The Physics of Intelligence

The Physics of Intelligence 

Can We Get Any Smarter? 

Title,caption, and ideas come from the July 2011 edition of Scientific American

I wasn't sure that there was anything new and bloggable that happened this past week in class (we mostly just wrapped up the chapter, but nothing that exciting was going on at the end of little old chapter 2), and whatever could have been blogged about was already blogged about. So here I am at 11 something wondering to myself, "What to blog?.." Lucky for me, on Yom Kippur I happened to read (okay, skim) a very interesting article in the Scientific American that has to do with the brain (which happens to be chapter 3! How very timely, Rachel!). Since I had already read the first few units of Chapter 3 I was actually able to understand what was going on- it was really quite exciting. Let me share with you all some insights I learned.

According to this article, humans may be reaching the peak of their evolutionary limit of smartness. As I will go into more detail shortly, there is much evidence that suggests that any tweaks that could be made to potentially make us smarter would hit limits set by the laws of physics (and, therefore, we wouldn't actually be getting smarter because other factors would be slowing down the process). 
It is possible that humans may achieve higher intelligence collectively. That is to say, even if our brains are finished growing evolutionary, our minds can still be expanded outside the confounds of our bodies as we continue to know more and learn more.  
Now... Why We Probably Cannot Get Much Smarter:
Right now our current brain is in great condition...maybe it's even in the best condition it can be. What would happen if we made some tweaks? 
Tweak: Increase Brain size: enlarging size by adding more neurons (remember what these guys are?) increases processing capacity. Trade-offs: Neurons consume a lot of energy. As the brain gets bigger, the axons (another vocab word!) that connect neurons have to become longer.. which will SLOW PROCESSING DOWN. So- is increasing brain size worth it? It slows down processing and costs too much energy.
Tweak: Increase Interconnectedness: Adding more links between distant neurons enables brain parts to communicate faster. Trade offs: The added wiring EATS UP ENERGY (it also takes up space.. just sayin). 
Tweak: Increase Signaling Speed: Could be achieved by making axons thicker. Trade-offs: thicker axons consume more ENERGY and take up more SPACE. 
Tweak: Pack more neurons into the existing space: Shrink neurons, axons, or both. Trade off: If axons or neurons get too small, they tend to fire randomly and SIGNALING GETS TOO NOISY. 

I can't wait to learn more about the brain in class coming up soon. But in the meantime, what do you guys think? 
Thought questions:

• Do you think that we've reached our evolutionary limit, or that our brains can still develop?
• Which of the above tweaks sounds best to you?
• Did you remember any of this stuff from the review?

Don't forget: Neurons are nerve cells and are the basic building blocks of the nervous system.Signals are sent through axons and received through dendrites. 

To be honest here, the whole statistics thing really does not excite me. Quite frankly, anything that involves numbers and calculations make me want to hide in the bathroom and cry. So, I found something that sparked my interest and has nothing to do with mathematical calculations. That is the Hawthorne Effect.

The Hawthorne effect occurs when people work harder and perform better when they know they are being watched as participants in an experiment. The subjects of the experiment may change their behavior when they know they are under surveillance, therefore skewing the results of the experiment. When this occurs, the results of the experiment do not truly convey honest information. Data may come as a result of being watched rather than a result of the manipulated variable.

The Hawthorne effect was first realized during a Harvard University experiment. Researchers were studying the effects of light on worker productivity, and found that the subjects of the experiment worked harder and were more productive because they knew they were being watched by others. The results came from the attention of the researchers rather than the independent variable. Super interesting stuff going on over here. It pretty much speaks to human nature...

P.S. I had a moment today when I realized I'm becoming the hindsight bias police. My dad was telling me that one of his coworkers asked him a technical question about a computer he was working on. My dad gave him the answer, and he was all like "Oh yeah, that's what I thought it was in the first place." Well  then, why did you ask in the first place? HINDSIGHT BIAS!!!!! Yeah, I'm that person.

