It’s a weird feeling to discover a new “old friend” on facebook, just to experience a visceral memory of feelings from during the time that we were friends. As much fun as I supposedly had in my 20s, I sure am getting a rush of anxiety, longing-to-fit-in, wanting to measure up, and fear of rejection.

There are times that I look back at the person I was during my last few years in Houston, and I’m deeply embarrassed for her.

I used to spend lots of energy creating my own WP look/feel with others’ templates as a starting point. Likely don’t have the time/energy to do that now. This particular template, I downloaded months ago, and it was new to me then — since, I’ve seen variations of it all over. That means I need something different, right?

Anyone have suggestions for templates they’ve seen/loved?

It’s time to start writing again. When I start doing three-part updates on Facebook, that just might mean that a blog post would be a better use of my thoughts, no?

I’ve missed this.

This one was a lot of fun to write. Pity I turned it in a few hours late, but I’m learning to deal with the uncertainties of mixing family and school. Once Mike is no longer working insane hours/days, I think (hope!) I should keep up better.

Anyway, this was one of those papers that I had a night to sleep on the topic (had already pulled/read most of my content), and when I sat down at the computer, it poured out in short timeframe.

Written for Psyc6211, July 3, 2009

Assignment:
Consider the following scenario: A recent article was published in a popular magazine that presented information about medical treatments that were “out of the ordinary.” For example, the article discusses many alternative “cures” to some of the most studied diseases. One segment of the article discussed how you can cure an enlarged prostate with a popular method of reducing wrinkles. While this article did provide some scientifically-based research, the findings were largely taken out of context or misrepresented in some way.

Using the critical thinking skills learned thus far in the course and with the scenario’s example article in mind, find an example of a current article or media claim that draws incorrect conclusions from its findings.

With these thoughts in mind:
Post by a brief summary of the article you located and the errors that the author makes in drawing conclusions about the findings. Then explain how the author can make the article better, using the critical thinking skills that you’ve learned to date.

Facebook! Can kill you!

Facebook: purveyors of DEATH. Or not.

The article that I found — a press release, actually — promised to give life-altering information about two very timely topics: social networking sites and the current recession. The release, “Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession” (2009), applies to me, as both a job seeker (I hope to return to work fulltime in September) and as a user of Facebook. The release author suggests that those out of work may eschew face-to-face contact in favor of less expensive time online. The potential harm spelled out in the release is no laughing matter: “our devotion to social networks such as Facebook could alter the way genes work, upset immune responses, hormone levels, and the function of arteries, and influence mental performance” (‘Social networks,’ 2009, ¶3). Diving into the source article in the British journal Biology makes the consequences of Facebook use even more dire. The article’s author, Sigman (2009), suggests that social networking site usage may also lead to isolation, cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, sleeplessness, inflammation, stroke, memory loss, and even premature death.

In light of recent New York Times pieces I’ve read about the value of social networks during a job search (Villano, 2009)(Weed, 2009), this article was a bit disheartening. You mean, to find a job, I need to use social networks, but by doing so, I might harm myself? What is a girl to do? A girl is to do her homework, that’s what a girl is to do. It turns out, all fear-mongering aside, I have no reason to fear. The research to which Sigman’s article refers not to social network usage — or even general electronic media usage, for that matter — but, rather to the primary indicators, loneliness and isolation. Social isolation, and the misery that it brings to man, is indeed implicated in all of these conditions.

Is it appropriate to blame social networks for our increased isolation? Do people eschew face-to-face contact in favor of face-to-screen time with online-only contacts? Perhaps some do. Sigman’s reference for this, however (one I had to dig to find, as it was not included in the article reference list), was an author’s personal experience — in an editorial, not even a peer-reviewed article (Abbasi, 2008). This is hardly something backed by science. If I add my personal experience with social networks to the mix — experience equally valid to one doctor’s annecdote — I find that online networks not only improve my social contacts, but also enhance my real-life connections. I may, for instance, learn more about another (local) mom’s day-to-day life, improving our ability to converse when we next meet again at a toddler play date. I also can discover more about my local connections’ personalities, assisting me in deciding with whom to spend my limited budget for face-to-face time. Social networking sites lessen, not increase, my sense of isolation.

