Humans collect things. I'm sure that if we were able to visit our ancestors from 50,000 years ago, they would each have a little pile of stuff that that they lugged around from place to place and to which they attached particular significance. Or...they were thinking "you never know when you'll need a shell just that shape." Or maybe "someday these'll be worth something, you'll see!"
I'm in Ottawa at the moment and it's tulip festival time. That put me in mind of the great tulip bubble famous for nearly destroying the economy of Europe. And that got me wondering why tulips, or Beanie Babies, or Disney pins, or whatever the next craze is/was. Why do we bother? It can't just be something as simple as "enjoyable passtime." I mean, really, how enjoyable is it once this stuff reaches the level of an obsession?
Or, maybe more importantly, how is it that something like "collecting" can reach obsessive proportions. Are we humans wired that way? Is it the same sort of brain function that makes us susceptible to psychological addictions -- things that are not physically addicting, but none-the-less can result in addiction? The collectors' brain centers for pleasure are stimulated by hoarding meaningless objects?
Hmm...not sure, of course, but it seems to me that there must have been some VERY powerful evolutionary advantage to hoarding in our species' past. Maybe even in proto-human stages it was important to have a little collection of objects labeled "Hey, you never know when that'll be needed." Or, it could be that we, as a species, were attracted to bright-shiny objects and that has somehow translated into this current ability (need) to have stuff -- often lots and lots of similar, but not quite exactly the same, stuff.
In nature, some things that are both powerful and instinctive seem to have an important role in securing a mate. Sexual selection might be a reasonable explanation for this hoarding of kitsch objects. Maybe it shows potential mates that one is a good gatherer and thus could pull his/her weight in providing for the next generation. Something about that doesn't sound quite right, but maybe it's true. There are recent field studies showing that some monkeys do exchange small objects for sexual favors. It's been interpreted as a kind of prostitution among our ape relatives, but maybe that explanation misses the more fundamental aspect of object hoarding. Maybe having the monkey equivalent of a beanie baby collection translates into sexual desirability. Giving one to a potential mate means "plenty more where that came from, baby." Or maybe it's like "wanna come up to my cave/tree/patchofdirt and see my collection?"
Are collectors sexy?
The modern image would say no. Images of large adults with even larger collections of pins or stuffed animals are flashing through my mind. These are not runway models. They aren't even Reubenesque (not sure I spelled that correctly -- is that the sandwich or the artist?). These are folks who don't get out much -- at least that's the popular image, no?
So...I'm at a loss. What is it that makes collectors collect? And did collecting get them a mate?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's salt for veal
I have had my hearing tested. That's not the problem. The problem is that my brain likes puns and word play more than it likes reality. I'm convinced of this. Unfortunately, as funny as mishearing things can be, it really can cause problems when ones spouse is trying to communicate and ones brain is either not perceiving the input, or misprocessing it into something meaningless or downright surreal. Like if someone whispers to you that there's a terrorist aboard your airplane and you hear "there's an herbalist playing Mah Jong." Or vice versa. The implications can be profoundly negative.
I've been told that, basically, my problem is lack of attention. I admit there's a certain distractedness to my life...sure. Maybe more than most. If I'd gone through the school system in recent decades, as opposed to not-so-recent decades, I would almost certainly have been given some clinical diagnosis and put on pills aimed at making me a better (or at least less disruptive) student.
Fact is, though, I made it through just fine. I managed to get a Ph.D. eventually, so whatever my problem is, it must not be too debilitating. Or it's an advantage in later stages.
But, you know, I do dislike the aspect of this "condition" that makes it so easy to hurt the feelings of people I care about. I mistake an order at the drive-through, or don't hear when someone asks me to bring her something as long as I'm going into the kitchen anyway. It's not intentional that I screw these things up, I just don't hear them. Or hear them wrongly.
And I don't really have age as an excuse. I've been this way my whole life.
I don't really know how to fix it either. I've thought about it a lot. I could, for example, try to focus VERY HARD on whatever someone is saying to me, but sometimes I just don't know they're talking to me, so it's hard to orient to one particular stimulus, out of many, and recognize it as the important one at that moment.
Now, granted, sometimes this problem occurs in the middle of a conversation, or right after I've asked someone a question, and for that there really is no good excuse. I should be able to attend to the ongoing stream of one-on-one conversation. But something else intrudes. The brain is processing your utterances into puns or malaprops and then it's enjoying a good laugh.
My wife alternates between being annoyed at this stuff and thinking that it's all trivial.