It's All In Your Mind

The Placebo effect and the Hawthorne effect have been in our lives forever. When we were babies to toddlers our mommies would give us a kiss to make it all better when we got a boo boo. As we grew older, we grew out of the kiss to make it better. It moved on to if you lay down the pain will go away. Then it became medicine makes it better. We believed all these things as we grew up. The kiss made the boo boo stop hurting. Laying down made the headache go away. Medicine, was a gift that could fix our problems.

I think that the Hawthorne effect shows up a lot in school. We say what we think our teachers want us to say. We try and push ourselves to the breaking point to live up to what our parents expect of us. As teenagers, we have to be what others expect us to be. We never get the chance to fully express ourselves, because we're so busy living up to others' expectations of us. We change the way we act because people watch us to see if we're doing the right thing.

A lot of times, when I get scared or something hurts, I get told that it's all in my head. You are just making yourself scared. You are making yourself be sick. Being told this actually gets frustrating after a while. Once you get told it's all in your head enough times, it actually becomes something to be all in your head. You start thinking more actually causing yourself to be scared and in pain. because you've always been told that it's just in your head. I think it's not that good to tell us it's in our heads, because we'll actually believe it at some point.

Smarticle Particles

           So, we have finished another tree-killing packet (just saying most of blogs will probably begin like this) and we have entered into more exciting waters of psychology. While learning about all different types of research that don't give conclusions was fun, I was more interested in experimentation. Apparently, there are all sorts of factors that have to be taken for consideration when doing experiments. The most important thing to do when experimenting is to have an experimental group and a control group. These two groups are highly effective when trying to study the effects of something, such as medicine or social situations. The experimental group gets the experiment and the control group gets the placebo. But what is a placebo?

            I actually learned what a placebo was on September 11, 2009 (weird how that was only a few days ago, except not in 2009, obviously) when The Suite Life on Deck came out with an episode called "Smarticle Particles". And yes I did look that up, I am not a Suite Life on Deck expert. In this episode, for those who don't know, Cody bets Bailey that she won't be able to help London get a B on a test. Bailey takes the bet and decides to use the placebo effect on London, pretending that her perfume makes her smarter. This does not end up working, and London gets a C+, but in the end, its the "Special Smart Lipstick" that helps London get a B+.

            When I found out that we would be learning about the placebo effect in this class, I immediately remembered watching this episode. It is a perfect example of the placebo effect. The actual definition of placebo is "a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient," which is a bunch of words that means just thinking that you are being given help can actually help you. To me, this is one of the most fascinating things about the brain and hopefully we'll be able to go into more depth about why and how it occurs later on.

Dolly the Sheep

Perhaps you have heard of Dolly the Scottish Sheep? Well, Dolly was no ordinary sheep. Bred through the mating of an ewe and a ram, she was a clone, an identical replica of her "mother,"a six-year-old female sheep. Now, you may ask how Dolly was created. Dolly was created by Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, and his colleagues in July 1996. This image may help you understand how she was produced:

Essentially, the researchers used a cell taken from the udder (mammary gland) of a six-year-old sheep in the final stage of her pregnancy. The researchers fused the adult udder with an oocyte that was ready to be fertilized from another sheep. Prior to the fusion, the scientists had removed the nucleus from the oocyte and used an electrical current to combine it with the udder. The key to creating Dolly was keeping the nucleus "silent" so that it stopped behaving like an udder cell and could be reprogrammed to become an embryo. After all this was done, Dolly was born!

Wilmut and his collaborators created Dolly because they were trying to find ways to produce livestock that carried specific genetic traits. Two biotechnology companies funded the research. One, called PPL Therapeutics, was trying to find ways to produce animals that carried certain proteins in their milk. Their theory was that if researchers could develop animals with certain desirable characteristics, they could then clone those animals to produce entire herds that possess the same traits. 

