Look At It This Way

Let's Get Dumb

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:55:11 +0000

Since human intelligence has come so far since the Stone Age, can we say that because of nothing more than evolution we will all become geniuses in the next hundred years or so? The short answer is - no. Evolution favors only those mutations that are somehow more favorable to procreation. It doesn't make decisions based on Man's assumptions of what's right or what's wrong or on any sense of moral progress or the greater good. Indeed, in terms of evolution, the dinosaurs were far more successful as a species than Homo Sapiens. Those scary, scaly critters we all consider losers in the game of life existed for hundreds of millions of years while our kind is still barely into the tens of thousands.

And besides, is higher intelligence truly an asset when it comes to success in the 21st Century? Surprisingly, many high I.Q. individuals don't do as well as their less bright fellows. There are several reasons for this being the case. One is that employers don't especially like employees smarter than themselves. The result here is that many individuals who belong to high IQ societies wind up under employed; working at jobs far below their potential. The same is true when it comes to school and marriage. Kids hate geeks who go around screwing up the grading curve and men are often off-put by women smarter than themselves. In fact, it's been demonstrated (though not often publicized in this PC culture we currently inhabit) that complete and effective communication between those separated by more than fifteen I.Q. points is unlikely. Just think about that. It means there is no way, repeat NO WAY, that people with IQ's of 115 are ever going to explain to people with IQ's of 85 why it's important to graduate high school and not make babies instead. Whatever approach you devise - smaller classes/better teachers/higher budgets - forget it! It's just not going to work!

On the national scene, it means that the President of the United States must either appear to be a dummy or actually be a dummy. Compare Woodrow Wilson with Ronald Reagan for example. The first was a university president while the latter, sometimes called the "Great Communicator", was someone even his staunchest supporters wouldn't call brilliant. Yet which of the two is thought to have been more successful in office? Or compare Mr. Bush, to the former Rhodes scholar Mr. Clinton. Those who hate the one and love the other never refer to their selected hero's SAT scores. Intelligence is a definite non-starter as far as political races go. And why should it be otherwise with roughly half the voters having IQ's below average? I just know I'm going to get comments from the mathematically challenged on that one.

Anyway, am I saying that generating greater numbers of college graduates would lead to greater numbers of brighter people in positions of power; people who could then set a faster pace for the Human race? In a word, no. This is because, regardless of any feel-good initiatives such as affirmative action and community colleges, those with lower IQ's can no more wrap their brains around math and physics than I can play for the NBA. The bottom line on humans getting smarter over time is first and foremost a question of whether or not evolution selects for higher intelligence and reflects that preference in birthrates? Sadly, the answer is no. In fact, the brighter and more successful the couple, the fewer offspring they are likely to produce. Just look at birth rates in Third World countries and you'll see quite clearly that only the time-old Malthusian checks and balances of famine and disease, along with a predilection for slaughtering one's neighbors, have significantly slowed the planet's population explosion.

And have we truly progressed that far ahead in any case? Have we left our ancestors in the intellectual dust? Many would be surprised to learn that a caveman of 25,000 years ago (if properly groomed and tailored) would have no difficulty blending in with a Times Square crowd. But a far greater number would be surprised to learn that that same individual would likely have a higher than average IQ. The reason, quite simply, is that science and technology have allowed the masses to slip and slide. When was the last time you had to duke it out with a saber tooth tiger while surviving an Ice Age? Indeed, with all the nonsense thrown in the path of progressive thought it's become necessary to significantly lower educational standards over the past half century.

LOOK AT IT THIS WAY
We have become so physically comfortable and intellectually lazy that the common man's role has gone from "Lead or get out of the way " to "Lead or get in the way " Solving problems today is easier than ever but implementing those same solutions is next to impossible. When taken in combination, the fact that high IQ humans are born less frequently and then selected as world leaders less often points toward a Space Age marked by a decrease in those very same little gray cells that got us out of the Stone Age.

So How Come You're Single?

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:55:27 +0000

A friend of mine who was delayed at the airport called and asked if I'd run her psychotherapy group that night. I agreed mainly because I was interested in the topic. It was to be an informal discussion of Living Life as a Long-Time Single and for a guy who was once between wives for about six minutes (and didn't like it) I figured this would be a good opportunity for me to find out what it was like on the other side.