To which I say "It's salt for veal?" what's that supposed to mean? You hate veal!
I've been told that, basically, my problem is lack of attention. I admit there's a certain distractedness to my life...sure. Maybe more than most. If I'd gone through the school system in recent decades, as opposed to not-so-recent decades, I would almost certainly have been given some clinical diagnosis and put on pills aimed at making me a better (or at least less disruptive) student.
Fact is, though, I made it through just fine. I managed to get a Ph.D. eventually, so whatever my problem is, it must not be too debilitating. Or it's an advantage in later stages.
But, you know, I do dislike the aspect of this "condition" that makes it so easy to hurt the feelings of people I care about. I mistake an order at the drive-through, or don't hear when someone asks me to bring her something as long as I'm going into the kitchen anyway. It's not intentional that I screw these things up, I just don't hear them. Or hear them wrongly.
And I don't really have age as an excuse. I've been this way my whole life.
I don't really know how to fix it either. I've thought about it a lot. I could, for example, try to focus VERY HARD on whatever someone is saying to me, but sometimes I just don't know they're talking to me, so it's hard to orient to one particular stimulus, out of many, and recognize it as the important one at that moment.
Now, granted, sometimes this problem occurs in the middle of a conversation, or right after I've asked someone a question, and for that there really is no good excuse. I should be able to attend to the ongoing stream of one-on-one conversation. But something else intrudes. The brain is processing your utterances into puns or malaprops and then it's enjoying a good laugh.
My wife alternates between being annoyed at this stuff and thinking that it's all trivial.
To which I say "It's salt for veal?" what's that supposed to mean? You hate veal!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
What's the deal with ambulances?
I apologize for not adding a bunch of links to relevant articles here, but I'll be happy to supply some info/data to anyone who is interested and doesn't mind waiting for me to have time to do it. I'm doing this from memory so some of the facts might be slightly askew, but the general info is correct, and rather depressing.
So...ambulances are, per mile driven, the most dangerous vehicles on the road. Worse than motorcycles. This is by virtue of how and when they are driven, of course, but it also has a lot to do with design of the vehicles themselves and the relative lack of relevant safety standards. From what I saw in a presentation, the standard that is most often applied is the crush test -- how much weight can be applied to the top of the ambulance before it collapses. This is not relevant to the typical ambulance crash -- think t-bone at intersections, rear-end collisions, and front-end offsent collisions. Some with rollover. Even in the case of a rollover, the stresses on the ambulance "box" aren't so much crushing forces as rotational ones.
It's also worth noting that the strength of a box is only somewhat predictive of the safety of what's inside the box. Think of stacking grandma's good china in a very sturdy metal container and giving it a good shake. An ambulance is designed to carry a lot of equipment and a small number of people. A good set up is one where the paramedic or EMT riding in the box with the patient can get at the patient and reach necessary items without moving around too much.
There's usually a space to sit next to the gurney for at least one extra person (a family member, perhaps). There's also usually a space for yet another person to sit way up by the head -- to "bag" the person if necessary, or help out in other ways.
So...figure as many as 4 people on an ambulance run.
The patient is strapped to the gurney. The other folks are, generally, not strapped in, but really, it wouldn't matter all that much because there are so many ways to be hurt by stuff flying around inside that closed box in the event of a crash.
The problem with t-bone crashes at intersections is that the ambulance gets hit at a vulnerable point -- the side of the box -- rather than along one of its strong edges -- or vertically from top down where the crush force is relevant. The side of the box is flimsy by comparison. And it crushes inward pushing various cabinets and people into the center of the box -- horizontal displacement.
The cabinets are very sturdy too. That's good and bad. They cause a lot of injuries when people bounce into them, or when they get displaced into the open areas of the box.
There's some research on all of this, but not a lot.
And here's the kicker, there's also some research -- but not a lot -- that says something about whether or not ambulances even need to go fast to improve the survival likelihood for a patient. There used to be a very strong acceptance of the "golden hour" rule in EMS. That said that the chances of surviving any life-threatening even dropped dramatically starting about 1 hour after the event. People who got medical help within the hour were more likely to survive than those who got help after the one-hour period had expired.
The truth is, naturally, more complex, and there is by no means a strong consensus anymore on what the right thing is. Life-threatening injuries may require immediate attention (within seconds or minutes) or the person could remain stable for hours or even days. There are those who believe EMS need not treat anyone at the scene. Just like the old days -- the first days of ambulances with the old converted hearses -- just scoop 'em up and get 'em in. There are others who believe that paramedics save lives all the time and without them, there are lots of people who wouldn't be around today. Many people have personal stories of the heroism and medical professionalism of ambulance crews. That's not the point. The point is that if you look for data, there is very little and what's there is contradictory.
