1-2-3: Southern gun culture on the skids

Add it up:

1. Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor

Three experiments examined how norms characteristic of a “culture of honor” manifest themselves in the cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and physiological reactions of southern White males. Participants were University of Michigan students who grew up in the North or South. In 3 experiments they were insulted by a confederate [nice one -- Ed.] who bumped into the participant and called him an “asshole”. Compared with northerners–who were relatively unaffected by the insult–southerners were (a) more likely to think their masculine reputation was threatened, (b) more upset (as shown by a rise in cortisol levels), (c) more physiologically primed for aggression (as shown by a rise in testosterone levels), (d) more cognitively primed for aggression, and (e) more likely to engage in aggressive and dominant behavior. Findings highlight the insult-aggression cycle in cultures of honor, in which insults diminish a man’s reputation and he tries to restore his status by aggressive or violent behavior.

2. This scene from Barry Lyndon.

3. Williamson [TN] County Seeks To Ban Guns In Parks

A new resolution seeks to bar gun owners from bringing weapons to any Williamson County-owned park, trail or historic site.

Beginning Sept. 1, handgun owners who have carry permits can bring their guns to all local parks in Tennessee, unless leaders in local governments choose to ban them. The General Assembly passed the new law a few weeks ago.

But the resolution sponsored by County Commissioners Mary Brockman, Mary Mills and Judy Hayes would prevent gun owners from bringing their guns to all public parks owned and operated by Williamson County. That would include nature trails, waterways, greenways, historic parks and other similar places.

Jeremy on Facebook commented, ”i remember when i first moved to TX there was a huge uproar over the attempted ban of handguns… at the state fair.”

The kicker: Handling a gun boosts testosterone.

What is the essence of womanhood?

The New York Times can’t decide.

Maybe it’s nonviolence.

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

[...]

Even if some women prove imprudent with firearms — that is, act like men — feminizing gun ownership could ultimately reduce its appeal to men, making gun-toting as unmasculine as carrying a purse. There are occupations whose status (and pay) declined once they were taken up by women: secretaries, telephone operators, teachers. We already endure the mischief of such sexism; why not harness it for good? 

Or could it be hormonality?

When your testosterone is being throttled, there are bound to be side effects. So, with the help of Lupron, I spent a few months aboard the Good Ship Menopause with all the physical baggage that entails. It’s a trip that most men don’t expect to take.

[...]

Even though I only got to spend a brief time on the outer precincts of menopause, it did confirm my lifelong sense that the world of women is hormonal and mysterious, and that we men don’t have the semblance of a clue.

Further evidence that the essence of man is to Other women, which is okay as long as it’s all in good fun!!

Thanks, Double X, for the guns link.

Coastal intellectuals were so uptight about human pheromones

And by “were,” I mean in 2006.

Remember the story from that year about an interesting link between smell and sexuality? Well, I was working last night on my single-mechanism theory of male sexuality — how’s yours coming? let’s compare notes — and I got to the end of the theorizing — which is the fun part, involving chemicals — and then started looking at the data — which is the equally fun part, involving telecommunications — and the most salient bit of data I knew of was that 2006 study.

So I reread the NYTimes’s coverage and was shocked by the unreasonable amount of hedging that in any other beat would be like saying, “This is study is pointless and possibly bogus.” 

The big data point:

Lesbians react to the smell of certain bodily odors in ways similar to heterosexual men and different from heterosexual women, new research suggests.

Interesting. Go on.

The substances involved are a progesterone derivative produced in male sweat and an estrogenlike steroid that has been detected in female urine. The two smells are processed in the brain differently from ordinary odors.

Ok.

In the experiment, 12 lesbians [small study, I grant you] smelled the two substances while researchers observed blood flow in their brains with PET scans. The scents activated parts of the brain that ordinarily process odors, but the estrogenlike compound also activated a part of the hypothalamus, as it does in heterosexual men.

Animal studies suggest that the hypothalamus is important in sexual behavior. So when that part of the brain lights up under the stimulus of an odor, a sexual response, rather than simply an olfactory one, is implied.

The prior finding:

Heterosexual women responded to the male sweat odor in the hypothalamus rather than in the olfactory portions of the brain, and heterosexual men responded to female estrogen in the hypothalamus. Homosexual men processed the smells in the same way as heterosexual women.