The group that turned out that evening was evenly divided between males and females and their ages varied enough so that it was a fairly representative sample. That being the case, I was blown away by the response to my very first question. When I asked how many would willingly trade "singledom" for "coupledom" they were unanimous in wanting to switch. There was, of course, the requirement that the Significant Other should be a real sweetheart but I was still surprised. What this meant was that nobody in the room was there by choice. In the best of worlds, they would all have been home with Mr/Ms Right.

So why was I so surprised? Two reasons: One was that I had always assumed there were people out there who really liked being alone; content with a few friends, a library card and maybe a cat...solitude was their thing. The other was that I had always assumed people unhappy with their lot would try to make a change even if it meant, horror of horrors, giving up a few of their ideals. There is something to be said, after all, for Mr/Ms Will Do.

So what is it with the single that would rather be a couple? Since none of my test sample had trouble meeting people and making friends I had to wonder about the invisible barrier that kept their buddies from becoming their mates. My confusion became especially apparent when I asked about the traits one would hope for in a spouse. Would it be a great shock to learn that they were essentially the same as those typically found in a buddy? All that stuff like trust and shared opinions, companionship and common interests, affection and good humor are exactly the same qualities they somehow managed to find in friends but couldn't seem to find in a mate.

The difference, in this particular group of Long-Time Singles is that they expect to find it all in one person and expect it to last forever. This sounds an awful lot like saying that instead of living your life day by day, biting off small bits at a time, you're going to huddle by the bed until you hit the lottery. Follow that path and you're going to be doing a lot of huddling. So is it necessary to give up on perfection and to go for the least objectionable option or might your best move be to go in an entirely different direction and accentuate the positive side of being single?

There were lots of other insights and observations made that evening but the group finally agreed on the following points:

1) No one person can or should be expected to fill all your needs forever...forget that! You don't pick friends on that basis so why should you expect it in a spouse?
2) A ten-year marriage that ends in divorce did not fail...it succeeded for ten years! And besides, don't you have some friends you'd just as soon send a Christmas card as pay a visit?
3) And keep in mind, that the time you spent as a couple was not wasted...while it lasted it was a unique journey you shared! If people weren't expected to grow and move on we'd all still be living with Mom & Pop.
4) And when you finally left home, did you and your parents hate and bad mouth each other at every opportunity or did you simply come to agree it was time for a change?
5) Finally, familiarity is a natural consequence of time so when the anniversaries are forgotten and the sex cools, it doesn't mean one of you failed it means both of you are normal.

So how come you're single? If you know something the group missed that night, share it in the Comments Section that follows. We'd all like to hear about it.

The Miracle of Fatima

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:22:04 +0000

As a youngster, I had a few friends who went to Catholic school. Years later, I taught for a time at a Catholic college. As a result, I heard many references to what has come to be called the Miracle of Fatima. Most of these tales followed the same basic plot line. In the early part of the 20th Century, some children in a Portuguese village saw an angelic figure descend from the sky. It turned out to be the Virgin Mary and, after a few additional visits, she provided a prophecy for the Pope. After that, the story became more or less gripping depending upon the skill of the storyteller. After reading the missive, his Holiness wept for three days and three nights...or maybe it was three weeks...a month and a half...whatever.

Anyway, the prophecy was kept secret for decades and only now, at the start of the 21st Century do we get the rest of the story. Did the prediction bear any relation to any event that occurred since the note was delivered? Does it matter? Not really. A few months ago, I posted a piece that explained how to start a cult in seven simple steps. You can read it at: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200906/how-start-.... At that time, fellow PT Blogger Dr. Peter Stromberg commented that I'd omitted an eighth step - Make a prophecy that fails. Curiously, such a blunder can actually cause believers to believe even more. Jehovah's Witnesses (those people who go around sticking the Watchtower under your door) have been predicting (unsuccessfully as it happens) the end of the world since the 1800's. A classic study reported in Leon Festinger's book When Prophecy Fails deals with this topic at length and searching End of World Predictions on the Internet will reveal a long list going all the way back to 30 CE.