But...we do know that being in an ambulance is a dangerous way to travel -- especially during an emergency run. The question then arises, what can be done to make it safer? One possibility is to strip down the ambulance and make it a safer vehicle designed solely for transport. Unlikely, but perhaps we can redesign the interior to be efficient and safe. Right now, the job of designing ambulance interiors falls mostly in the realm of cabinet-making. Think something along the lines of a camper-van -- lots of places to store things and a nice sleek-looking finish when it's all closed up. This is not the interior of your car -- automotive safety engineers have not been enlisted to make this a human-friendly environment. Experts in the field are starting to recognize, and recommend, that ambulances get the full interior safety design treatment.
Maybe we strap people in better too. And maybe everyone in the back should wear some sort of protective head gear. It's really unclear what would be best for safety and still allow them work.
We should almost certainly ban ride-alongs by non-essential personnel, including family members. It's true that it helps to keep the patient calm, especially small children, but the risks to bench-seated passengers are just too great. Better you all arrive safely at the hospital and pick it up from there.
Also, speed. At some point we're going to have to decide whether the extra minutes are worth the risk. Perhaps we just don't let ambulances run red lights, period. And perhaps we need to set maximum speeds -- in urban environments especially.
It's going to be interesting to see what comes of the latest trickles of data on this issue.
So...ambulances are, per mile driven, the most dangerous vehicles on the road. Worse than motorcycles. This is by virtue of how and when they are driven, of course, but it also has a lot to do with design of the vehicles themselves and the relative lack of relevant safety standards. From what I saw in a presentation, the standard that is most often applied is the crush test -- how much weight can be applied to the top of the ambulance before it collapses. This is not relevant to the typical ambulance crash -- think t-bone at intersections, rear-end collisions, and front-end offsent collisions. Some with rollover. Even in the case of a rollover, the stresses on the ambulance "box" aren't so much crushing forces as rotational ones.
It's also worth noting that the strength of a box is only somewhat predictive of the safety of what's inside the box. Think of stacking grandma's good china in a very sturdy metal container and giving it a good shake. An ambulance is designed to carry a lot of equipment and a small number of people. A good set up is one where the paramedic or EMT riding in the box with the patient can get at the patient and reach necessary items without moving around too much.
There's usually a space to sit next to the gurney for at least one extra person (a family member, perhaps). There's also usually a space for yet another person to sit way up by the head -- to "bag" the person if necessary, or help out in other ways.
So...figure as many as 4 people on an ambulance run.
The patient is strapped to the gurney. The other folks are, generally, not strapped in, but really, it wouldn't matter all that much because there are so many ways to be hurt by stuff flying around inside that closed box in the event of a crash.
The problem with t-bone crashes at intersections is that the ambulance gets hit at a vulnerable point -- the side of the box -- rather than along one of its strong edges -- or vertically from top down where the crush force is relevant. The side of the box is flimsy by comparison. And it crushes inward pushing various cabinets and people into the center of the box -- horizontal displacement.
The cabinets are very sturdy too. That's good and bad. They cause a lot of injuries when people bounce into them, or when they get displaced into the open areas of the box.
There's some research on all of this, but not a lot.
And here's the kicker, there's also some research -- but not a lot -- that says something about whether or not ambulances even need to go fast to improve the survival likelihood for a patient. There used to be a very strong acceptance of the "golden hour" rule in EMS. That said that the chances of surviving any life-threatening even dropped dramatically starting about 1 hour after the event. People who got medical help within the hour were more likely to survive than those who got help after the one-hour period had expired.
The truth is, naturally, more complex, and there is by no means a strong consensus anymore on what the right thing is. Life-threatening injuries may require immediate attention (within seconds or minutes) or the person could remain stable for hours or even days. There are those who believe EMS need not treat anyone at the scene. Just like the old days -- the first days of ambulances with the old converted hearses -- just scoop 'em up and get 'em in. There are others who believe that paramedics save lives all the time and without them, there are lots of people who wouldn't be around today. Many people have personal stories of the heroism and medical professionalism of ambulance crews. That's not the point. The point is that if you look for data, there is very little and what's there is contradictory.