All in all, the AIM press release and the article it references do discuss a legitimate issue; reduced social contacts are repeatedly demonstrated to have a negative effect on health. That said, placing blame on social networking sites such as Facebook is not supported by the research, and appears to be a cheap attempt at joining two “hot” news items (recession, increased social networking use) for increased consulting opportunity for AIM and readership for Sigman.

What both the release and the article neglect to discuss is the correlation/causation link between electronic media usage and loneliness. Do we give up our non-virtual social networks because of electronic media? Or, what I consider more likely, do we use online contacts as a way to build up our social lives that have been obliterated by changes in society’s general? These questions, in my opinion, would make a much more interesting — and helpful — study. It’s possible that many people use online networks as a way to mitigate otherwise unavoidable isolation.

References

Abbasi, K. (2008). MMR and the value of word of mouth in social networks [Editorial]. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 215-216. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/101/5/215

Sigman, A. (2009, February). Well connected? The biological implications of ’social networking’. Biologist, 56(1), 14-20. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://azureim.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sigmanbiologist2009.pdf

Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession. (2009, March 20). PRWeb. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2248584.htm

Villano, M. (2009, May 2). Job-search networks, in all shapes and sizes. New York Times, 2009, March 20 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/jobs/03networks.html

Weed, J. (2009, May 30). Finding new employees, via social networks. New York Times, 2009, May 30 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/jobs/31recruit.html

As Maya said over and over (and OVER) again while we watched our local show last night, AWESOME!

h/t Feministe

Written for PSYC6211, June 2009.

IQ: incomplete, questionable

In popular usage, IQ has come to mean something very different than a measure of one’s academic aptitude. The population at large seems to overestimate the application of “IQ” in the same way they underestimate the scientific utility of a “theory.” What, exactly, does IQ measure?

The first standardized intelligence tests appeared just after the turn of the 20th century. At the request of the French government, researchers Binet and Simon developed the first reliable test of general intelligence. This test, intended to identify children who might need additional instruction and to moderate the bias of teacher assessments, became quite popular. By 1916, Stanford theorists introduced the scoring system we now know as the intelligence quotient (IQ), or the relationship between a child’s mental age and chronological age (Weiten, 2008). As a predictor of general scholastic achievement, IQ functions reasonably well, with a positive correlation of .65 with academic achievement (Weiten).

Beyond its intended purpose, however, the utility of the intelligence quotient wanes. While IQ can predict success, it does not explain why any given person may be successful. While it can identify children in need of supplemental instruction, it does not highlight what kind of help they require. During the 1980s, newer models of intelligence emerged as Sternberg identified three different skills sets of intelligence: verbal, practical, and social (Weiten, 2008) and Gardner posited seven modes of intelligence. Building on this idea of divided functionality, but moving into a more measurable framework, Naglieri & Das introduced the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) model of cognition and a Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) instrument to measure the PASS processes (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). Unlike general intelligence models, PASS identifies specific cognitive skills, including the physiological residence for each (Das, 2002).

Figure from Dass, 2002.

Planning
Planning, aka “the executive function,” resides in the brain’s frontal lobe. Planning skills apply to decision making, problem solving, and understanding the big-picture (Das, 2002).

Attention
Also known as arousal, attention is the ability to choose where to focus and what to ignore. While the attention function is difficult to pinpoint, it is likely that arousal first works in the brainstem, followed by frontal lobe involvement in directing attention (Das, 2002).

Simultaneous
The ability to see the whole and categorize its parts simultaneously is believed to reside in the cortex and in the occipital and parietal lobes (Das, 2002).

Successive
This processing skill allows filtration and ordering of stimuli into a specific and more manageable order via the frontal and temporal lobes (Das, 2002).

The testing instrument of the PASS model, the CAS, measures cognitive processes in normal, advanced, or regressed children aged 5 to 17 and in adults with reading difficulty and/or mental retardation (Das, 2002). Unlike the most widely used IQ test, the WISC-III — which measure ability within a context of expected explicit knowledge — the CAS emphasizes ability removed from the context of academic achievement (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). The test avoids achievement-driven questions, giving a clearer picture of actual ability (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006) with most of the bias from social background removed. And, in multiple comparative studies, the CAS has more strongly correlated with acheivement as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. In a 2006 paper, Naglieri and his colleagues presented a consistent .80 correlation between the CAS and the WJ-III, compared with only a .65 correlation between the most-used general IQ test and the WJ-III (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006).