Huh? I can barely follow that. He’s kludging it up so nobody will get what he really wants to say: Here’s another consistency check on whether these chemicals are pheromones, a puzzle we’ll only solve for sure if we knock out a few key control experiments, such as tracking the natural history of these patterns from a young age.

Despite the similarities, lesbians do not respond to these two odors in exactly the same way as heterosexual men, so the analogy with gay men and heterosexual women is imperfect. “This observation could favor the view that male and female homosexuality are different,” said Dr. Savic, an associate professor of neurology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The doubletalk:

The researchers also emphasize that their findings have no clinical application. “It is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation,” Dr. Savic said.

What?? Seriously? Please show me other kinds of research that would have implications for “dynamics in sexual orientation” without using methods like these! It’s a scent that permits heterosexual members of one sex to recognize those of the other sex! Geeeyaaaaad.

Ok, look, I know it’s all correlation equals causation. Maybe we’re witnessing neural correlates of learned patterns of sexuality. And she did say “dynamics,” which every lay reader knows means change over time. And no, I haven’t Googled any single other thing on the subject. And yes, maybe NIcholas Bakalar had a long day that day.

I want nevertheless to record my first reactions upon revisiting that small bit of history.

The mere way the information was framed indicated a high (if only perceived) level of defensiveness on everybody’s part. From reading and talking to everybody, I feel says saying the evolutionary psychologists refuse to understand the subtleties of sexism, so they won’t acknowledge smart arguments by post-structuralists. And the post-it crowd sure as shit is not going to be having the mass media perpetuating the idea, foisted on us by undersexed nerds, of pheromones — human pheromones, for God’s sake! — when Times readers? women the world over are being treated like this and this.

In microcosm, the above is the bottom line message of Fistful of Science: Masculine and feminine; objective and subjective; scientific authorities and critically oriented academics — neither one knows how to talk to the other in this culture. It’s like a stereotypically bad marriage. One side is empowered but whines whenever he has to do anything; the other side is marginalized and forced to lash out to get fair treatment. Both sides have way, way more in common than they want to admit.

Now, regarding the specific issue of human pheromones, the authoritarian in me says, Yes, some people will misuse the likely fact (does anyone have a better, non-ridiculous explanation?) that human sexual orientation has a strong inborn biological component (to say “genetic” would imply single-gene causation; “hereditary” makes it sound like a disease that strikes both sexes).

The libertarian in me says people have nothing to fear but their chains.

And the empiricist in me says, I need more data. Seen any studies?

Are scientists perceived as unwise?

Rounding out my NYTimes tribute, here’s science writer Dennis Overbye, who isn’t sure what to do with science vs. spirituality in Angels and Demons:

Mr. Hanks as the Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon has just exposed the archvillain who was threatening to blow up the Vatican with antimatter stolen from a particle collider. A Catholic cardinal who has been giving him a hard time all through the movie and has suddenly turned twinkly-eyed says a small prayer thanking God for sending someone to save them.

Mr. Hanks replies that he doesn’t think he was “sent.”

Of course he was, he just doesn’t know it, the priest says gently. Mr. Hanks, taken aback, smiles in his classic sheepish way. Suddenly he is not so sure.

This may seem like a happy ending. Faith and science reconciled or at least holding their fire in the face of mystery. But for me that moment ruined what had otherwise been a pleasant two hours on a rainy afternoon. It crystallized what is wrong with the entire way that popular culture regards science.

Namely:

After all is said and done, it seems to imply, having faith is just a little bit better than being smart.

It’s interesting how often us science types perceive non-scientific values as an attack on our chosen way of knowing the world.

MMA’s newest badass rebirths karate

Lyoto “The Dragon” Machida:

Is he a truth serum? A puzzle box? The Wayne Gretzsky of mixed martial arts? Unclear. We know he’s an unbeaten 31-year-old mixed martial artist (as of tomorrow) who cut his teeth on Shotokan karate and dismantled Rashad Evans last Saturday night to take the UFC’s light heavyweight championship. We know he darts in and out of range to punish fighters without taking damage himself [links to video below]. And we know he’s already being spoken of in the same breath as Fedor Emelianenko, Anderson Silva and George St. Pierre.

Here’s Jake Rossen, MMA’s smartest writer:

Lyoto Machida made history Saturday night by becoming the first mixed martial artist to win a major title by wielding an art perceived as primitive and nearing extinction. He didn’t outwrestle Rashad Evans, he didn’t submit him and he didn’t gorilla-press him. He feinted, floated out of the way of hammering strikes and applied the principles of Shotokan karate he established while still in diapers to send Evans down and thinking of his sleep number.

