Superior autobiographical memory

A friend of mine who I have known since high school has often quoted actual dates on which events occurred a long time ago. Much of the time, I haven't had a way to disprove him, but on several occasions I was able to confirm that he had stunning recall. After watching the following video from a 60 Minutes show, I emailed Mike, urging him to take a look. The people featured in this 60 Minutes two-part video easily remember non-emotional ordinary events from throughout their lives down to the actual dates on which those events occurred.  If you're like me, you'll be somewhat suspicious of the idea that people can remember long-ago events of their lives so well. If so, watch the video--it will leave you shaking your head unless you have this ability yourself. This extreme memory is a stunning phenomena.  Check out the researcher's statement at about the 10-minute mark of the video that these folks are correct 99% of the time that they offer these detailed responses.    Until watching this show, however, I had assumed that the ability to forget would be essential to good mental health.  Based on the appearance of the superior memory subjects, that doesn't appear to be true (though most of the subjects are not involved in long-term romantic relationships).   These subjects have amazing recall without having any struggle with "cluttered" minds. I definitely don't have "superior autobiographical memory."  I don't need all of superior autobiographical capability, but I wish I had somewhat better recollection. James McGaugh, Ph.D.- University of California at Irvine, has studied these ultra-memory folks and will be discussing his findings at a Psychology Colloquium on Monday, December 5, 4:00 PM, Wilson 214 at Washington University.   McGaugh's team has found (video, Part II at the 2 minute mark) that people with superior autobiographical memory had larger (almost twice as large as expected) temporal lobes and caudate nuclei (the latter of which has been associated with OCD).   See Video II at the 3-minute mark for more on the OCD angle. Here's more on this fascinating topic.

Continue ReadingSuperior autobiographical memory

What Christians think of “atheists”

From the Vancouver Sun, we learn what Christians allegedly think about "atheists":

Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers. The only group the study’s participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, said doctoral student Will Gervais, lead author of the study published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That prejudice had a significant impact on what kinds of jobs people said they would hire atheists to do.
The study is titled, "Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice." I don't believe in any god, but I tend to avoid use of the term "atheist."  I do this because when Christians use the word "atheist," they tend to mean something much different than when non-believers use the term "atheist."   If the subject of religiosity comes up, I describe myself by saying  "I don't believe in god."  If I'm asked whether I'm an "atheist," I say yes, but then further explain that I'm not out to tell other people what to believe in their hearts, and I'm not out to ridicule them for having a personal private belief in a sentient non-physical being.    I explain that in my view it is impossible for there to be a thinking being who who lacks some sort of physical neural network.   If I'm pressed to ask what I think of Jesus, I typically say that I have some doubts that he ever existed, but if he did, I believe he was a human being, nothing more. Based on these sorts of answers, I have almost always been able to have civil conversations and, often friendships, with those who claim to believe in God.   I doubt that many people have ever despised like they would a rapist based on my way of seeing the world. I wonder what the above study would have shown had the it used "non-believer" or "non-religious" or "persons who don't believe in God."   For many Christians, "atheist" has become a word referring to a person who not only doesn't believe in God but who is also hostile to those who do.  That is unfortunate, because many atheists are of the live-and-let-live attitude.  For many Christians, "atheist" has come to represent people who have no set of moral values and for whom "anything goes."  This is especially unfortunate, because that is not how any atheists use the term "atheist." Further, there are many degrees of non-belief and there are many other terms that more precisely describe the type of non-belief.   To lump all of these folks in with the cartoon version of the angry and intolerant atheist (which is the image that many Christians have of "atheists") gives a false view (I believe) of what most Christians think of those who don't believe in god. Notwithstanding anything I've written above, I'm also convinced that American society treats atheists unfairly, oftentimes abyssmally. One especially egregious example is that those who identify themselves as "atheists" are excluded from public office.  I see this as a form of bigotry, especially given (this is my personal guess) that at least 50% of Americans who claim to believe in god don't actually believe in god.  Rather, they believe in the importance of claiming to believe in god, and their actions speak much more loudly than their words. I'll end this post with a wish that someone would re-do the above study using a less inflammatory word to represent those who don't believe in god.  If this were done, I would bet my house that those who "Don't believe in God" would not be seen as less trustworthy than rapists.