Although Dolly was euthanized due to progressive lung disease and severe arthritis in February 2012, she remains an international phenomenon and legacy. After the success of Dolly, many other large mammals were cloned, including horses and bulls. 

The question that now arises is: how was Wilmut initially permitted to experiment on Dolly, and broadened to a larger perspective, how can experimenters be allowed to experiment on humans? Well, question no longer! The APA (American Psychological Association) has established a set of laws and guidelines that serve to maintain protect human and animal rights in research. 

If wanting to experiment on humans, the experimenter must do the following: 1) obtain informed consent from all participants 2) protect all participants from harm 3) maintain confidentially 4) debrief all the participants after the experiments about what was done, so they are completely informed of what they were involved in. This is especially necessary if deception was used in the experiment.

If wanting to experiment on animals, such as Dolly, there are a set of less stringent, yet still mandatory guidelines that must be followed. An experimenter must protect the animal from harm and the laboratory used must meet certain standards, and is constantly inspected. 

At universities, Institutional Review Boards screen research proposals for experimentation. These guidelines help maintain the ethics in research needed to experiment. 

P.S. If anyone feels compelled to read more about Dolly, please feel free to read this super swell, very informative article:

http://science.education.nih.gov/home2.nsf/Educational+ResourcesTopicsGenetics/BC5086E34E4DBA0085256CCD006F01CB

The Placebo Effect

This week in class, we learned about the different types of observation and experimentation. These methods are the basis of all scientific study. Experimentation is the only method of scientific manipulation that can help determine whether one variable causes another. Observation merely observes and documents what naturally happens. In experimentation, the researchers control for as many variables as possible. They leave one variable as the independent variable and manipulate it in order to record what happens to the dependent variable. Additionally, when subjects are selected to take part in the experiment, they are divided into two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The control group is the group used to measure the norms for the dependent variable when the independent variable is not manipulated. The experimental group is the group in which the experiment actually happens; the independent variable is manipulated and the dependent variable is effected. This split is done randomly, also known as random assignment. Random assignment is done so as to eliminate the influence of any confounding variables, such as age, gender, IQ, socio-economic status, and race. Once this is done, the experiment can be administered.

We also learned in class that experimenter bias can have a huge impact on the outcome of the experiment. If the experimenter told the people in the control group to drink their water, the control group would know that they're not receiving the vodka and be confused. If the experimenter told the experimental group to drink the vodka, then the experimental group would try to guess what the experimenters want to see and act accordingly. This is called demand characteristic. To prevent any of this confusion, experiments are conducted using the double-blind method. In the vodka-water experiment, both groups would receive covered cups so that they would not be able to tell which substance they would be drinking. Furthermore, the water would be laced with vodka so that it at least smelled like the real drink. Most importantly, the experimenters don't know what substance they are giving to the people and cannot subconsciously influence how the people act. Double-blind is the ideal method, although single-blind (method) procedures are conducted. In single-blinds, the researcher knows what he's giving but the subject doesn't know what he/she is receiving.

Hypothetically, what would happen if a researcher told a person in the control group that, "this medicine works wonders?" The person would immediately think that they are part of the experimental group and alter their behavior so that it seems like the medicine is working. Their behavior might change, but their bodies might react to simply thinking that the medicine is working. It has been scientifically proven that thinking you are receiving a substance will make your body react to the phantom substance. How cool is that? Naturally, this often skews the control group's results, so it has to be eliminated as a confounding variable. By the way, this is called the placebo effect.

If anyone has ever seen "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and watched the first Quidditch match, you will know that Harry used the placebo effect on Ron. Ron was nervous and didn't even want to play the game. Harry pretended to slip some Felix Felicis (liquid luck potion) into Ron's pumpkin juice. Once Ron thought he had drunk the potion, he acted as if he had. When Hermione, who also thought that Harry had slipped the potion into Ron's drink, confronted him about the illegality of his actions, Harry showed her that he had only pretended to add the potion.