Jordan Breen reviews the tape:

Machida being technically dominant is nothing new, but it was the first time I took note of how glaring he made his opponent’s faults look. Upon opening up the library, I realized this was absolutely nothing new. It took him about two minutes to realize Thiago Silva didn’t tuck his chin or bring his hands back after engaging, which led directly to two brutal knockdowns and set the table for a first-round stoppage. Tito Ortiz’s reaction to Machida’s feints — an incredibly high guard, shielding his own face — made it easy for the karateka to smash up his legs and body, allowing for the brutal knee to the body that nearly ended the bout.

Here’s Machida quoted in ESPN:

“In my karate, there is a time which is called the Kyo, which means the fighter has no defense,” said Machida, 30, who improved to 15-0-0 and still hasn’t lost a round in UFC competition. “I study to make sure I attack right at the correct Kyo, and that’s what I did.”

Bloody Elbow contextualizes:

[A]ll good boxers know there is a time when an opponent can be attacked and they cannot defend, it is a moment when the mind is in reset mode so to speak, and in Shotokan there is a name for that moment. In boxing there is not. I remember training zanshin, and training how to measure and time a strike or counter strike not just based on physical moments, but by your opponent’s breathing, his eyes even would tell you when they are ‘blanked out’ or in ‘reset mode’ and can be attacked.

Maybe I’ll torrent Machida’s 4-DVD set:

First, the footwork translated from his karate background is extremely quick and efficient.  Each movement serves a purpose and no energy is wasted.  Second, like a good poker player, Machida offers no visual clues to what he will do next.  During several techniques, Machida takes great strides in stressing the importance of maintaining and returning to your base stance before, during, and after each technique.  By doing so, Machida masks his intent for as long as possible, reducing his opponent’s window to react in time.

But I’d better get started:

The problem with Shotokan Karate in MMA is that it is a style of fighting that takes a lifetime of training to master.  The use of fixed stances, kata, 5 step sparring etc… are training techniques designed to develop a fighter over millions of repetitions and decades of time. And, there are no shortcuts.

Hmm, is anybody else thinking brain downloads?

Post script on video: 

By now the UFC will have forced down most videos of the Machida-Evans fight [oops -- they missed one], although if you poke around you might be able to download or torrent it.

Here’s Machida taking out Thiago Silva. (Listen for Joe Rogan talking about Machida’s “great package.”)

Here are highlights from Machida’s first 12 fights.

These highlights start off slow — the beginning shows him doing kata on the beach at sunset — but they include his 13th fight, against former l.h.w. champ Tito Ortiz.

Scientist-popularizers “[not always] completely sensitive to what the philosophical question really is.”

Rebecca Golstein, the novelist and philosopher of science, makes that very Fistful statement in a discussion of the rise of the science-literate public intellectual. See the video waaaay down below there. From an interesting set of videos on Seed magazine’s web site, on whether or not the Edge.org crowd has melded C.P. Snow’s two cultures into an harmonious science-dominated whole. Sadly, Goldstein doesn’t name names. We have our suspicions, though.

Update: In fact my suspicion could not have been more wrong.

 

more about “SEEDMAGAZINE.COM | Two Cultures | Reb…“, posted with vodpod

Toward the whole Ender-Neo-masculinity thing

My super-geeky cousin Roya is threatening to flip her shit has probably flipped her shit twice and is threatening to flip it a third time if I don’t acknowledge her attempt to claim the 10-point Ender/Neo Prize.

One week ago TODAY I threw down the digitized guantlet, offering 10 points to anyone who could explain why Ender and Neo both represent “kwisatz haderach-like fusion[s] of masculine and feminine.”

Here’s Roya’s entry:

Well, they are both isolated, messianic figures who fight an enemy through a computer-generated program. Their very names describe the actions that allow them to pass from one part of their life to the next, so in that sense they are transformative figures that represent our attempt to find freedom from the tyranny that is in all of our lives. Do I earn the 10 points, or have I missed the point?

The prize remains unclaimed. Roya: We were looking for a psychoanalytic explanation, not an existentialist one. I’m very pleased at the attempt, however. 10 points to you for taking my bait. Let it never be said I don’t reward a loyal Fistling.