But, getting back to Fatima, Dr. Joe Nickell (www.joenickell.com) has written an excellent article on the case in the current (November/December '09) Skeptical Inquirer magazine (www.csicop.org). It seems that, in 1917, ten-year-old Lucia Santos was tending some sheep along with her two cousins (nine-year-old Francisco Marto and his seven-year-old sister Jacinta) when a dazzling apparition of a beautiful lady appeared. Supposedly the lady spoke with Lucia and told her to return in one month's time. The kids came back on the appointed day with approximately fifty villagers in tow. Although the youngsters reported seeing the lady, she remained invisible to the adults. Despite this no doubt disappointing no-show, rumors grew and an even larger crowd returned the next month. Finally, after six such sessions, some seventy thousand people were on-hand to witness the last walk in the woods.

And what else could any reasonable individual call these forays but a walk in the woods? Even Lucia's mother said it was all "childish nonsense" and that her daughter was "nothing but a fake...leading half the world astray" and yet the faithful were not to be deterred. Staring into the sky, perhaps directly at the sun, some of those in the assembled throng reported a variety of weird sightings. The sun danced, moved closer to earth, spun like a top and emitted glowing sparks. Mass hysteria and optical distortion alone would account for such reports but one might also offer local meteorological conditions as a possible (though hardly necessary) additional explanation. Needless to say, astronomical observatories saw nothing unusual in the sun's behavior that day.

Years later, Lucia recorded her first prediction. In 1927 (ten years after her purported chats with the Virgin Mary) she wrote that her cousins would die at an early age. They did. Influenza took Francisco in 1919 and Jacinta in 1920. Then she predicted that WW 1 would end and WW 2 would follow. She did this in 1941. All in all, it would be like me going on record to predict that Barack Obama will serve as President of the USA. The final secret to the Pope was delivered to the Vatican in 1957. In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) revealed what he described as a "symbolic and not easy to decipher" scrawled note that supposedly reflected Lucia's vision. After a lifetime of waiting, the faithful heard:

"an angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated toward him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his
right hand, the angel cried out in a loud voice: Penance, Penance, Penance!"

the vision continued with a:

"bishop dressed in white...afflicted in pain and sorrow...he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another, the other bishops, priests, men and women religious."

Lucia Santos died in 2005 and is said to be on her way to sainthood.

What I'd like to see in the Comments section that follows is a discussion of why anyone would continue to believe in a prophet after his or her prophecy fails. And please respond ASAP, as the world will end (this time fer sur) in 2012

The Bizarre Beyond

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:47:26 +0000

Since one of my favorite things in the whole world is seeing myself on television, I was delighted to receive a call from the producer of a very popular evening program. He wanted me to provide a little balance, he said, during a part of the show that would feature a woman who was bothered by ghosts - and had a videotape to prove it! Despite the fact that my reason and logic segment of this bizarre tale would be allotted no more than about 30 seconds out of 30 minutes, I agreed to do the show because I knew this ratio of sense to nonsense was pretty close to the industry standard. A few days later, a crew showed up to record my reactions to the remarkable video that supposedly showed hard evidence of spiritual harassment.

The video turned out to be less than compelling. A parapsychologist made it as part of a feature-length documentary that he was selling for $29.95. Parapsychologists are, after all, in the business of finding and promoting paranormal events. The woman who was alleged to have had the actual contact with ghosts offered an anecdotal account of her experiences and then pointed to a few dark droplets on her bedroom wall which she said were blood. There was also a story told by one of the paranormal researchers who said that, while snooping around in the attic, he was accosted and nearly strangled by a ghost. No doubt anticipating a skeptic or two in the audience, he pointed to the cord that was still firmly knotted around his neck as a kind of smoking gun. And, as if all this were not enough to convince even a rocket scientist, an occasional flash of light appeared on the parapsychologist's videotape of the alleged haunted house. He said that these lights in his camera were an indication of a strange and mysterious presence. I said it was more likely they indicated a need for repair.

But it hardly mattered because when the show finally aired, my comments were not included. Instead, there was an additional tale from beyond that dealt with a man who began smoking in bed - much to his wife's surprise! The victim of this Spontaneous Human Combustion episode said with wide-eyed sincerity that he could offer no explanation for this truly weird happening. The fact that he was interviewed in a smoke filled room and clearly seen to have a shirt pocket full of cigars seemed to suggest not a single clue to his misfortune. Indeed, the show's anchor was reduced to shaking her head and clucking her tongue at the wonder of it all. I too was reduced to shaking my head and clucking my tongue.