I find it amazing that the human mind can be capable of this. Just thinking that you have done something that will help your performance is enough to make your performance as good as it would have been had you taken the substance. Fascinating. Since our study of AP Psychology is still in its infancy, I look forward to more fascinating truths about how the brain works.

Here's the video link in case anyone was interested. Funny enough, the top comment reads, "Power of PLACEBO."

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BUXUXceHQ

Yay. Chapter 2!

Mrs. Perl. I'm not going to lie. I'm looking at these notes I have on statistics and they just don't provide me with any inspiration for a solid blog post. I'm not sure how many exciting things I can say about standard deviation, descriptive statistics, or a central tendency. And what about ethics? There's certainly nothing fun about ethics. So, lets jump around a bit.

First, I never actually mentioned anything about the bio-psycho-social analysis even though we didn't focus on that this week. In my defense, though, it was covered on a test that we DID take this week. Basically, this type of analysis consists of analyzing a situation from the biological, psychological, and social perspectives--not just one. You can't just look at an eating disorder and claim it was only caused due to social pressure. You also must look at psychological aspects or see if it was caused by depression or something that has to do with their biology. You have to look at the big picture.
In Government last year we learned about something called the political schema. This means that everyone has a foundation of information in their head that directs new information and determines how they will process it. For instance, a republican will process all information very differently than a democrat would. It could be the same exact piece of information but their opinions and already acquired knowledge will determine how they will process the new information. What I'm getting to is that in politics, although they talk a lot about seeing the big picture, that doesn't happen much because their political schema just takes over.

Okay, now let's talk chapter 2.
I just want to get one thing out of the way first. When we were talking about placebos I kept thinking about this House episode that I watched. Dr. House is on a plane and someone gets really sick. While this person is experiencing all these weird symptoms, all the other passengers are freaking out. House stands up and starts talking about how dangerous this disease is and how contagious it can be. He then starts listing symptoms of this disease and says that if anyone starts experiencing them to notify him because their lives could be at serious risk. He names symptoms like your hands will begin to shake or you'll get dizzy..stuff like that. Anyway, people all start to freak out and tell him that they're feeling dizzy and that they're hands are shaking. House then tells them that none of those are real symptoms and its all psychological (or caused by anxiety).

Well, chapter 2. How exciting. Correlation does not prove causation. You must be careful of your word choice when creating a survey. A case study studies one person in depth. Experiments do not mimic real life. You must control for all confounding variables. If this blog were an experiment to see how long you could read this for without getting bored if you had a lollipop in your hand. Then I would randomly assign a random sample into a control group and an experimental group. Only the experimental group would get a lollipop. Both groups would have to read this blog. The independent factor would be the lollipop holding while the dependent factor would be how long they were able to read this for without getting bored. You could even operationalize this experiment by asking the participant every paragraph how bored they are on a scale from 1-5.

Well, that's my reflection of the past week of psych studyin'.
Have a lovely holiday.

The Recent Past

A lot of what we have talked about in the past week or two in Chapter 2 has been very relevent to my life and mom's life in the past year or so. A year ago my mom decided to take part in a weight loss study.

The study itself was one where they would put a balloon in the subjects' stomaches hoping that it would take up room in the stomach causing the subject to get full faster and not eat as much, thus, lose weight. The thing that really stood out to me about this study in the beginning was when my mom told me that it was a double blind study/experiment. I asked her what that meant and when we learned about it in this chapter it made a whole lot more sense.

She went in on the morning of Sukkot eve last year for the surgery. She had no idea whether or not she would get the balloon because in a double blind study she or the person giving her the information doesn't know. She came home from the hospital with a horrible headache and nausea and I immediately thought, well, she must have the balloon if she is this sick.

Every month for 6 months she would go to the doctor and get weighed in. The pounds were shedding away, but she always lived with the mystery of "do I have the balloon, or don't I?" She could after all have the placebo. Since they didn't know which participants were getting the balloon in the first, they still put them under for a little while to act like some of the subjects were getting it which acted as the placebo. So who knew she could have thought it was there.

