Archive for Science

Self-Control and Psychological Experiments

In a recent interview of David Brooks by Charlie Rose, Brooks recounts experiments done by Walter Mischel. Mischel, starting several decades ago, presented 3- and 4-year old kids with the choice of eating a marshmallow now or receiving another one 10 minutes later if they could resist eating that marshmallow in front of them. Mischel noticed by following these kids as they grew up that those who resisted the temptation of instant gratification were more likely to be successful later on. He posits that there might be something genetic going on. It certainly has some deterministic overtones if we can predict a person’s life success based on their consumption of a marshmallow when they weren’t even in kindergarten. And it is bothersome that other factors don’t seem to have an impact even though Mischel is cited in a New Yorker article as saying that

“In general, trying to separate nature and nurture makes about as much sense as trying to separate personality and situation. [...] The two influences are completely interrelated.”

Is this experiment valid? Can we really conclude from it that kids who have mastered self-control at age 4 will be more successful?

Considering the validity of research within psychology, I usually look at three things:

  • Sample size
  • Length of study
  • Presence of a control group

Exploratory research often has small sample sizes. We can make some inferences based on that research but they are on shaky ground. What holds for 20 people might not hold for 1000s. I suspect that the sample sizes in these experiments were small.

Study length varies from point-in-time to longitudinal, sometimes over decades. As Bella DePaulo has pointed out eloquently, using point-in-time studies for psychological research doesn’t give us results to stand on. Mischel’s study is clearly longitudinal, which gives it more credibility.

I think Mischel’s study falls apart with the lack of control groups. Control groups are important if we want to ensure that there aren’t other variables that might be impacting the outcome – suggesting that what we think is the cause (self-control) is really just another symptom of something else. It is plausible that the same environmental factors that increased the self-control in 4-year olds also contributed to their increased success. Maybe they had more involved parents; maybe they had access to better education. Or maybe – something suggested by the researchers themselves – these kids had developed skills that helped them distract themselves from the marshmallow. That might not have anything to do with self-control. It could simply be cunning calculation: Two marshmallows are better than one, after all.

There certainly is something to be said for self-control but I caution to jump to conclusions based on these experiments. Clearly, they are not investigating systemic impacts but are solely looking at personal responsibility.

Addendum:A new British report on health inequalities also seems to underscore factors beyond genes in things like health inequalities. As the latest Too Much newsletter summarizes:

But British health inequalities go far beyond this contrast between rich and poor. The rich live longer and healthier lives than the near rich, the near rich longer and healthier than the middle-income. Health in the UK follows, in other words, a “social gradient.” The lower a person’s social status, the worse a person’s health.
[...]
We typically blame poor health on unhealthy behaviors. Or bad genes. Or a lack of access to health care. None of these factors, as important as they may be, turn out to statistically explain why some among us live lives so much longer and healthier than others. What does?

Says the Marmot Review: “Social and economic differences in health status reflect, and are caused by, social and economic inequalities in society.”

If we truly want to tackle health inequalities, advises the Marmot commission, we need to address “inequalities in the conditions of daily life and the fundamental drivers that give rise to them: inequities in power, money, and resources.”

I wonder if such inequalities also impact our ability to delay eating a marshmallow…

Comments

Not Knowing

I admit it. I am angry. Not exactly sure what precisely I am angry about but it’s a reaction to a talk Michael Mamas gave at the Commonwealth Club. I think what I am angry about is how he can present such nonsense so authoritatively and get people to believe it. Nonsense? Who am I to say something a DVM espouses is nonsense? Well, I don’t know it for sure but I have a pretty good hunch that his mixture of quantum physics, evolution, relativism, and hope is nonsense. Sorry. The universe is not filled with a consciousness that is in all of us – it is “supremely hostile to life,” a fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson emphasizes frequently. Susan Blackmore eloquently shows that the idea of consciousness is, uhm, a helpful construct but doesn’t really exist. The unified field that physicists talk about is not the same as a soul. And, btw, Einstein did not support quantum physics – and he was the one who came up with the idea of the unified field. It sounds like he later rejected the very idea of a unified field:      Continue reading this post » » »

Comments (3)

Obama’s religious ties: Rick Warren

Obama has picked Rick Warren as the pastor to give the invocation (whatever that is) at the inauguration. Aside from wondering why a pastor has to be at the inauguration in the first place – after all there’s supposed to be a separation of religion and state in this country – this particular pastor pick is, well, it’s rather offensive. And not just to atheists (invocation is after all invoking god). It is basically offensive to most supporters of Obama: Rick Warren is, according to a quote in the HuffingtonPost article:

“[...] is also very established in the religious right and his position on social issues like gay rights, stem cell research and women’s rights are all out of the mainstream and are very much opposed to the progressive agenda that Obama ran on. I think that he is very much the wrong person to put on the stage with the president that day.”