How is it that Americans can be so gullible? When public education was first introduced, it was said that superstition and magical thinking would soon be a thing of the past. If anything, public education may soon be a thing of the past. A Gallup Youth Survey reported that an embarrassingly large number of high school students still believe in such supernatural phenomena as astrology, ESP, clairvoyance, witchcraft and ghosts. In fact, the student who does NOT believe in angels turns out to be the exception. And adults fare no better in such surveys. Pollster Andrew Greeley at the University of Chicago found that 73% of adults believe in life after death and 67% of widows say they have already had contact with their dearly departed.

At a recent skeptic's convention, a professor of psychiatry on the faculty of a leading Ivy League university talked about his patients who reported having been abducted by aliens. He said that he believed their stories and, furthermore, that they were rational, emotionally stable people who had nothing to gain from lying. Then, in what can only be called a surprise upset, an investigative reporter took the stage and told about how she, with nothing more than a tall tale and a straight face, was among those accepted by the good doctor as yet one more example of alien abduction. Clearly, this was an excellent example of the need to always value the scientific method over the claims of the individual scientist.

Some of the other sessions at this gathering addressed such topics as the ease with which false memories of childhood molestation are created and the sexual hysteria that currently surrounds this issue; the neural architecture, developed tens of thousands of years ago, that practically assures modern man of an occasional hallucination; the growing problem of junk science in the courtroom; the persistent though irrational belief in such things as a UFO government cover-up and a JFK assassination conspiracy.

Gathering material at many such conferences, I eventually developed a presentation titled "A Critical Look at the Bizarre Beyond" during which I try to provide the most probable (though rarely the most spine-tingling) explanation for many seemingly paranormal events. And although my audiences may smile at anyone taking anything so silly as crop circles seriously, they can be equally adamant when it comes to their own store of outlandish convictions. And whenever I happen to question any of the more mainstream beliefs, beliefs that completely lack any hard scientific evidence, it is my sanity that is questioned and my morals that are doubted.

And this is what frightens me. Never before has a society been so much a product of and so much dependent upon science. Yet a very definite anti-science bias exists at nearly all levels. Jurors who don't know if the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa are asked to evaluate the medical risk of breast implants. Athletes are considered more credible and certainly more admirable than PhD's. Newspapers carry a daily horoscope but seldom offer even a weekly science column. Celebrity chefs are asked to comment on the potential danger of adding genetically altered tomatoes to salads. Politicians become expert at sound bites while remaining wholly ignorant of an expanding universe.

Understanding science isn't easy and rigorously practicing the scientific method isn't fun. Believing is always going to be far easier than even the most rudimentary attempt at knowing. But perhaps, one day, people will become a bit more skeptical and demand that those who make extraordinary claims offer extraordinary evidence. Until then, I guess I'll just have to continue shaking my head and clucking my tongue.

A few worthwhile sites to visit include:
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?author=7
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
http://www.skepdic.com/

Taboo Topics

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:47:53 +0000

A while back, I was asked to speak at a convention of the world's smartest people - MENSA. My topic was Look At It This Way. My point was that archeologists looking at people years off and anthropologists looking at people miles off make it plain that what we believe to be true is not so much a fact as a simple function of time and space. Remember the naive natives in The Gods Must Be Crazy who thought a coke bottle was truly miraculous? Remember the medical textbooks a century ago that said masturbation diverted blood from the brain to the genitals and caused irreversible dementia? In the here and now, people believe that religion encourages peace and understanding despite its long history of bloody divisiveness. Indeed, is it safe to say that not even half of what is believed by any culture comes even remotely close to reality? Humans are not too intelligent, rather easily fooled, pattern seeking, storytelling animals who weave narratives and create myths.

I began my talk by pulling a Bag of Evil from my briefcase and warning the audience that they might want to take that opportunity to leave the room. The things I had in the bag and which I would soon be exhibiting had, in different times and in different places, gotten people put away.

My first previously perceived threat to humanity was a small bottle of liquor. I cracked the seal and took a swig. It was not so long ago when such behavior could have landed me in the penitentiary. No one in the room could explain why Prohibition began, why it lasted more than a decade or why it was thought to be a good thing at the time. Of course I might still wind up behind bars if I sold my booze without a license, drank it in a dry county, or was found driving with the open 1½ ounce bottle in my car. A couple I know were told they would have to sit at least 18 inches apart as they sipped some wine at a lounge in Arlington, VA. In Palm Springs, a CA Alcohol Beverage Control agent warned that city's Convention Center they would lose their liquor license if they allowed an Erotic Art show to open. This was before any of the art had been seen (or even selected) and despite the fact that no alcoholic beverages (or food or drink of any kind for that matter) would be allowed in the gallery area. Using his logic, you're in violation of the law if you watch an X-rated video in a hotel with a liquor license or, worse yet, get naked in a room with a self-service bar.