I’m raising the prize to 15 points. The question will now be stated as follows:

• In what way can we adapt Evelyn Fox Keller’s gender-oriented take on object relations theory to explain the drive toward a new masculine ideal, as modeled in Ender’s Game, The Matrix and Frank Herbert’s Dune?

Hint?: There may or may not be a spoon that takes a gendered pronoun in Spanish.

Now, I may or may not have drank so much coffee this morning that I am making the kitchen table shake, so I may or may not go take a walk.

The role of doctors in vaccine acceptance

From an enlightening New England Journal of Medicine article:

Between 1991 and 2004, the mean state-level rate of nonmedical exemptions [for childhood vaccinations] increased from 0.98 to 1.48%. The increase in exemption rates was not uniform. Exemption rates for states that allowed only religious exemptions remained at approximately 1% between 1991 and 2004; however, in states that allowed exemptions for philosophical or personal beliefs, the mean exemption rate increased from 0.99 to 2.54%.

Why? From separate data:

As compared with parents of vaccinated children, significantly more parents of exempt children thought their children had a low susceptibility to the diseases (58% vs. 15%…), that the severity of the diseases was low (51% vs. 18%…), and that the efficacy and safety of the vaccines was low (54% vs. 17% for efficacy and 60% vs. 15% for safety…). … The most frequent reason for nonvaccination, stated by 69% of the parents, was concern that the vaccine might cause harm.

Parents want to trust their doctors:

In a study by Smith et al., parents who reported that their immunization decisions were influenced by their child’s health care provider were almost twice as likely to consider vaccines safe as parents who said their decisions were not influenced by the provider.

In focus-group discussions, several parents who were not certain about vaccinating their child were willing to discuss their immunization concerns with a health care provider and wanted the provider to offer information relevant to their specific concerns. 

Some doctors take a hard stand: 

In a national survey of members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, almost 40% of respondents said they would not provide care to a family that refused all vaccines, and 28% said they would not provide care to a family that refused some vaccines.

They shouldn’t:

The academy’s Committee on Bioethics advises against discontinuing care for families that decline vaccines and has recommended that pediatricians “share honestly what is and is not known about the risks and benefits of the vaccine in question.” The committee also recommends that clinicians address vaccine refusal by respectfully listening to parental concerns, explaining the risk of nonimmunization, and discussing the specific vaccines that are of most concern to parents. 

One policy tool:

[A] model law proposed for Arkansas suggested that parents seeking nonmedical exemptions be provided with counseling on the hazards of refusing vaccination.

via.

What’s wrong with the world?: Seth Roberts edition

Null hypothesis: The reason Seth Roberts and his diet don’t get more respect is because for him to do so might jeopardize a lot of somebody’s profits. Of course, that would require him to be right, about which I have little idea. But his ideas don’t sound especially crazy to me. Why wouldn’t we trust his own self reports and the way he treats them? That’s a big part of what the practice of science is, right?

Do we think NIH-funded science is somehow completely untainted by even the possibility of data fudging? Then how do the merest suggestions of such possibilities result in coverage like this?

Fad diets are always crazy. Until we all start incorporating them into our own. Tell me Gary Tabues or Michael Pollan or Mark Bittman haven’t had some influence on the food you chose to eat today. Check out Seth’s blog and decide what you think of his approach. read about Seth’s diet and decide for yourself. Then try googling ”who owns Nabisco” and see for yourself what name comes up top on the search list.

If I’m crazy … nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya – you have entered a world beyond sight and sound – you have entered – the marxist zone … then tell me why. I’m legitimately curious!

my final, highly personal interpretation of DFW

I believe David Foster Wallace tried to say everything out of fear he had nothing to say. One gets the impression that if he could have broken down the anticipation of a lover’s kiss into Planck units and built it back up again, he would have done it. He was the purest expression of the American masculine mind failing in its struggle to reassert control. He believed himself capable of perfection. As a result, he couldn’t just DO anything. He couldn’t BE. He had to show us he knew everything – the physics of swinging of a tennis racket; the construction of an electoral campaign; the mind of the lobster. But his nonfiction digressions were only breaks – pauses – in his overarching project of tearing himself apart to find the thing that made him feel unfit to achieve perfection. It was his quest to find God; and the fear that he might never find her finally broke him. He flayed himself alive for us. And it was tragic precisely because many of us knew how he felt. We’re left to find the lesson in his suffering, and it’s not that hard to find. He was a writer’s writer, after all. He knew the point was not to tell, it was to show.