16 February 2010

some NPR: on justice; on autism

Posted by admin @ 16:50 pm    categories: Psychologywriting

1. Bail and the All Things Considered story about it.

There was a three-part All Things Considered piece the 21st and 22nd of January about bail [bonds] and their impact on poor Americans. You can check it out here on NPR’s website (second part; third part). I thought the pieces, by Laura Sullivan, were really good, although I’ll certainly acknowledge that I think she’s a bit biased towards the same direction as I am.

My junior year of college I was lucky enough to get to take a class with Barb Toews, who does restorative justice in Pennsylvania. The class was part of the Inside-Out program, wherein students in college take a class inside of a jail or prison, alongside currently-incarcerated men or women. I very much felt like this class gave me a viewpoint that would have been severely lacking in a class based on a college campus. It was experiential as much as it was academic; although we did quite a bit of reading and had some pretty good discussions, much of our work was anecdotal, as it must be. Still, I came to be pretty severely convinced that our prison system in the US is [still] part of the problem facing society, rather than something that helps. Even before taking this class, it seemed pretty clear that building more prisons is not and never has been the solution.

NPR seems to have a focus (lately?) on demonstrating some of the problems with current law and with the current prison system. A while back, they did a great series on California’s Three Strikes law (by Ina Jaffe). I remember hearing a fairly recent piece about sex offenders, focusing on Florida’s crazy laws. And now this.

These pieces are moving and, to be honest, make my skin crawl. One of the things my class with Barb discussed was programs intended to keep people out of jail — pretrial release programs. Our class focused on restorative justice — it’s pretty self-explanatory in basic idea. (See here.) I’ll grant that it’s ridiculously optimistic as a philosophy, but I think there are pretty clear results in its favor, and it’s not as though a punative justic system seems to demonstrate great results. (Oh no, not at all.) In any case, the NPR pieces are about how bail doesn’t seem to be helping anyone except for bail bondsmen, and how in fact they seem to be severely hurting (poor) defendants and the government itself.

Bail is intended to insure that a defendant, released pre-trial, returns to court to stand trial. If you can’t pay it, you sit in jail until you plea or until you get a trial — which may take months or more than a year. Many of the guys in my class were in this position. You generally only get a bail if your crime is nonviolent. If you can’t pay it, you can instead pay a few to a bail bondsman, who then puts up your bail for you. You don’t get the fee back. The way the system is supposed to work is this: if you then don’t show up to court, the bail bondsman pays your bail to the court, and uses bounty hunters (legal ones) to get you back. But as the NPR story explains, that doesn’t even happen. As in, the bail bondsman makes money from you, but the court loses money. And then police officers end up getting you back themselves. In any case, I’m perhaps focusing on a small part of this — the important point really is that many people can’t afford the $500 needed to pay a bail bondsman. And as such, they languish in jail, which hurts their chances of fighting their case, overcrowds jails, and makes it more likely for them to give in to prosecutors.

Short version: listen to the NPR story.

2. Super cool: Phineas Gage daguerrotype found.

3. Autism on On the Media and Fresh Air.

On the 5th, NPR’s fantastic On the Media had a rather mediocre piece on autism, focusing on the medical journal The Lancet, which formally retracted Andrew Wakefield’s disastrous paper this month. The paper was published in 1998, and is the one that made the bogus claim that vaccinations might be causing autism by using bad science. Immunologists like Paul Offit have worked hard to dispel this idea, but people persist in believing it. What frustrated me about NPR’s story was that they really didn’t do a good job of explaining just why it was retracted, and why even before it was retracted it had still been repeatedly demonstrated to be bullshit.

I really think that was a bad choice.

I got to see Offit speak at Bryn Mawr in April last year, and he was really a good speaker (he works in Philadelphia). My favorite part of his talk was an anecdote he told about his wife’s pediatric practice. As I remember it, he explained that his wife was seeing a young girl, who was supposed to be getting vaccinations that day. In the waiting room, the girl had an epileptic seizure, the first of what were apparently to be many. But imagine that the seizure had waited a day, or an hour. And imagine trying to explain to that girl’s mother that the vaccination had nothing to do with it. Think you’d get very far? Just because they might’ve been linked, however, would by no means reflect on causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In any case, much more impressive were the three Terry Gross interviews of Temple Grandin on February 5′s Fresh Air. I felt like Gross asked some interesting questions; I also just find Grandin to be a really interesting woman. I no longer remember where I first heard about her, but she’s a professor of animal science who has high-functioning autism, and is also an activist in autism treatment and awareness. I recommend listening to the piece (they also have a glowing review of the HBO movie about her, starring Claire Danes — I am curious indeed), or at least reading up on her — Oliver Sacks’ article about her in An Anthropologist on Mars is a great place to start.

