The science of the social sciences

I would just remind people reading this on blogger, that I am not going to be cross-posting here much longer.  My new address is over here and if you leave a comment, that is where they will be responded to.

There have been some discussions the past few days or so, about just how scientific the social sciences are. There was this discussion at Uncertain Principles, about psychology and the limitations of psychology studies. And there was this discussion at the Lousy Canuckistanian, about whether or not economics is really a science. The former discussion led to some rather strong hating on psychology in the comments, while the latter was infested by a pretentious fucking asshole who dismisses the social sciences as pseudoscience.

I am going to focus this on psychology and basically just post my response to the thread on Uncertain Principles, because that is my field and because for the moment I really don't have time to write a long post about this.  This can be easily generalized to the other social sciences.

I will just add up front, that one of the biggest problems with the social sciences, even more than the fact that people actually make real world decisions based on imperfect studies, is science journalism.  While not all science journalists are shit, Dirk Hanson is a fucking brilliant example of a good science writer, most of them are.  Those reporting on the social sciences aren't any different.  They misinterpret studies all the time.  They tout the results of extremely limited preliminary studies as though they can be generalized.  They fuck up our work, just like they fuck up everyone else's.  That isn't the fault of social science PI's or the various social sciences themselves, anymore than it is the fault of bio-med PI's or the bio-med fields who routinely get horribly misrepresented in the media.

Psychology has a long tradition of largely being a cult of personalities. While to some degree that is still the case, the personalities are the folks who really turned psychology into a hard science. And their results are constantly being challenged or pushed to the limits, to find the breaking points.

Every single psychology class I have taken now, has focused as much on science and the methods of science, as it has on the specific science we're talking about. And I have barely begun scratching the surface. Nor is my experience in the least bit unique, this is how psychology is being taught, because that is what psychologists do - science.

And there are a lot of us who are particularly keen on generalizing outside of Western undergrad populations. That is largely why I am focusing on evo-psych, which will (for me) mostly involve cross-cultural work that will focus on Eastern European and Asian populations (I hope and assuming my brain doesn't explode while learning Russian).

But even where we are seriously limited by biases, there is a lot of solid science being done. While a lot of studies use relatively small sample sizes, they are replicated several times over. It is kind of hard to conduct studies with massive sample sizes, when you have to invest several man hours into each subject. So you use the sample that is feasible and if the results are promising, you replicate it - along with several other investigators.

It is really, really irritating to listen to (or in this case read) people who have little to no clue what is actually happening, expound on the junkiness of the science. The human brain and all the influences on human behavior are exceedingly complicated. Kind of like physics is complicated, or genetics is complicated or cosmology is complicated. Like the science being done in those fields, we break things down as much as is feasible and investigate each bit as best we can. As we reach verifiable, quantifiable conclusions, they become part of the larger picture that is "what we know," or more accurately is, "what we are pretty sure we know."
For psychology, it is complicated by the same major problem that medicine has to deal with - we need to treat real human beings with the best tools we have, regardless of what we actually know. We don't have the luxury of perfecting anything, before we try to help people. There are people who need help, regardless of how well prepared we are.


So we muddle along, because someone who's anorexic, isn't likely to live long enough for us to perfect their treatment. Someone who has absolutely no control over their drinking, their snorting, their smoking or their shooting, doesn't have the luxury of waiting until we're sure we have it down. Especially as addiction has a hell of a lot of causes. Like cancer, we're talking about an array of illnesses - not some singular entity. And that is exactly the case for a great many mental illnesses, as we have been learning through cognitive studies and neurological studies.

But we are most certainly not engaged in pseudoscience. If you honestly want to use that word, then you need to figure out what the hell you're actually talking about beforehand.

I am building a new addiction site

Having found a very good deal on hosting services, I have taken the step of getting a new domain (a couple actually) and am in the process of building an addiction web site with forums. The domain is talkingaddiction.org and I have rather ambitious plans for the site. I would like to utilize the main page as a clearing house for information and have (ideally original) articles by addiction professionals, doctors and researchers posted a couple times a week.

I will also be creating a forum for people whose lives are affected by substance use disorders and people who suspect their lives are affected by substance use disorders - their own or someone else's. This is where I could possibly use a little help. I am committed to making this a space that is completely safe for people who are afraid of others finding out they are spending time at an addiction forum. This means that rather than just making it possible for users to post anon to the outside world, I want to provide assurance that administrators and moderator don't even have access to information that could identify forum members. This means not only providing means for creating accounts that hide all personal identifiers from everyone, but also hides their ip address and such.