But...we do know that being in an ambulance is a dangerous way to travel -- especially during an emergency run. The question then arises, what can be done to make it safer? One possibility is to strip down the ambulance and make it a safer vehicle designed solely for transport. Unlikely, but perhaps we can redesign the interior to be efficient and safe. Right now, the job of designing ambulance interiors falls mostly in the realm of cabinet-making. Think something along the lines of a camper-van -- lots of places to store things and a nice sleek-looking finish when it's all closed up. This is not the interior of your car -- automotive safety engineers have not been enlisted to make this a human-friendly environment. Experts in the field are starting to recognize, and recommend, that ambulances get the full interior safety design treatment.
Maybe we strap people in better too. And maybe everyone in the back should wear some sort of protective head gear. It's really unclear what would be best for safety and still allow them work.
We should almost certainly ban ride-alongs by non-essential personnel, including family members. It's true that it helps to keep the patient calm, especially small children, but the risks to bench-seated passengers are just too great. Better you all arrive safely at the hospital and pick it up from there.
Also, speed. At some point we're going to have to decide whether the extra minutes are worth the risk. Perhaps we just don't let ambulances run red lights, period. And perhaps we need to set maximum speeds -- in urban environments especially.
It's going to be interesting to see what comes of the latest trickles of data on this issue.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Parenting 101
Those of you who are parents already know this, and will be amused. Those of you who aren't parents, don't want to be parents, and are only interested in parenting in terms of how annoying other people's kids are may find it illuminating.
So, here's the deal. Sometimes you get it right by mistake. Sometimes you get it wrong, also by mistake. And most of the time it works out fine anyway because kids are resilient and they aren't looking for the long-term implications of your parenting episodes. They're living in the moment and they don't really brood over the disappointments that you dish out.
The other day, my son (2.5 years old) was being an exceptionally good sport about hanging out with me waiting for this (benefit) meal to be served. He'd had about enough of the bread and hummus at-the-table food and was basically starting to get antsy. The meal was about ready to be served and the emcee called for us to say grace.
Normally the little guy is pretty good about grace...time to pray, be quiet, all that. But this time he was across the table from me and there was nobody next to him who could quietly react to his second-by-second actions should a reaction be required. I was a little bit tied up with the 10 month old and knew I couldn't really reach him if he did something really scary like stand up on the folding chair -- so I was in that horrible parenting state of hypervigilance with no real hope of effective response should things go wrong on a toddler time frame.
He turned around in the middle of the prayer and said "hi!" with this huge infectious grin. What did dad do? I shushed him. That's what you do to kids when they talk out during prayers, right? I watched my little guy's face crumble and saw him melt back into the chair. It kills me even now, a week later. He couldn't care less, naturally. No visible lasting repercussions from this instant in time where I blew it.
But it has changed me. I'm slower to respond now. I think "is this really something to respond negatively to? Should I shush a kid for being happy and wanting to say 'hi'?" I get that kids shouldn't annoy others during social events -- especially ones that aren't really kid-oriented. This one had a LOT of kids there, but, so far as I can tell, mine was the only one who wanted to say howdy during the grace. It's expected that parents shush their kids when the adults are being quiet and concentrating, right?
Well, that's wrong, wrong, wrong! I'm reasonably sure that God thinks the joyous expressions of a 2.5 year old are worth more than even a heart-felt prayer intoned by some speaker at a benefit. Sure, it was an important cause, and yes, the people there were devout and in a spiritual frame of mind. But I wasn't. I was stressing over whether my kid would fold himself up in a chair and I was cursing my own lack of proactiveness that would've plopped him into a seat I could reach quickly anyway. And I reacted out of that stress and concern for social norms rather than anything that was related to God or my child. I was just being the parent that (I internally thought...based on social training) I thought other people in the room expected me to be.
And who really wants to be THAT parent? Yes, shaping our kids to fit into society is an important lesson that responsible parents teach their children. But unconsciously doing it? Where's the awesome in that?
Parenting is tiring and confusing work. Nobody can be "on" all the time and never make a mistake. But parenting by instincts isn't really the right way either. It requires more consciousness than most of us are used to putting into our instant-by-instant lives. And yet, we do try. And we think about it, and obsess over it. And next time I'm going to have a little filter there that says "would a smile and nod work here?" And I hope the answer is "yes" or at least "couldn't hurt to try it."
Anyway...he's just fine. My worries about hammering a dread social anxiety disorder into him seem overblown. He has given me plenty of opportunities to smile and nod versus frown or shush. I love that about him.