And with that, I’ll leave you. Some more personal updates soon.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

26 January 2010

some psych work at last

Posted by admin @ 16:42 pm    categories: FoodPsychology

I went today to a third meeting at the Complutense University of Madrid, this time for the head of the MEG/EEG center there (who’s* also in charge of the Psychiatry Department in the Medical School) to give me some instructions. I got there on-time, but had said I’d be late, so I walked in at 17:20, to find that he wasn’t there. I sat in a waiting room at the end of the hall (I should add that the hallway had the lights off, and that his office was the only one with anyone in it — not surprising perhaps since many professors don’t keep long office hours, but still weird) until the secretary/assistant/coordinator (I’m not sure) invited me into her office, which was heated. At maybe 17:45, Professor O. arrived, and rushed into a meeting that had been postponed, I believe. I read from Panorama, the McSweeney’s newspaper-and-magazine that I got for the holiday’s (it’s awesome — all the articles are engaging, even those that I don’t care much about; here’s one they’ve put online). Eventually, I started thinking of leaving, but I figured I’d just be playing on the internet.

Shortly thereafter, Professor O. invited me and the woman into the other room, and demonstrated these glasses that they’re using for an experiment — sunglasses with a camera on the top, hidden, for blind men to wear. I believe — this was all in very fast Spanish. Decidedly, they’re doing a study on attention and motivation (stuff I’ve worked on before!) in the blind, but how exactly the study is going on I’m still unclear on. I think they all already knew, so that was one of the main problems. In any case, there were four men — all professors or academics, at least one an engineer — talking about the study, and we sat with them for a bit. They ended up in a discussion of whether attention and motivation are separate processes or one process with two different names, which I found awesome: both the question, and the fact that I could understand it. (I think it’s quite likely they’re the same process, even if they’re that process working differently. Professor O. thinks the same; the engineer disagreed. I said a word or five, and they listened, but obviously I was slow to speak. I would’ve been even if they were speaking English; they were almost all at least twice my age.)

After the meeting wound down, Professor O. and I met briefly, and he described the plans: he wants me to do some research on the topics of positive and negative emotion as they relate to EEG waves, the two hemispheres of the brain, and picture/word presentation. In some senses, this is very similar to things I’ve done. But it’s kind of exciting, and the eventual plan is to move this study onto looking at depression. I won’t be there for that, but he intends to involve me for the entirety of this study — designing it, analyzing data, writing the paper. I’m not sure why he’s being so helpful, but I guess in some sense he’s gaining me as someone who’s excited to help run a study he wants run, and and that’s a great thing. I’m excited, for my part. If all goes well, we’ll get to publish something. And if we get stymied, I’ll certainly have a lot of great experience. I imagine I may talk more about the research I’m doing, if it’s interesting, on this forum. I’ll warn you.


* It had been a long time since I had thought of the difference between whose and who’s. I had to teach them this week. It’s generally so instinctive. Except when it’s not. I often make the written mistake of they’re versus their. And right vs. write, which is probably my worst mistake. They’re so simple to do, when you’re writing (or typing) quickly. Clearly the mistake has nought to do with not knowing, and much to do with mistaking something.

A note: I made soup with all that chicken stock I made the other day. Today, so a bit later than I thought. I’ll have it for dinner tomorrow, and Thursday, and I’d probably have enough for two more days besides if I weren’t going to Dublin. It’s spicy, and pretty good. I used half an onion flavoured with a red chili (not sure what kind — it wasn’t labeled in the greengrocer’s) and some cumin and turmeric; I added half a green pepper, broccoli, garbanzo beans, tiny pasta like orzo, and eggplant (cooked separately). In that order. Not bad for something just using all of my vegetables in the fridge.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

17 January 2010

madrid, again

Posted by admin @ 18:03 pm    categories: PsychologySpain

I’m back in Madrid, after a nice and mostly-relaxing break in Miami. The break was long, but still felt short in some ways.

In coming back to Madrid, I’m interested in what is and what feels changed, different. For sure, coming back here didn’t feel like moving to a new city — it felt like coming home. I think I’ve become better at feeling at home in places. I still don’t feel at home in other people’s houses, so perhaps it’s more that I’m becoming quicker at making a place feel like my home. Nonetheless, it’s a nice feeling, and as such I’ve promised myself to make the best of being in Spain. Take advantage of my luck, right?