I am honestly not to sure about how to make that happen, though I will be talking to the tech people who work for the host about it. I am using Drupal content manager, running on an apache server. I will also need to be able to keep track of the amount of traffic, even if I cannot keep track of any identifying information about the traffic.

The other thing that I am hoping to accomplish is the development of a forum for addiction professionals, researchers who study substances of abuse and MDs. Possibly even creating a whole different front page - or at least a feed (possibly keyword filtered for user preference) that identifies recent items. I know that this is less likely to come together - at the very least I expect it to be rather difficult to get people who are as busy as everyone who fits the requirements to actually take the time to make it happen. But I have long felt that communication between people doing relevant research and the people who actually deal with people with substance use disorders could be exceedingly valuable. And I think that MDs - especially those who work ERs, could also get a lot out of communication with addiction professionals. For that matter, it might be appropriate to invite emergency service providers into the discussion.

The other thing I am hoping someone might be able to help me with - or even possibly just create, is a news feeder for picking up addiction related news. Something that can be set to filter content from sites that turn out to provide inaccurate information.

Finally, I am also looking for people who have a bit of spare time, who could help as moderators. I have the tentative commitment of one person and would like to shore things up rather solidly. As the site isn't even up yet, I don't expect to need much help initially. But I am hoping to build things up rather quickly and would like to make sure that everything is covered. It really shouldn't be all that complicated. There are few enough restrictions that there really shouldn't be too much trouble. I am trying to set things up so that users can kill file other forum members if they run into conflict and also will be asking users to self flag posts that contain profanity, so that users who wish to avoid that can do so easily. Basically moderators would mainly deal with posts that should have been self flagged and weren't and personal threats. The only other issue that may be very complicated is users who set up multiple accounts so as to continue harassing users who have killfiled them - or who have been banned for refusing to respect the very few rules that will be in place.

Other than that, I expect to open the site within the next ten days. It will probably need some tweaking here and there - I have never set up a site before and have little help. But we will be ready to start talking by May 2nd at the latest. And unlike my last, rather blundered attempt at creating an addiction community (for smokers), I think this will work out much better. I think the biggest problem with that was the attempt to create what should have been a forum in a blog format.

I will also note that there will be no advertising on the site - I am rather up in the air about a donation button. I would like to recoup my costs if possible, but I am not terribly comfortable with creating any pressure for anyone who wants to use the site. I am going to keep the site as politically neutral as possible, not offering any "official" Talking Addiction position on anything except for the advocacy for more humane treatment of people dealing with addiction or addictive behaviors and people with other mental problems. I want this site to be a very comfortable and safe place for people to come and talk - including people who have yet to admit or who aren't really sure if they really have a problem.

Finally - a couple more important points; Sobriety is not a requirement for membership - or even for posting. And membership is not restricted to substance based addictions. There are all manner of behaviors that qualify as addictions and Talking Addiction will not discriminate. This is to be a site for people who are suffering from addictions and/or substance use disorders and anyone who either has (or thinks they might) those sorts of problems or knows someone who does will be welcome.

The New Asylums: Complete System Failure

I have been meaning to write about this issue for a very long while, but have left it on the burner for so long I forgot about it. Then today in psych class I had it thrust into the forefront rather brutally. Before I go on, I want to share this episode of Frontline from 2005, one that I hadn't actually seen before. I should expect that it won't take long to get the gist of a truly magnificent breakdown of how we manage mental illness in the U.S.



It didn't take very long to provide you with a pretty good idea as to just how truly screwed up this is. Keep in mind Frontline filmed that episode in a prison that is still considered a model for psychiatric care in the prison setting. This is no way to treat people with mental illness, even people who really do need to be locked away from society.

What really makes me angry about our new model for dealing with serious mental illness, is that all the excuses made for closing state institutions are exacerbated by this method of dealing with the seriously mentally disturbed. It is far more expensive to deal with the mentally ill either in prison, or on the streets coasting in and out of jail. The biggest reasoning was expense - but the expense has dramatically increased. It is a huge expense for local communities and ultimately still costs the state more.

On top of this, it is extremely hard for the seriously mentally ill to actually get the help they need and even qualify for. There are "homeless" mentally ill persons who aren't actually homeless. They have a place in a group home and access to care. But then they wander off from home and end up living on the streets - off their meds, hungry and exposed. And there are truly homeless mentally ill persons who aren't getting any help - not because they don't qualify, but because they are not together enough to go out seeking it. And even if they try, the system is not set up to be managed by a paranoid schizophrenic who believes there are people trying to kill her, or someone with bipolar who walked nearly a hundred miles from people who knew him while in a manic phase. That is not the "freedom" that wellmeaning, but ultimately ignorant lobbyists/policy makers were trying to provide with the idea of mainstreaming.