Not only does the CAS have a higher level of validity, it is also more useful than the traditional tests of general intelligence. For most people, scores across the four cognitive abilities are fairly well aligned. In his 2002 paper, Das presented findings that children with ADD showed significant drops planning and attention skills, while testing normal on other measures. This implies a possible diagnostic utility for the CAS. In another case, a post-auto-accident 12-year-old boy tested normally on traditional IQ measures, even as his performance at school plummeted. The CAS revealed that while this boy’s simultaneous and successive scores were normal (100 and 110), his planning and attention scores had dropped through the floor (73 and 79). Understanding which portions of a child’s cognitive abilities have declined can not only allow for better educational assistance, but also can direct doctors to possible areas of brain damage.

Like any instrument, the CAS is not perfect. I’d love to see a version of this test geared toward normal and advanced-level adults. The CAS provides much more data than other tests, but it still does not give a window into “rational quotient,” a concept Stanovich (2009) explores in his new book. But, while offering predictive value, the CAS also provides an understanding of specific cognitive abilities — an understanding that will certainly inform future areas of intelligence research.

References

Das, J. (2002). A better look at intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 28. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Naglieri, J., De Lauder, B., Goldstein, S., & Schwebech, A. (2006). WISC-III and CAS: Which correlates higher with achievement for a clinical sample?. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 62-76. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Naglieri, J., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct Validity of the PASS Theory and CAS: Correlations With Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 174-181. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Stanovich, K. E., (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

Written for PSYC6211, June 25, 2009

*****

Culture & Media Institute author, ignoring evidence, makes faulty comparisons and contorts ‘Today Show’ guest’s remarks to further her agenda.

*****

On a recent segment of the Today Show, Dr. Robi Ludwig discussed new (and potentially surprising) information about marriage and divorce with Al Roker. According to Ludwig, new data shows that in some cases, specifically those where the ongoing home environment is violent, combative, and conflict-ridden, children experience detrimental effects. Ludwig challenged the conventional wisdom that an intact family is always best and stated that these effects can be mitigated by divorce *if* the parents are able to work together in a cooperative manner to co-parent. Ludwig emphasized that she was not referring to disagreements (and even stated that children’s ability to understand that love and disagreement can coexist is healthy), but rather to cases where stress ruled the roost (‘Is staying together good for the kids?,’ 2009).

From her description in nearly-identical articles for NewsBusters and the Culture and Media Institute (CMI), Catherine Maggio (2009) seems to have viewed a quite different home and parenting segment. Maggio suggests that Ludwig acted as a proponent — an apologist, even — of divorce, and accuses Ludwig of ignoring the dire consequences of divorce that children suffer (Maggio, 2009)(Maggio, 2009). Maggio’s insistence that intact marriage is always the best option is problematic, filled with fallacy and bias.

Confirmation bias (Ruscio, 2006)
The articles’ author expected a certain “liberal bias” from Dr. Ludwig’s presentation, and, as a result, found it. It is *obvious* to Maggio that, while Ludwig speaks of holding children’s best interests at heart, that rather she is a selfish liberal who thinks that if marriage is inconvenient in the least, one should jump to divorce. The possibility that data might support divorce in some cases is inconceivable.

3rd variables (Stanovich, 2007)
In her insistence that in intact marriage is always a better option than divorce, Maggio ignores the possibility that other factors come into play, and that perhaps divorce isn’t the causal variable for her data. Not surprisingly, many of the same effects of divorce are also prevalent in children from conflict-ridden homes. Perhaps, for instance, the conflict and accompanying stress, rather than divorce itself, actually cause health issues.

Self-selection, lack of study design (Stanovich, 2007)
Any analysis of divorce and home conflict is, by nature, not going to include a double-blind, randomly-assigned study design. (Wouldn’t you love to be the kid who gets assigned to the parents who constantly call each other nasty names?) Because of this, it is not possible to truly control for which effects are from divorce, and which are from other, perhaps only tangentially related, causes. In other words, even if an analyst is aware of possible alternate causes of issues, he or she cannot eliminate them entirely and give a definitive answer on causation.