I’ve started working with a professor at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, who’s doing EEG research into depression. We’re creating and carrying out a study, and because I have experience with EEG, he’s letting me take a greater role than I might have done if I had stuck with MEG work — although he’s promised me the opportunity to observe some MEG studies if I’m interested. (I am.) I’m excited to get back into doing psychology work; I’ve already mentioned on this forum that I’ve come to actually miss it. And if things go well, I may be able to help with any paper that comes out of this work — it helps to be fluent in English here, since most significant scientific publication is in English. Excellent.

As most people reading this know, I’ve applied to graduate school in clinical psychology, and I’ll be interviewing shortly. That’s a change, actually — a change in what kind of nervousness I’m feeling. But damn-exciting, no? I’m getting really excited about all of this, which is great up until the possibility where I don’t get in anywhere. But I’m keeping my hopes up, and if I do get in to grad school, then I’ll be thrilled to get started. Terrified, of course. But thrilled.

Here are some of the things that will happen before the end of the year, though. Things to look forward to, things to work on. For one, Joe will be coming to visit in early February. That should be exciting and fun. I may miss part of his visit for an interview, but I’ve no doubt that he’ll survive. My parents and maybe my sister are coming in the end of March, which should also be fun; we’ll explore Madrid and travel up to the north of Spain.

I also fully intend to do some outdoor climbing and hiking. There are amazing mountains in this country. Let’s take advantage of that, Justin! I’ve been meaning to buy a book on mountaineering in Spain; maybe from the climbing gym (I’m going this week; it seems worth it for the fun, and because maybe I’ll meet some people I like). There’s good hiking near Madrid, once it’s a bit warmer, and Kara recommended climbing up near Zaragossa, in an area called Rodellar. That sort of climbing would require a group, but I bet I can find bouldering somewhere nearby here. So I will! And maybe a friend will come with me and enjoy the outdoors and make sure I don’t break my neck.

In mid-May, I’m going to this music festival in Barcelona called Primavera Sound. Stee went two years ago and raved about it; the lineup is pretty awesome, I think. I’ve never been to a music festival before! Should be fun. And then of course, in July, I’ll be doing some traveling. I’m still unsure about my plans, but I want to head to some places in Europe that I’m really curious about. Suggestions are welcome!

Beyond that, I’ve just got to take advantage of things like being-in-Madrid. And meet some more Spaniards. Such shall it be.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

11 January 2010

vitamins

Posted by admin @ 12:08 pm    categories: FoodPsychology

There’s a fascinating article in Slate about vitamins (especially multivitamins) and their efficacy. It’s a question that I’ve long wondered about: just how well do vitamins work? As I briefly mentioned before, Michael Pollan suggests that we should be making sure to eat foods that have important vitamins — but that popping pills of those vitamins might not be so effective. Emily Anthes, in this article, says something along the same lines — maybe we’re not accomplishing as much as we should think, by taking multi-vitamins.

Our flour and water and many of the foods we buy already have extra nutrients embedded within them, thanks to laws in the US, and if we’re eating healthful foods, we’re probably getting many of the rest. I don’t know that I’ll warrant that supplements are bad — not until the evidence builds up a bit more — but I do wonder about the usefulness of taking vitamins every day.

In any case, I definitely recommend giving the article a read. The best part about it? I spent the first half of the article thinking to myself, “Huh. It’s interesting that they’re suggesting that so many of these vitamins can affect the body in a possibly negative way, but what about the placebo effect?”, and then the second half is about the placebo effect. The brain is decidedly able to change the body. It can be undermined anyway, though.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

16 December 2009

on typical development

Posted by admin @ 15:38 pm    categories: Psychologyteaching

I’m watching Zombieland (thanks to Benoit, who posted about it), which is actually pretty funny, although it DOES make me uncomfortable. One of the characters is a 12-year-old, and one of the running jokes (it’s a comedy; it’s only “runnning” in that it comes up multiple times) is that she doesn’t know who anyone famous is — not singers nor actors nor politicians. And of course the answer is: “She’s twelve.” Of course she doesn’t know.

When I worked with Maria at FLENI in Argentina, with autistic kids (see: the beginning of this journal), she sometimes commented about how hard it was to remember what normal kids were like. Where should these kids be in their development? Because of course diagnosis comes based on how people differ from what is normal. A child who is language-delayed and can’t use sentences at age six is severely delayed — but not if every child does that, and then begin to speak normally by seven. Right? But you need to know the points of comparison before you can make these judgments.