The next item drawn from my bag could still get me into trouble. The hash pipe I held up (which I use as a paperweight) can be considered drug paraphernalia and might have gotten me arrested. If someone threatens my life, the police can do nothing unless and until that person acts on the threat. However, the mere possession of a hash pipe can, in some areas, constitute intend and can be considered sufficient grounds to have one fined and/or confined. My question is: What's the difference between Prohibition and the War on Drugs? And before saying anything, think of just how much you'd be willing to wager on the validity of your answer. A problem I have with both the previous hooch laws and the current hash laws is that science and reason are lost amid the irrational fears of those with no experience (I never tried it) and the emotional tales of those with negative experience (I couldn't handle it). As with use versus abuse, there are those who have addictive personalities and those who don't. If you happen to be an addictive abuser, be careful of alcohol and drugs, cults and religions, sex and gambling while leaving the other nine out of ten of us to our own business.

Then I pulled from my Bag of Bad something that actually had gotten a friend of mine put away. William Baird, M.D. was on duty in an emergency room when a woman who had attempted a coat hanger abortion came in and died in his arms. He was so moved by the experience that he began a campaign to educate the public regarding contraception. This was back in the 60's when condoms were required by law to carry the warning For Prevention of Disease Only. During an on-stage presentation, he did exactly what I did - held up a condom. He was convicted of a felony, lost his medical license and spent years in prison. Today he's referred to as the Father of Reproductive Choice. He is also threatened, both life and limb, on a regular basis.

And that lead me to my next atrocity. I held up a porn magazine. Not too long ago in all states and still today in some states, such reading/viewing material is forbidden. Would someone tell me what's wrong with pornography? But be careful. As with drugs, I'd like you to think about what you're willing to lose for an invalid answer. And remember, your personal opinion does not constitute a scientific finding. I'll admit though, that even people pro porn can be a bit fuzzy in their thinking. Once I heard a woman talking to a group about the value of the X rated movies in which she starred and later produced. They were the essence of normal, wholesome sensuality. People who said such porno flicks encouraged men to rape women were misguided at best. So then I stood and said I completely agreed with her assessment. Pornography was natural and a wonderful aid to sexual satisfaction. I went on to say I was starting a Kiddy Porn publication and wondered if she might like to support my efforts. Creeps like me ought to be locked up, she said, and in fact she was the director of a fund that had been established to do just that. When I asked why all the vehemence, she said that such material would cause men to rape children. No, I'm not making this up. She really said porn does not encourage men to rape women but that kiddy porn does encourage men to rape children. When it comes to sex, this particular time and place is especially weird in its beliefs.

And finally, I held up a book of matches. Close Cover before Striking is said to be the most often repeated printed warning in the English language. Coming from another planet, an alien would have to wonder about the hidden dangers in that tiny package. But hold on, those old-time Lucifers may get you into trouble yet. Since no one in the audience who didn't smoke had matches, and since smoking may well be the next taboo, it's altogether possible that a book of matches may one day be classified as drug paraphernalia.

Extramarital Affairs Arranged On-Line

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:58:44 +0000

The key to success is really quite simple. Find a need and fill it. But, as is so often the case with such simple approaches, the devil turns out to be in the details. The first part, finding problems, is a piece of cake. Just tune in to one of your local talk-radio hosts. Figuring out how to solve them, the second part, is the tricky bit.

So let's consider a need shared by millions and millions of married couples - a lack of sex. Understand that I'm not referring to quantity, as most mates will eventually give in to begging and pleading. What I'm referring to is quality of the yelling and screaming kind that was enjoyed in every room of the house and on every piece of furniture before monogamy took hold. But how to fill that need? Now there's the rub.

And let us not underestimate the value of sex to one's well being. In a study reported in the British Medical Journal, the data showed that the amount of sexual activity enjoyed by a man is directly proportional to both his health and longevity. Men who reported twice as much sex were half as likely to die prematurely.