Cherry-picked, self-serving references (Ruscio, 2006)
In the CMI version of her article, Maggio provides links to evidence that divorce is always, without exception, a tragedy for the children involved. A glance at these links shows, in one instance, mainstream media articles, cherry-picked statements from research which showed that a combative divorce can cause major issues. A second link brings the reader to a sensationalistic roundup of divorce-related data (all at least 15 years old) presented by, surprise, an alarmist with a stake in the belief that divorce is the moral equivalent of devil worship.

Beyond the article author herself, the site and its readers also bump into deception and bias. NewsBusters is a political and social action group committed to the documentation of “liberal media bias” (‘About NewsBusters.org, n.d.), and the promotion of the right’s perspective on what defines appropriate culture and morality. It is not a journalistic outlet. Yet, the NewsBusters site prominently features the AP logo next to a link to an actual Associated Press article, giving the deceptive impression that NB is a legitimate news source.

The NewsBusters site allows reader comments, and even the first two comments to this article provide a (sadly, representative) glimpse into the bias that feeds the site readers’ worldviews. The first commenter launches an ad-hominem attack on Dr. Ludwig:

Not sure of how much of an “expert” she is. Her undergrad work was in Media Studies and she earned a Masters in Social Work. Don’t consider her more than an apologist for divorce.

If this contributor discovered these portions of Ludwig’s background, s/he also likely chose to ignore her more recent bona fides: a post-masters certificate in clinical work and PsyD from Southern California University for Professional Studies (‘Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio,’ n.d.).

Another commenter exposes his or her own bias against attractive blonde women:

This “woman” is a laughable blond ditz who clearly has no inkling of the devastation divorce causes in a child’s mind and life.

I’m uncertain how the hair color, questionable (or not?) gender, and appearance of the psychologist on the ‘Today Show’ apply in relation to empirical data, but this reader seems to assume 1) that the good doctor is an idiot and 2) that she has an agenda that involves intentionally ruining children’s lives.

As much as the shocked and offended story author and outraged commenters may not like to hear it, Dr. Ludwig’s comments derived from actual empirical data, not from some left-wing-inspired wish for more households to break into divorce. The studies to which Dr. Ludwig referred were likely the series of analyses in the February 2009 issue of “Marriage and Family Review” (currently only available in abstract form, except to subscribers). In an analysis of data from the NLSY97 cohort, a longitudinal study of approximately 9,000 youths, researchers learned that high-conflict marriages correlate with poor mental and physical health(Hair, et al., 2009), substance abuse(Hair, et al.), and risky sexual behavior (Kaye, et al., 2009). While single-parent homes showed a lower rate of high school graduation than even high-conflict two-parent homes, children from high-conflict two-parent homes demonstrated a markedly lower rate of post-secondary education among those who did graduate (Orthner, et al., 2009).

When it comes down to it, both the left (the psychologist talk show guest) and the right (the ‘cultural values’ organization author) agree that ensuring the best possible outcome for kids is important. The difference that I see is that on the left, the “best outcome” is a moving target informed by each particular family’s circumstance and dynamic. On the right, the starting assumption is that an intact marriage is essential to a good outcome. From there, any information about positive effects of divorce *for some children* is irrelevant. The question instead is, “how can we ensure parents remain married?”

References

About NewsBusters.org (n.d.). NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/about

About the Culture and Media Institute (n.d.). Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/about/about.aspx

Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio (n.d.). Dr. Robi Ludwig. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.drrobiludwig.com/bio.htm

Hair, E. C., Anderson Moore, K., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on adolescent and young adult health outcomes [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 218-248. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Is staying together good for the kids? (2009). Today Show [Video]. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/31385534#31385534

Kaye, K., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., Hadley, A. M., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on sexual activity among adolescents and youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 270-288. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Maggio, C. (2009). Today Show: Don’t stay together for the kids. NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/catherine-maggio/2009/06/17/today-show-don-t-stay-together-kids

Maggio, C. (2009). ‘Today Show’: Don’t stay together for the kids: NBC guest, ignoring evidence, suggests divorce is sometimes better for children. Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmedia.com/articles/2009/20090617080839.aspx

Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Day, R. D., & Kaye, K. (2009). Marital and parent relationship quality and educational outcomes for youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 249-269. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: separating sense from nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (Eighth Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education, Inc.