So in some sense I’m thinking of this year teaching as me setting a yardstick of “what children should know.” Of course, it’s not really true (besides that I’m also doing some psych work on the side) — but at the same time, I’m definitely taking note of the wide variety in learning styles, of where these kids are developmentally. For example, my three-year-olds have a lot of trouble with even the simplest things. They don’t pay attention well, they have a lot of trouble learning more than one word at a time. Because they’re three. The five-year-olds, on the other hand, are almost ready to enter primary school; of course they’re able to repeat, even if they can’t really speak English. So with three-year-olds I speak a lot and get them to repeat sounds; I work on familiarizing them with English. With five-year-olds we can do some vocabulary, even if not all of it sticks. And sounds — it’s not as though they’re learning in the same way as, say, thirteen-year-olds.

But I notice things where I have to step back and say to myself, “Justin, they’re only ten.” Which is why I started as I did. I was telling two of the girls I give a lesson to about Chanukah (which is now — Happy Chanukah, folks), and asked them if they knew any Jews. Nope. So I explained to them that there weren’t many Jews in Spain because they were kicked out five hundred years ago; they understood that. But I explained also that many Jews came to the US after WWII. That, not so much. They had heard of WWII, but they didn’t really know what the Holocaust was, nor who Hitler was. Which surprised me until I reminded myself: they’re only ten. They’ve never studied history. Of course, I think many ten-year-olds do know what the Holocaust was — but it’s just not important to people here. When would it have come up? These girls are watching Twilight: New Moon, not Inglourious Basterds. So yeah: children learn history, they learn culture. It takes ‘em a while. Just as their brains mature as they grow, so they can learn more easily at an older age.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

18 November 2009

Ketchup and Burgers

Posted by admin @ 16:29 pm    categories: FoodPsychology

burger-and-ketchup

First: I just read a post from the BPS about statistics, which I thought was worth a brief mention: the post is about how even when we study psychology, we tend to ignore the people who developed the techniques — and that it’s important to think of psychology as mathematics and as something fallible, rather than just as something you plug into SPSS. Anyway, the post briefly discusses the ten statisticians some guy thinks are the most important. I knew only two of their names, but I know about the things that seven of them have done, so this post was kind of cool.

More excitingly: I made ketchup today.

Yeah, I know. You’re looking up at the picture at the top of this entry and saying, “Ketchup?” That was my thought. This doesn’t really look like the ketchup we know — it looks more like tomato sauce. But at the same time, this definitely tastes like ketchup. It’s got that tangy sweetness you associate with ketchup. It also reminds me a bit of Smitty’s Sauce*, this orange sweet-and-sour spicy sauce we put on chicken and rice. And honestly, unlike traditional ketchup, I wouldn’t mind putting this on chicken and rice. It would even taste good.

Okay, so I should start off by saying that I didn’t make this up. I got the recipe from The Homesick Texan, who I’ve probably mentioned before, since she’s one of my favorite food bloggers. And what I’ve been saying, and what I’m going to say, is essentially an echo of her post. Like: I never really liked ketchup all too much in the past, but this is wonderful. Like: I could totally eat this ketchup with a spoon. (In fact, I did eat it on a slice of bread while I waited for the burgers to cook.) I should also note that her description is lovely, and moreover that the post title is awesome: “Chipotle Ketchup Changes Everything.” (Chipotles!)

So let me back up. I came across this recipe when she posted it in April, I think, and thought it sounded interesting, so I saved it in my bookmarks. And then I made her refried beans the other day, and remembered the ketchup post. And then I came across this post about ketchup and french fries on another blog, and I decided — well, dammit, time to make ketchup. Since then, I’d been planning it for perhaps two weeks. I finally got molasses, got brown sugar, and got apple (cider?) vinegar, and so today I finally got it together, and bought ground beef and fresh bread (at this Gallician bakery sort of near me that actually has pretty good bread, unlike most bakeries I’ve found).

At around 7:30 I started cooking the onions, got out the ingredients, added the tomatoes and sugar and vinegar and spices (plus some cumin, which I can’t help but use constantly) and chipotles to the pot, brought it to a boil, left it to simmer and so forth. Went in my room for about an hour, stirring occasionally. At ten-’til-nine, I took the pot off the burner to let it cool before putting it in the blender. I mixed the ground beef I had with some chopped garlic, some cumin, some pepper, and some rock salt, and put it in a pan with a bit of oil in the shape of two patties. (I ate both — but that’s the fault of my not having any lettuce for a salad, and also the fact that it was delicious. Also I only bought a small amount of beef†, but it was a big meal.) While the burgers cooked, I blended the ketchup, and then tried it out on a slice of bread. Oh wow, really good. Really, really good.