In the end, the balloon was indeed in her stomach and she is now a living example of how this study helped people lose weight.

Statistics

Reading and learning about statistical significance pointed out things that many of us would say "well duh, that makes sense" (perhaps hindsight bias?), but things that many of us overlook every day.
Often times I hear about research results and statistics and think that they have to be correct, but after reading this chapter I know that's not necessarily so. It's very easy to make things look like they are something when they are in fact not.

Things like standard deviation help us accurately present and understand results. Sometimes when you have data with many numbers and you have a few high numbers, the overall average is affected. However, with standard deviation we can see how the scores vary around the mean (average). This will help us more accurately read the results.

Another measurement that helps us is statistical significance. Often times in our experiments, despite controlling confounding variables and getting results that make it appear to be that one thing caused another, things can be due to chance. Statistical significance helps gives us a picture of how likely it is that the results occurred by chance. If it is less than 5%, the results are considered to have statistical significance.

I think these things are important for all of us to keep in mind while we surf the internet. There are often articles and websites that show statistics that don't accurately portray reality. We must be very careful and hesitant to believe everything that we read.

Ethics in Research

The APA (American Psychological Investigation) has a strict set of rules involving the ethics of doing research/experiments/testing on people. They require that:

1. All participants must sign consent, and be informed about the nature of the experiment. If the participant is a minor the parent must sign the consent.
2. The experimenter must provide protection from any harm that could possibly happen to a participant.
3. There is complete confidentiality.
4. An experimenter absolutely must debrief participants after the experiment. This means telling the participants exactly what you did while conducting this experiment. It is especially important if the experiment is a double-blind or single-blind procedure.

Clearly psychologists and researchers must take extreme measures in ensuring that their experiments are ethical. It's also important to note that these guidelines are just a basic summary. If you visit the APA website and find the code of ethics, you will see just how lengthy and in depth it really is. 

So we understand the importance of the ethical treatment of humans in experiments. But what about animals? Do they have just as strict guidelines? Are they equally protected? A few years ago I added myself to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) email list. I think it's safe to say that this was possibly the biggest mistake of my entire life. Almost every single day I receive a heart-wrenching email about animals in awful, unthinkable situations, whether it be horse slaughter (please, no!), farm workers drop-kicking little piglets (BUT WHHHHY), and the dreaded topic of puppy mills (brb, gonna go cry for days.) The most recent email contained this horrific message: "When I arrived here, I was devastated. Dogs were sharing a cage with the decomposing bodies of their dead brothers and sisters. One dog may have severed his leg on the cage's wire flooring and was left untreated. Many had seemingly never even seen daylight."  Okay, Lily, why did you just do that to yourself? You knew it wouldn't be good... I never open these emails. The subject line says enough for me. 

It is clear that organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, and the even more (in)famous organization, PETA, are concerned with how animals are treated. Just a few months ago I received an email from the HSUS urging that I call my US Representative and voice my disappointment at the proposed "King Amendment," which, if passed, could repeal many animal protection laws on farm animal confinement, horse slaughter, puppy mills, shark finning, and more. So what exactly are the guidelines for the treatment of animals used in psychological experimentation?

The APA not only has a code of ethics for humans, but a strict code of ethics for animals as well. First, the APA requires taking multiples steps in ensuring that the research is justified. All non-animal options must be considered, the experiment must be approved by an animal care committee, and the scientific purpose of the experiment must be of sufficient significance. Animals must be cared for humanely and be held in healthful conditions throughout their stay in a facility. Again, like the code of ethics for humans, there is much more involved here. If you're really curious/concerned you can check this link out. It gives you all the information you need and more: http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx

Therefore, if experiments adhere to the APA guidelines for the ethical treatment of animals, PETA and the HSUS should have nothing to worry about here. Let's hope I won't find an email condemning the APA in my inbox anytime soon. Now, I really should get myself off that email list..