And the local communities - the communities in which people who know and love a particular mentally ill individual lives, are not set up to deal with them. We have had forty plus years to get it together and help these folks and still we are flailing about, failing too many. Even here in MI, where the quality of care provided by county Community Mental Health (CMH) services is generally quite exceptional, we are allowing too many to slip through the cracks. In many places, there is virtually no organization to provide services to the mentally ill. In others, southern California in particular, the services provided are truly abysmal.

And again, the states are still fitting a huge portion of the bill - in many cases a much larger bill than the state hospital system cost.

Michigan is particularly hard hit right now, as we have closed some of our mental health facil...Excuse me, prisons at the same time we have also eviscerated the budgets of the county CMHs. We are dumping these folks onto their local communities and pulling the funding that might have provided services for them. The clinics that manage paroles and people on probation are getting overwhelmed - in many cases with clients who should not be outside of a lockdown facility. Meanwhile, people with less serious mental problems, but who do not have insurance and do not qualify for medicaid are screwed.

Myself for example. I finished with my last therapist about a year ago. I was told that I would see another intern therapist last summer - then that was bumped to the fall...I haven't bothered trying to call again - I know what is happening and know that I am not going to get help. At least I am on meds and not left completely screwed. For more people are worse off than I am. No therapy, no psychiatric services - they won't get help until their mental illness becomes acute and they either commit a crime and end up in prison, or at least get picked up by the cops and pushed through the medicaid requirements.

Please don't think that things are much better elsewhere. For the past several years MI has managed to provide mental health services on a shoestring, that far outstrip the quality of care offered in many other states that have substantially larger budgets per public mental health consumer. It is not like those services have improved as budgets get hit across the U.S. Indeed the quality of care here has not actually suffered that much, we just can't provide that care to the people who desperately need it.

I have some hope that the new healthcare plan is going to help with some of this. The APA has managed to push for some provisions that should improve access to mental health services and they went through. But it is only going to help with people in temporary crisis. People who are dealing with situational mental problems or who exhibit mild symptoms. It is not going to do a damned thing to change our prison and "homeless we can ignore" based system of care for the seriously mentally ill.

Just so we are perfectly clear about this, those scenes where they showed these yellow cages in a half circle - their "group therapy" session - that is not a reasonable way to provide group therapy. Not an effective means for any sort of functional therapy. Punishing inmates for breaking rules they don't understand is not effective therapy. Pretending that there is anything valid about an admission of guilt for rules violation, coming from a guy who is incapable of understanding what he is pleading guilty to is a fucking atrocity.

And remember, the system we got a glimpse of in that video - that is a model system for prison based mental health care. That is worlds apart from what one gets in county lockup or most prisons in the U.S. It gets far, far worse than what we see in that episode of Frontline.

I am the Momma of a Two Year OId Curmudgeon

Youngest has apparently decided that both of his parents are momma. Youngest also has a rather intense independent streak that is completely at odds with eldest at that age. He is also rather fond of not listening and gives a rather impressive "fuck you," face, when what he has been instructed to do is at odds with what he wants to do. Not a "brewing tantrum" face (though he is capable of this as well) and not a "malicious joy" face. No - he has perfected the "motherfucking kids today" face, that will easily shift to the face I imagine Comrade Physio Prof gets when he is about to unleash a torrent of expletives on an ignorant fucking moron. He actually looks condescending, like even an idiot should be able to tell that what he wants to do is so fucking superior to anything mere parents might think necessary at the moment.

Fortunately he then loses it when faced with steadfast defiance and his face contorts with rage - occasionally actually throwing himself to the floor. This is not something he does to me very often, because I just laugh at him - further pissing him off, but stopping the tantrum cold as his face and entire demeanor become that of the "I am NEVER going to comment here or even read this blog EVER AGAIN!!!" troll. He refuses to look at you, while surreptitiously glancing over to make sure that he is still following close, in spite of having refused your hand. He also will try to refuse your hand when you go through the parking lot, but only enough to make sure you know he is still very angry.