Anyway, a new and unique website - that I wish I'd thought of - is now out there. It allows individuals in search of seemingly uncomplicated extramarital affairs to find each other in cyberspace and then hook up in real space. You can visit on-line at: AshleyMadison.com.

As you might suspect, so open an approach to an issue that Americans feel should be closed up tight and double locked has been met with a plethora of publicity. The producers of Tyra, Ellen, GMA, The View, Larry King and Dr. Phil were among those who spotted pure GOLD in the topic. Here was an unequaled opportunity to titillate their audiences' filthiest fantasies while all the time providing them with a chance to feel morally superior...in short, quintessential American television. An article at Nerve.com by Jack Harrison is far more insightful. He writes an entertaining and informative account of his experiences with four women that he met through the site. In so doing, he provides a truly edifying look at examples of the almost 80% of couples who admit to cheating.

But I found myself more interested in Noel Biderman, the site's founder. Surely he'd be able to tell readers way more about the true state of monogamy in the US than Tyra, Phil and Larry put together. So I asked him:

1) How would you characterize marriage and monogamy in America?
Not only is the heterosexual marriage in decline, in that fewer and fewer people are categorized as being a part of that traditional definition, but my own personal belief is that within the coming decades, heterosexual monogamous marriages will become the minority of American marriages

2) How do you account for the success of your site?
Ashleymadison.com is catering to a human need; sex is as important to us as the air we breathe and fuel we consume, and ultimately it is not in our DNA to be monogamous.

3) How did you come up with the idea?
I came across some great research back in 2001 that indicated that 30-35% of people going to so-called single/matchmaking services were in fact attached and were using the anonymity of the internet to meet unsuspecting single people...I thought to myself, wow, wouldn't these people prefer a service where they could meet other like minded adults and be honest about their relationship status...out of that The Ashley Madison Agency (www.Ashleymadison.com ) was born.

4) What's your ratio of male to female members?
The site is about 30% female and 70% male

5) Do you ever contact members to evaluate their experiences?
Of course, we are constantly canvassing our members for new and effective ways to help them with their lives and needs.

6) What countries seem most comfortable with sexuality and/or on-line introductions?
I think that answer totally depends on what kind of service is being provided - cultures like those in Japan and France are much more liberal when it come to extramarital relationships...and of course age and gender are factors in ones willingness to pursue an online romance. Americans currently have an interesting balance between a youthful culture very open to digital dating and a societal fabric in much need of absent intimacy.

Medical Myths?

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:21:41 +0000

Six Medical Myths Busted (by Jocob Teitelbaum, MD) is an unusual piece because the good doctor actually suggests that just because it feels good, it may not be bad. When was the last time you heard that? Usually our Puritan background comes to the fore and we're deluged with messages such as the one I recently heard from a TV Evangelist: If you're having fun, you know you're hurting somebody. Since my idea of fun is tying guys like that to a stake...he's probably right.

Dr. Teitelbaum points out that being skinny isn't necessarily being healthy. Some people who carry around a few (emphasis on the word "few") extra pounds may actually be better off. Ditto with those who add an extra sprinkle of salt and enjoy a bit of chocolate now and again. As is usually the case with all-or-nothing Americans, we may also have gone overboard regarding eggs. Subjects eating six a day for six weeks showed no significant gain in their cholesterol. And even if they did, can you honestly say for sure that the "bad" cholesterol number really causes heart disease? Sunshine too has gotten a bad rap. Old Sol is right up there with strangers when it comes to protecting your kids. Slather the little tykes up with sunscreen and then give them a vitamin D tablet. Makes sense to me. Oily foods are also mentioned but I'd advise that you read the column for yourself.

I know that after I read it, it got me thinking and that is generally a good thing. I found myself wondering about other health beliefs that are typically taken for granted. For example, cigarettes will kill you. Everybody knows that - right? They take, I've been told repeatedly, eleven minutes off your life every time you light up. But is that such a bad thing if they contribute to the quality of your life? Do the math and you'll find that if you start at age 20 and smoke a pack a day you'll be checking out in your early rather than in your late 70's. I don't smoke but I do drink. So lets see, early 70's...late 70's...no way would I trade my daily deep dish Martini for a handful of years at the end when I'm not even sure where I am most of the time.