And then after the burgers were finished, I cut them in halves and ate them on the bread, with dollops of ketchup and nought else. I’d say they were the best burgers I’d had in years (sorry, Jacob — yours are good, but you never made me ketchup), except for Sammy’s, in Provo, Utah, which really did me in this summer with a barbecue-bacon-avocado burger. Or something like that. Still: these were damn-tasty. (And I think garlic should always be necessary in burgers.) I would recommend the ketchup.

Now I’m left with a glass jar filled with ketchup — so I guess I’ll need to make fries sometime soon. And burgers another day next week? The high acidity of the ketchup means it should last a while in the refrigerator.


* Smitty’s Sauce is a sauce my parents make that they learned when they lived in Rochester. It is (or was?) made by a restaurant there called Smitty’s. It’s this deep orange color, made with orange juice and vinegar and hot sauce and mustard (and, the way we make it, pineapple chunks and juice). This recipe sort of is like the one we use. Although it’s not the same.

† I really think you’ve gotta make your own burgers, rather than buying pre-made shaped patties. I mean, it is easier when you’re just cooking for one or two, but I think it’s generally worth it to make the burgers yourself. I wanted to buy freshly-ground beef, but I ended up being cheap and getting the meat from a supermarket, which was probably for the best.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

10 November 2009

the DSM

Posted by admin @ 15:17 pm    categories: Psychology

Not so long ago, in the grand scheme of things, I went to see Professor Nancy McWilliams speak at Bryn Mawr College’s School of Social Work. I’ve mentioned her before, so I’m actually going to quote some of what I wrote (this was in April of 2007):

[McWilliams] helped to write a re-visioning (not a revision, yes?) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that’s used for, well, diagnosing mental disorders — it’s a different idea, called the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual, which is focused more on (a) empirically-based psychodynamic theories of disorders and (b) etiological concerns. That is to say, to use her words: “The DSM leant itself to an understanding that the doctor is healthy and the patient is sick” — this is “attempting” to de-pathologize many of these syndromes, and to work in helping not just to remove the symptoms of disorders, but the causes (etiologies). As she put it, “No good physician would confuse the release of the symptoms of an illness with the release from the illness itself.”

In some ways, the PDM is a political document — it responds to the revisions of the DSM away from psychoanalytical thought (which has been argued as not-empirically-derived) by demonstrating collected empirical proof of psychoanalysis as effective. It’s intended to be useful to beginning therapists — not to insurance companies, who want a DSM ID number before paying for therapy. The PDM, instead, is meant to be used in a slightly different way: “Diagnosis goes on forever; it’s not a static process.” You keep on changing, reconsidering, as a patient speaks to you. Which is definitely interesting.

I go on, but this is the part I think is relevant today (although I do very much think the DSM has a place, because psychoanalytic thought, while interesting, is not known for its economy nor (not always) its scientific basis). Because today, The New York Times published an article by renowned ASD-researcher Simon Baron-Cohen talking about Asperger’s Syndrome, and its possible removal from the Diagnotistic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the book that I mention at the beginning there — which is used for all psychological diagnoses in the United States, and throughout much of the world. (There was a more detailed article that’s somewhat more objective, a week or so ago, if you’re intrigued.) I don’t actually think that Baron-Cohen (who, yes, is Sacha Baron Cohen’s cousin) makes too many good points in his article. But there are two which are excellent, and overshine the others:

1. There are decided consequences for removing Asperger’s from the DSM-V. Just imagining having someone tell me, “Nope, sorry, now you’re not Asperger’s, but maybe you’re PDD-NOS” strikes me as ridiculous.

2. The DSM is [ostensibly] based in empirical research. So do some, before acting. As of right now, we really don’t know whether Asperger’s is distinct from, or included within, ASDs.

3. He doesn’t quite say this, but rather implies it: the two other disorders which were removed from the DSM were removed because they were deemed to no longer be meaningful as a disorder. The first was homosexuality, more than forty years ago — deemed to not be a disorder at all. The second was neurosis, almost thirty years ago — deemed to be too general and indistinct, and not based in any research. Asperger’s is neither of these things. Although perhaps over-diagnosed (he doesn’t address this), Asperger Syndrome is certainly real, and the argument might be that it’s too specific. (Conversely, we might say that the comparison he’s making isn’t a good one — these two disorders were removed; Asperger’s would be “rebranded.”)

In any case, I found the topic worth sharing. I’m really fascinated by the idea of what gets to be in the DSM, and what is held out.

« « Older post | More recent post » »

This is the online journal of Justin Dainer-Best, detailing my adventures. To the right are links to other parts of the site.

I'll sometimes cross-post things from other online manifestations of me, perhaps.

View posts about psychology, art, food and cooking, the Spanish language, or teaching. You can also read my writing I've posted here. Or read old posts about Argentina.

To syndicate, use RSS