If tired enough, picking him up to put him in the car seat will lead to more screaming. But usually he is bent on maintaining his perceived moral superiority and will merely turn his head n any direction that ensures he won't look at you. Once strapped in, it is really fun to take advantage of his confinement to make him actually put his eyes on you. This generally will break through the last vestiges of his anger. He is very good at expressing his scorn, but his absolute adoration for his papa ensures that this can only be maintained for relatively short periods. Apparently he can hold out for close to half an hour (ten minutes or so longer than with me) with his mom and most anyone else can be held in disdain for an hour or more.

He started getting rather irritated with me today, when at the American Museum of Science and Energy, I refused to let him climb onto a un-armed B-83 nuclear bomb. It got worse when I was unwilling to continue staring at the model of the newer nuclear power plants that purport to essentially run on nuclear waste. Then he was totally enamored by the scale model of a offshore oil platform - which I admit is pretty fucking cool, but for only so long. He didn't get outright persnickety until I flat refused to let him climb onto the stools in the transient exhibit hall (money and commerce at the mo), which were the sort that are very easy for someone at his level of balance/climbing abilities. Total meltdown waited until we actually made it all the way down stairs and passed right by the large dino puzzle that we had already pieced together twice and which eldest was reasonably not interested in stopping for, as he was ready to go and had patiently waited until I was ready to drag youngest away.

On the upside, his very awesome big brother has managed to teach him to count to ten. Though he gets totally thrown off if he has to count actual items numbering more than four. Eldest made him a counting book to ten and has plans for one that goes to fifty.

Now if only I can get him back to calling me papa. I think this is a direct result of him only getting to see me once a month. I am pretty sure this is his passive aggressive way of punishing me for not reading him picture books every night. He is not nearly as keen on the Oz books over the phone as eldest is. Either that or he is pissed that his brother flees when he starts jabbering while I am trying to read to them...

In any case, I expect that any time now I am going to come see them and he'll have a cane in hand to shake at and sometimes whack people with, when they annoy him or get on his fucking lawn. Though I may have to disown him if he starts in about fucking Irish swill - it is small batch bourbon or the highway.

Neurobiology, Language and Culture: Help DuWayne Again

I am moving right along with my exploration of cognitive function, language and culture. I am really enjoying my quest into human consciousness, social development and their intersect with language. Honestly, I spend a lot of time wavering between reading (and listening to audiobooks) about human cognition, evolution, language and culture - and sitting in a daze, trying to pick apart tendrils of thoughts and ideas. It often reminds me very much of being really stoned, without the accompanying debilitation. Indeed, due to the stimulant therapy and the Welbutrin, I am actually able to pick at the minutiae and consider it in and out of context - assessing the implications.

Given another year or so, I should be able to develop a reasonable hypothesis. That is, a hypothesis that will drive the research I conduct early in my career. I have developed some interesting questions that I really hope will lead me to that question that will take up much of my time in a few years. That is the investigation into the questions, not the answers. While it is theoretically possible to answer these questions, doing so would be exceedingly difficult - if not impossible, given the tools we have to work with right now. And that assumes the questions themselves are correct.

One of the big questions - or series of questions I am rather keen on right now, is the correlation between language and culture, language and cognition and culture and cognition. I have been spending much of my spare time, such as it is, exploring the co-evolution of language and the brain. I have also read some interesting stuff about the early evolution of culture. And studying psychology and linguistics, I note correlations of culture, psychology, psychopathology and language on a regular basis. The exact nature of these correlations are the most fascinating questions I have ever had. There are not many questions I have found more pleasure in exploring.

At the moment I am exploring the evolution of language and the evolution of culture for one of my papers. I am also working on a paper that explores the impact of language and culture on the expression and treatment of mood disorders.

So here is the help that I need. I have most of the source material I need, but at least one of my sources for both papers needs to be an interaction with another person. Because of the nature of what I am writing about, I am really hoping to find some folks who have some background in some aspect or another, of the topics I am writing about. I am especially interested in talking to someone with experience in cross cultural mental health services. I do actually have some people I could potentially harass for the first paper (though I would love to meet new people), I am mostly looking for someone to talk to about the second.

When I am done with my papers and they have been graded, I will go ahead and post them. I have one that I should be able to post sometime this next week. These two papers however, aren't due for another four weeks, so I doubt I am going to be able to post them for at least that long.

The Intersection of Language, Culture and Cognition

While causality turns into a rather chicken/egg discussion, I suspect that the reality of it is much the same as the reality of that metaphor. While the actual mechanisms that drove the earliest development of language, abstract cognition and rudimentary culture is lost in eons of time, there is a lot that we can surmise. There are even aspects of this question we can probably describe with a great deal of accuracy. Unquestionably, this is an incredibly fascinating discussion.