Continue ReadingWhat Christians think of “atheists”

The lack of a bad thing is a good thing . . .

Not that I'm feeling down in the dumps, but if I were, I have a method for pulling out of a bad mood. A couple years ago, I wrote a post titled, "I know that I am wealthy when I consider my lack of misfortune." The general idea is that we should appreciate that the lack of misfortune is fortune.  The lack of a bad thing is a good thing. It occurred to me today that we have easy access to vast checklists of misfortune, and that it can make one feel lucky, indeed, to consider all the ways in which one is not medically unlucky.  One example is the type of form you are handed when you go to a doctor for the first time, wherein you are asked whether you have any of the following conditions, followed by things such as cancer, heart attack, diabetes, abscessed tooth, Alzheimer's, hepatitis, pancreatitus, and it goes on and on.   Though I do put a couple of check marks into the boxes, there are thousands of medical conditions that I don't have, which makes me lucky indeed. I'm lucky in other ways, because I don't struggle with any known psychological conditions, and there are hundreds of these too.  For instance, I don't suffer from bipolar disorder, hypochondriasis, kleptomania or any conditions on this long list. I am not required to take anti-depressants.  I'm happy to get out of bed each day.   I don't hate my job, my neighbors or my city.  I'm even appreciative of my country, though things are out of balance.  I appreciate that there are ways to make things better regarding my country. But I'm even luckier.   I don't struggle to keep any addictions in check, and this list is also extensive, including such things as gambling, OCD, drugs, alcoholism, and coin collecting . . . coin collecting???? I appreciate that I don't wake up with an urge to go to a casino or to get drunk.  Really and truly, and I've never had any such urges. I'm also lucky that I'm not unemployed in this bad economy. And though it is 13-years old, my car is working well. And my roof is not leaking.   Hoodlums aren't chasing me down the street at the moment.  I didn't just get bit by a brown recluse spider.  No warmongering superpower is dropping bombs anywhere near my house.  The electrical service is working well, allowing me to use this computer.   My kids are not failing out of school.  My city is not bankrupt.  I am not currently a victim of identity theft.  The pipes in my house are not leaking.  No neighbors are blasting their stereos outside.  I don't worry about hurricanes and earthquakes and tornadoes (though maybe I should worry about the latter two).   The lack of each of these bad things is truly a good thing for which I am thankful. Bottom line is that whatever it is that any of us has to deal with, it could be a lot worse, and a quick review of long lists of disorders and dyfunctions shows us how much worse things could be. Perhaps this post could be said to constitute some sort of skeptics prayer .. .

Continue ReadingThe lack of a bad thing is a good thing . . .

The case for less-is-more democracy

I have long been fascinated by the herd instinct of human animals. What could be more obvious than the fact that we mimic each other for all kinds of reasons, even for reasons that seem absurd to outsiders. Further, we follow each others’ lead even while we chant that we are “individuals.” In reality, many of us panic at the idea that differences among the citizens. How dare some citizens question even some of America’s war efforts! That is “unpatriotic.” How dare some Americans encourage multi-culturalism! Gay marriage? Forget it. And don’t ever forget that the United States is the world’s greatest country—let us all say that in unison! For many of us, everybody has a categorical moral duty to fall in line on all matters relating to God and country. Perhaps I find the topic of the human herding so compelling because of my own personal instinct to aversion to joining groups. For reasons I don’t understand, I instinctively rebel against many efforts to convince me to go along with “everybody else.” I’ve been this way ever since I can remember. Going along with the crowd is not something that gives me joy and comfort. Rather, it makes me feel wary and out of control. If people at my workplace were to announce that next Wednesday will be “Blue Shirt Day,” I’ll go out of my way to not wear blue. I perplex those who root for the home town sports teams and I don’t join political parties. I commonly hesitate to join in most displays of patriotism, including America’s warmongering. This is not to say I’m immune to such impulses, but it is fair to say that where many other Americans revel in community bonding, I tend to fight inner battles while questioning the need. Instead of joining in, I tend to question. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe case for less-is-more democracy