cool the brain so it operates more efficiently and keeps you awake.”

But that still doesn’t solve this matter of contagiousness. The explanation there may be an evolutionary adaptation developed to keep prehistoric human groups in synch. “When we contagiously yawn we are participating in an ancient, hardwired ritual that evolved to help groups stay alert and detect danger,” explained the BBC.

Another possibility, according to the BBC piece: “contagious yawning might have helped early humans communicate their alertness levels and co-ordinate sleeping times.”

A couple of interesting yawn facts:

• The average yawn is six seconds (Chudler)
  
• Humans begin yawning three months after conception (yes, that means you start
• yawning in the womb) (Chudler)
  
• Chimpanzees are the only other species thought to experience contagious yawning (BBC)

Sleep In On Weekends & Risk Monday ‘Jetlag’

Just this past week, I couldn’t figure out why I was so wiped out on Monday. I got tons and tons of sleep on Friday and Saturday night. In fact, I slept about four hours longer than I usually do each morning last weekend. And it seems that was the problem.

According to results from a Brown University study (reported by Reuters), “staying up late and sleeping in over the weekend resets the body's internal clock to a later time.” This leaves one “foggy” and “less attentive” on Monday morning.

So to avoid a dreaded Case of the Mondays, “get up at the roughly the same time every morning, even if [you] stay up late on Friday and Saturday night.”

Landmark Autism Case Ignores Science

Five thousand families of autistic children are attempting to raid a fund held by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The only problem is, when it comes to a cause for autism, "numerous scientific studies have ruled out vaccines as being to blame," according to an AFP report.

Basically what's happening here is parents believe it's more than a coincidence that their children showed signs of autism after receiving certain vaccinations. I can see where they're coming from, but I think they're wrong. Consider this. The FDA forced vaccine manufacturers to remove a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal from their products in 1999. So autism rates should have crashed, right? Wrong. After thimerosal was removed, "autism rates continued to soar, with between 10 to 17 percent new cases a year," reported the AFP article.

Despite this, there's a good chance the families of autistic kids will win their suit. That's because "the court's ruling will depend not on the weight of scientific evidence but on a legal standard of plausibility." One lawyer representing an autistic child's family seemed particularly excited by this apparent flaw in the legal system. Said lawyer Kevin Conway, "There is a difference between scientific proof and legal proof. One is a 95 percent certainty and the other is ... 50 percent and a feather."

I'm all for finding an answer to the recent outbreak of autism, but you can't sue one up. There may be a ruling in favor of the families with autistic kids, but this won't give us a cure.

Is Human Morality a Product of Evolution?

This weekend I read a fascinating interview in Discover magazine with Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser. (Sorry, Discover has not posted this interview online yet, but you can read a columnist's take on the piece at the St. Petersburg Times here.) In the piece, Hauser demonstrates how human morality may be a product of evolution, rather than something nurtured by parents or learned in church.

Consider the following example, explained in the Discover interview. If a doctor has five patients that will die if they don't get an organ transplant -- say, a liver, heart, lung and two in need of a kidney -- is it okay for the doctor take a healthy person, dice them up -- thereby killing them -- and distribute their organs to save the lives of the dying five? Most people would say no.

However, if a trolley was barreling down the track, about to hit and kill five people, but you had a chance to flip a switch and divert it to a track that would kill just one person, most people would say that's okay. But why? In both cases, you're exchanging one life for five. Fundamentally, what's the difference?

According to the article in Discover, "there appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection."

One possibility that I came up with is this. In our genetic moral compass, developed through eons of evolution, it's never okay to sacrifice a healthy life for sick ones, no matter how practical the math is on it. Think about that. If you have two groups of primates on the plains of Africa a million years ago, one allows the healthy to be sacrificed for the sick, the other never allows this, which one will survive longer?

Teen Suicide on the Rise, FDA to Blame?

A couple years ago, you may recall studies showing kids on antidepressants had suicidal thoughts. You may have even thought some kids committed suicide after having these drug-induced urges. Maybe the FDA believed this was the case, so they slapped a "black box" warning on a class of antidepressants called "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" (SSRIs).

Then something bad happened. The teen suicide rate went up. What's worse, the increase followed ten years of declining teen suicide rates, according to a report by Reuters of a University of Pittsburgh study. "No other causes of child death increased during that period."

Researchers also found the information used by the FDA to issue their warning were exaggerated. For example, despite the suicidal thoughts (and attempts) by kids on antidepressants, "there were no completed suicides."

Certainly, there are risks to taking antidepressants, but the new report strongly suggests the risks outweigh the benefit. Furthermore, the FDA warning seems to be doing more harm than good.

Despite the reasonable case to remove the warnings, the FDA ain't budging. "At this time nothing indicates a need for change in the 'black box' warning," said an FDA spokesperson.

What Came First, Our Brains or God?

A headline in my CNN feed grabbed my attention today: "Are humans hard-wired for faith?" In the piece, they discussed a burgeoning field called "neurotheology" that looks at the link between our brain's architecture and a belief in God. According to the piece, "there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power."

While the article is a bit thin, you can visit this super-thick piece (no, I couldn't come up with anything in between!) at the NY Times: "Darwin's God." There, they look at two schools of thought regarding our brain's wiring and a belief in God. On one side, there are scientist arguing the "spandrel" theory, which supposes our belief in God is an "unintended byproduct" of survival mechanisms evolved in our species over the millennia. On the other side are scientists that argue a belief in God is a direct product of evolution, a survival mechanism in itself.

Regarding the direct approach, scientists reason that a belief in God, "made people feel better, less tormented by thoughts about death, more focused on the future, more willing to take care of themselves," according to the Times piece. Further, a belief in God, "made the faithful better at finding and storing food, for instance, and helped them attract better mates because of their reputations for morality, obedience and sober living."

On the other side, the "spandrel" side, there are a number of adaptations that may converge to create a belief in God. For example, take the adaptation of "agent detection." Through experiments, scientists have show people have a tendency to consider inanimate things are very much alive. How does this help you survive? According to the Times:

"If you are a caveman on the savannah, you are better off presuming that the motion you detect out of the corner of your eye is an agent and something to run from, even if you are wrong. If it turns out to have been just the rustling of leaves, you are still alive; if what you took to be leaves rustling was really a hyena about to pounce, you are dead."

Now what does this have to do with a believe in God? "[Agent detection] means our brains are primed for [a believe in the supernatural], ready to presume the presence of agents even when such presence confounds logic." Therefore, it's easier for us to believe God exists when there is no positive reason to.

Spandrel theory or the direct approach? As with most things, I'm sure the answer is somewhere in between.

A New Look at How Memories are Made

Ever thought about how memories are stored in your head? Previous research suggests that the hippocampus (a part of your brain) stores memories over the course of a day, then downloads it to the neocortex (another part of your brain) for long-term storage.

However, as I learned at Scientific American today, memories may be immediately recorded in both the hippocampus and neocortex. That's bad because the hippocampus is basically cleared of its memories when you sleep.

Maybe this explains why you forget certain things, and not others. If it's immediately recorded in the hippocampus, consider it gone in 24 hours. But if it's recorded in the necortex, it lives on. At least that's how I understand it, and I admit that I'm usually confused by the time I get two or three sentences into a SciAm article.

But let's assume I got it right when reading the piece. I suppose the question is, how do I get all me memories to be recorded in the neocortex? And is that why some people have better memories than others? Because most of their memories go there? Also, is that why repetition is a good way of learning? Because eventually, one of those reps makes it into the neocortex?