     Continue reading this post » » »

Comments

Come Out!

Today, October 11, 2008, is National Coming Out Day. That day was created in 1988 as part of the GLBT rights movement to encourage people to come out and celebrate. Based on this Coming Out campaign, a couple more campaigns are going on now. So, come on out and show your pride whether your gay/lesbian/bi/transgender or an atheist (or all of the above or support all of the above, like you’re straight but not narrow or you think the separation between state and religion is a good idea even though you believe in a personal god).

Comments

Hypothyroidism Acting Up

As I have mentioned before, I have hypothyroidism caused by Hashimoto’s Disease. A couple of weeks ago, I finally realized that my lack of energy might have something to do with my thyroid. I had two normal TSH tests earlier this year, so it took me a bit to make that linkage. My TSH levels had increased more than 7-fold. I am now on a higher dosage but am wondering what created that increase in TSH values less than 4 months after a completely normal test. Plus my symptoms are pretty persistent.

One of the things that I keep reading is that the generic drugs aren’t as good as the name brands. That sounds very fishy to me since that’s not the case with any other drug but I figured it’s worth investigating. It looks like there’s indeed something fishy going on there: Research comparing the most popular brand-name drug with another brand-name and two generics was suppressed. The researchers found:

For all nine comparisons, there was no statistically significant difference between the four formulations, indicating that they were bioequivalent, even using a criterion for bioequivalence considerably more stringent than that employed by the FDA for other compounds. The authors concluded that the four generic and brand levothyroxine preparations studied were bioquivalent and interchangeable for most patients taking levothyroxine hormone.

The authors were forced to withdraw the article one day before the JAMA issues was supposed to go to print. Instead the opposite of their findings were published in a little known journal claiming that the brand-name was superior. Although it looks like it was published a year after these issues were raised. Note the small sample size of 22 patients, though. (Also read Public Citizens statement on the efforts of the brand-name manufacturer to keep control of the market).

While trying to find answers and a more reliable treatment, it’s almost inevitable that I come across websites peddling Armour Thyroid, a supposedly natural desiccated thyroid alternative to the synthetic medications that are prescribed. Public Citizen dared to advice against Armour Thyroid. The author of the article, self-proclaimed patient advocate Mary Shomon, then goes on to commit just about every logical fallacy there is while attempting to defend Armour Thyroid. She takes issue with Public Citizen’s reliance on the American Thyroid Association’s statement and then suggests rewriting it as: “There is no evidence in the form of published, peer-reviewed, double-blind studies that desiccated thyroid, a biological preparation, has any advantage over synthetic thyroxine.” Well, that would mean that there is no scientific evidence for desiccated thyroid. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t count, sorry Mary.

Most of Shomon’s arguments take the form of “there’s something wrong with the synthetic thyroid medicine, therefore the desiccated thyroid must be good.” Uhm, no. It could mean that both are bad. It definitely means that we need more research, some of which was suppressed as Shomon pointed out (though, unlike what she’s implying that research did not include desiccated thyroid; plus, as I pointed out above the JAMA did publish the article in 1997, six years before Shomon’s post). And one of her main arguments, that Synthroid isn’t properly FDA approved, was true until 2006: “Synthroid did not have FDA approval, but now all L-thyroxine preparations have FDA approval.” Shomon couldn’t have know that, of course, when she wrote the article in 2003…

Shomon also points to a study that found that “among patients taking thyroid medication, only 60% were within the normal range of TSH.” She writes that this fact “indicates that either vast numbers of doctors do not know how to properly prescribe levothyroxine, or it may not be as effective as its manufacturers and supporters claim.” First, again, that doesn’t mean that the “natural” alternative is any better because they, too, might be exaggerating their claims. And I would not be as quick to dismiss the improper prescription levels by doctors. Both hypothesis seem plausible to me. Though I’d start with checking on the skill of prescribing the right level of hormone replacement, especially given that many doctors are still using an outdated TSH range.