So, here's the deal. Sometimes you get it right by mistake. Sometimes you get it wrong, also by mistake. And most of the time it works out fine anyway because kids are resilient and they aren't looking for the long-term implications of your parenting episodes. They're living in the moment and they don't really brood over the disappointments that you dish out.
The other day, my son (2.5 years old) was being an exceptionally good sport about hanging out with me waiting for this (benefit) meal to be served. He'd had about enough of the bread and hummus at-the-table food and was basically starting to get antsy. The meal was about ready to be served and the emcee called for us to say grace.
Normally the little guy is pretty good about grace...time to pray, be quiet, all that. But this time he was across the table from me and there was nobody next to him who could quietly react to his second-by-second actions should a reaction be required. I was a little bit tied up with the 10 month old and knew I couldn't really reach him if he did something really scary like stand up on the folding chair -- so I was in that horrible parenting state of hypervigilance with no real hope of effective response should things go wrong on a toddler time frame.
He turned around in the middle of the prayer and said "hi!" with this huge infectious grin. What did dad do? I shushed him. That's what you do to kids when they talk out during prayers, right? I watched my little guy's face crumble and saw him melt back into the chair. It kills me even now, a week later. He couldn't care less, naturally. No visible lasting repercussions from this instant in time where I blew it.
But it has changed me. I'm slower to respond now. I think "is this really something to respond negatively to? Should I shush a kid for being happy and wanting to say 'hi'?" I get that kids shouldn't annoy others during social events -- especially ones that aren't really kid-oriented. This one had a LOT of kids there, but, so far as I can tell, mine was the only one who wanted to say howdy during the grace. It's expected that parents shush their kids when the adults are being quiet and concentrating, right?
Well, that's wrong, wrong, wrong! I'm reasonably sure that God thinks the joyous expressions of a 2.5 year old are worth more than even a heart-felt prayer intoned by some speaker at a benefit. Sure, it was an important cause, and yes, the people there were devout and in a spiritual frame of mind. But I wasn't. I was stressing over whether my kid would fold himself up in a chair and I was cursing my own lack of proactiveness that would've plopped him into a seat I could reach quickly anyway. And I reacted out of that stress and concern for social norms rather than anything that was related to God or my child. I was just being the parent that (I internally thought...based on social training) I thought other people in the room expected me to be.
And who really wants to be THAT parent? Yes, shaping our kids to fit into society is an important lesson that responsible parents teach their children. But unconsciously doing it? Where's the awesome in that?
Parenting is tiring and confusing work. Nobody can be "on" all the time and never make a mistake. But parenting by instincts isn't really the right way either. It requires more consciousness than most of us are used to putting into our instant-by-instant lives. And yet, we do try. And we think about it, and obsess over it. And next time I'm going to have a little filter there that says "would a smile and nod work here?" And I hope the answer is "yes" or at least "couldn't hurt to try it."
Anyway...he's just fine. My worries about hammering a dread social anxiety disorder into him seem overblown. He has given me plenty of opportunities to smile and nod versus frown or shush. I love that about him.
1st entry -- matching to sample
Matching to sample is an experimental paradigm in psychology that is used to test both memory and perception. The basic procedure is as follows:
A: Show a sample stimulus (colored dot, pattern, whatever) for a brief period
B: Wait
C: Show two or more alternative choices, one of which matches the sample
D: Subject is supposed to choose the alternative that matches the sample.
There are lots of variations -- you can probably think up some of your own.
Pigeons are especially good at this. So are humans, and primates, and I'm sure lots of other species too.
Why did I pick this name for my blog?
- It was available whereas some other names were not
- If you think about it, a lot of success in life is about matching to sample.
So...there ya go. I hope to update this blog hourly with brilliantly witty prose that will earn me an international following and vast sums of money.
I will probably abandon it grumbling that blogging is such a waste of my precious time while ignoring the fact that nobody ever read it.
A: Show a sample stimulus (colored dot, pattern, whatever) for a brief period
B: Wait
C: Show two or more alternative choices, one of which matches the sample
D: Subject is supposed to choose the alternative that matches the sample.
There are lots of variations -- you can probably think up some of your own.
Pigeons are especially good at this. So are humans, and primates, and I'm sure lots of other species too.
Why did I pick this name for my blog?
- It was available whereas some other names were not
- If you think about it, a lot of success in life is about matching to sample.
So...there ya go. I hope to update this blog hourly with brilliantly witty prose that will earn me an international following and vast sums of money.
I will probably abandon it grumbling that blogging is such a waste of my precious time while ignoring the fact that nobody ever read it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