Over the past few years I have become increasingly interested in the relationship between language and culture. At the same time, I have become interested in the relationship between language and cognition. I have also been very intrigued with the evolution of all three of these, for many years - and as I have been afforded the opportunity to explore the relationships I mentioned, I have become increasingly fascinated by the evolution of all three, in relation to each other.

In a turn that really blasted me into dizzying realms of abstract correlations, I have also become increasingly intrigued by the cultural relativity of psychopathology. I rather latched onto this concept, because for many years - since I was a child really, I have been beset by the idea that mental illness/neurological disorders/cognitive maladaptations are really misnamed. What exactly is it that qualifies the way one person's brain happens to work as mental illness, versus the way another person's brain works as merely being a little "odd?"*

Is it their brain that is screwed up? Or is it their socialization/culturalization - the society in which they live that is so screwed up?

As I have explored the manifestations of atypical neurology in different cultural contexts, I am increasingly convinced that the latter is considerably more of a problem. Assuming it is indeed society that is screwed up, the question becomes; "given the megalithic nature of society, does this distinction even matter?" or "is there really any reasonable solution to be found for this problem?" To the first question, I cannot but respond that yes, this distinction is remarkably important. The answer to the second question though, is much more complicated and largely depends on how one might define "reasonable."

I think that the largest barrier we face is the very nature of science research in our modern culture. In many disciplines we are increasingly running into a situation where the existing paradigm of each discipline to it's own, is becoming less and less feasible. My perception may be biased by the context of my focus, but I suspect that there is no other area where this is becoming more apparent, than in the social sciences. This is largely because the more science oriented practitioners of psychology, sociology and anthropology - even to some degree, philosophy are developing vast areas of overlap. In some cases, it is simply not possible to follow lines of research without input from each.

Yet the culture of science tends to shy from interdisciplinary cooperation, something that causes problems across the board, but which is most insidious in the social sciences. Anthropology, sociology and even psychology are seeing a major battle between those who wish to do hard science and postmodern extremists who believe that hard science is a bourgeois affectation and fallacious because we can never truly "know" anything. At the same time, most of the most practical and important work being done in all three disciplines, requires input from multiple subdisciplines of the others.

As our world continues to shrink, as historical barriers between cultures fade away, we are flying blindly into a world beset by misunderstandings and exploitations that all too often explode into violent conflicts. And the vast majority of these conflagrations can be traced directly to the intersect of language, cognition and culture. Our language, the use, the content - even the very structure of our languages predispose us to various cultural paradigms. Likewise, language predisposes us to various cognitive paradigms. But complicating all of this, our cognitive paradigms predispose us to certain language and cultural paradigms, while our cultural paradigms predispose us to certain cognitive and linguistic paradigms.

There is absolutely no doubt that untangling this web of influence is a herculean and possibly impossible task. While many correlations are blatantly obvious, causations are complicated by the very nature of nature of those correlations. But ultimately the exploration of this conjunction has less to do with untangling the web and everything to do with peripheral benefit. Exploring this intersect would teach us a great deal about who "we" are, who "they" are**, how we can all interact with less friction and who all of us might become.

Over the course of this semester, I have the opportunity to explore some aspects of this confluence. It is my sincere hope that as I work my way through my education, I will be able to functionally explore many more facets of this intersect. This nexus is relevant to my educational, research and career goals. Ultimately this nexus is the forge that shapes all of the pieces of who/what "we" are, and who/what "they" are.

As I produce various projects, I will be posting them here - hopefully in a relatively coherent fashion. This will probably mean shuffling things around, sometimes adjusting previously posted writings and sometimes I will be throwing up short posts like this one, just to get my thoughts together in a relatively coherent fashion.

I should admit now, that I will probably rarely be posting anything that is not related to this relatively broad topic. I will occasionally post personal stuff and will probably throw up stuff that really jumps out at me, but for the most part, I am going to be sticking in this particular direction. While I would really like to post about human sexuality and a host of other topics that interest me, I just don't see myself really having the time and energy. We will just have to see how things go...

*There are actually relatively objective methods for determining this, that was intended as a rhetorical question to make you think...

**I quite purposely left that very vague, because by "we" and "they" I mean several different things. I mean "we" as in individuals, a subcultural collective and a macrocultural collective. I mean "they" as in other individuals, other subcultural collectives and other macrocultural collectives.