Why does Shomon think Armour Thyroid is still being used? The first reason is price. What a sorry reason! Homeopathic remedies are also pretty cheap but are worthless. Price does not say anything about the quality of something. The second reason is price again, this time hidden behind the claim that synthetic thyroid medication manufacturers are gouging consumers. But again something bad about another thing doesn’t make the alternative good! Third, T4 replacement might not be enough. There’s a study that shows this based on 33 patients, which is hardly conclusive. The authors of that study conclude:

In patients with hypothyroidism, partial substitution of triiodothyronine [T3] for thyroxine [T4] may improve mood and neuropsychological function; this finding suggests a specific effect of the triiodothyronine normally secreted by the thyroid gland.

This is not an endorsement of Armour Thyroid simply because that contains both T4 (thyroxine) and T3 (triiodothyronine). There might be other, better alternatives. Also, it seems to me that there might be something else going on: T3 is the active form of T4, the body converts T4 to T3. So, maybe there’s something going wrong with that conversion process that could be treated directly. In their subscription-only article on Armour Thyroid, Public Citizen points out that “Three randomized controlled studies published in late 2003 failed to confirm any benefit of combined T4 and T3 treatment compared to T4 given alone” (one on 46 patients, two on 40 patients, and three on 110 patients).

Why does Public Citizen think that Armour Thyroid is still in the top 200?

Why, after over 25 years of advice to the contrary, is Armour Thyroid in the top 200 most frequently prescribed drugs in the United States? One explanation appears to be that thyroid replacement therapy with natural thyroid appears to have become a niche market for unscrupulous complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners, some of whom are licensed MDs. Some of these CAM practitioners are also promoting natural thyroid hormone as a part of their weight loss programs. This is a dangerous practice, but it is not new.

Incidentally, Public Citizen does not advocate Synthroid, which is what Shomon seems to imply to discredit their whole argument against Armour Thyroid. They are advocating using synthetic levothyroxine in generic form.

I do agree with Mary Shomon on one thing:

The best thyroid drug for each patient is the drug that safely and effectively works the best for each patient. To suggest otherwise displays a lack of knowledge about the current state of thyroid treatment, and an utter disregard for the quality of life, future, health – and pocketbooks – of millions of Americans.

Well, it didn’t sound to me, though, that Shomon was objectively evaluating the available options. She was defending Armour Thyroid, not arguing for more nuanced treatment options, except in this last paragraph. What is need, in my opinion, are more independent studies, like the one that was suppressed, which compare the available options and figure out which work best. Clinging to an outdated medication is not the best option. Patient advocates who so blatantly dismiss the scientific method do not help us thyroid patients. They just add to our confusion.

Comments (3)

Overcoming Singlism

It’s National Singles Week and as promised, I would like to celebrate it by writing up my notes from my interview prep. Beth Hughes, the SF Chronicle reporter, had asked me to talk about overcoming singlism (I know, that’s not really reflected in her article but it was great food for thought!).

Singlism is a term coined by Bella DePaulo to describe discrimination and bias against people who are not married or part of a couple. It comes in an overt form, such as the 1000+ benefits married folks get from the government. Yet, it also has an internalized aspect that is a reflection of the matrimanical myths we are bombarded with on a daily basis.

Overcoming singlism requires at least three elements

1. We need to recognize singlism both in society and in ourselves. A good place to start is DePaulo’s book since it helps clearly define singlism in society. You can also check out DePaulo’s two blogs (here and here) and, of course, I try to point out singlism wherever I see it. There is a growing body of books that can help as well.

2. We need to raise awareness by pointing out singlism wherever and whenever we see it and to counter the marriage myths. For example, I contacted my bank because they suggested security questions that assumed I am married. And I’ve written my fingers sore countering the way-too-insidious myth that married people are happier. Most research that claims to show married folks are more [fill in your favorite claim] than single people fall for the fallacy that correlation means causation. It does not. Otherwise, I could go out and buy an expensive car to get rich… (Hat tip to Kai). We can also counter singlism by presenting ourselves as examples of happily single people (at least most of the time, some dragon taming might be required sometimes ;-) .

3. We need to counteract singlism by embracing being single as a completely valid choice and by valuing all our relationships. On a more political level, we need to counteract singlism by demanding that benefits are disentangled from relationship status as Nancy Polikoff, for example, has outlined. We can support the Alternatives to Marriage Project, an advocacy group fighting for just such a separation of rights and status.

       One of my favorite definitions of atheism is that I believe in one less god than believers. Well, we can apply the same thinking to living single: There are billions of potential partners out there. Most coupled people have chosen one of them and thus have not chosen billion others. As a single person, I simply choose one less partner than coupled people… There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, yet, it is somehow not considered a valid choice (most of the time).

Of course, none of this can be done in a vacuum. These elements are interdependent: We cannot counteract without recognizing singlism nor without raising awareness of singlism.

Comments (3)