I also wonder why it is that since we've pretty much destroyed the tobacco growing industry (the one thing the whole world agreed we did well) and most people no longer smoke, we don't see a corresponding decline in lung cancer? I'm just asking? Do you know something I don't?

And while I'm asking, what good are health foods? Personally, I have to question the whole idea of so-called "junk" food and the notion that what you eat (within reason) really makes much of a difference. Your body evolved to absorb what it needs and eliminate what it doesn't I see where people in different parts of the world with radically different diets have been getting along and, in fact, making even more people for hundreds of thousands of years. So when exactly did you last hear someone who really knows about such things - and wasn't selling a book - diagnose a case of vitamin deficiency? I recently read that of all the billions of dollars spent each year on vitamins and supplements only ginger has been shown to have a demonstrable effect. It eases the nausea brought on by chemotherapy. You wouldn't trust a shop that sells crystal balls to divine your future so why would you frequent one that offers homeopathic remedies to treat your cold?

And while I have your attention, do you know anyone who has AIDS who doesn't also present with a related lifestyle factor? The story is that you're exposed to HIV and that's it. A perfectly healthy individual withers and dies. Is it possible that HIV is merely an opportunistic virus? Can't one assume that once somebody beats their immune system all to hell they're apt to catch all sorts of things? There's the story about the woman who wakes up in a hotel room after a one-night-stand and finds a note reading: Welcome to the World of AIDS. Does anybody actually know who that woman is? Is she related to the guy who woke up, perhaps in the same hotel, with a kidney missing?

Isn't it odd that often the very things you're told are bad sometimes turn out to be really great? In a study reported in the Journal of British Medicine, men who had twice as much sex were half as likely to die prematurely. Maybe that's why prostate problems were originally referred to as Monk's disease? A researcher in the UK found that small doses of radiation could actually strengthen your immune system. And now, it's been pretty well established (at least to my satisfaction) that a couple of glasses of wine a day will add a couple of years (happy years one presumes) to your life.

Some of you, no doubt, are nodding your heads and saying it's about time you're reading this while others are foaming at the mouth. If you're qualified to comment (not if you merely have an opinion) there's a place below for comments. I'm both bright and well educated yet I seriously wonder about the items I've mentioned. If half of what people believe at any given time/place turns out not to be true, what about things like the HIV/AIDS connection and the value of health versus junk foods and the persistent level of cancer cases despite a significant drop in the number of smokers? I have no ax to grind, no ideology to defend and no bias to confirm. Please believe me when I say that I'm truly open to legitimate insight in these matters.

Where's the Romance?

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:22:55 +0000

"They're in it just for the sex and that's not normal. Why do they even bother to get married? It's the fault of the schools...the parents...the government.

Again and again the audience made plain their utter contempt for the younger generation in general and, more specifically, for what they saw as a complete lack of God-fearing behavior in modern relationships. And while it was mostly the women, so great was the fever pitch in the studio that even a few of the men spoke out against kids today. Things, as you might suspect, had been far better in the past.

I'd been invited to take part in yet another of those afternoon TV shows where a crowd of citizens armed with nothing more than their opinions get to express their righteous outrage. The naive assumption behind such nonsense is that all opinions are created equal and that everyone is entitled to at least one. My purpose in this popular charade was to provide an air of legitimacy while pretending to shed some light on the psychology of Love, Sex and Marriage. I say pretending because any serious attempt at so ambitious a task would be doomed from the start. The evolutionary roots of sexual desire and the chemical underpinnings of love can alone fill most of a semester at a university. Then throw in a brief history of marriage as a social convention and you're talking the rest of the term plus an extensive reading list. Suffice it to say, I know how the "TV Expert" is supposed to behave and that's why I get invited back.

So I begin by pointing out that Mother Nature never intended for sex, love and marriage to be part of one big package. The other guest, some sort of mental health nurse, then expresses her dismay and quickly follows up with a: What is the world coming to? The audience gets even more involved and the morality play begins. It's time to cheer the hero and hiss the villain. To further establish my role as the villain, I toss out something about only little girls and naive adults buying such Happy-Ever-After fairytales and the hooting, hollering mob goes wild. At that point, the show's host usually signals for a commercial, during which my would-be attackers (oddly at leisure during the middle of a workday) are wrestled to the ground by Security.

But at this point, a woman shouts something about romance and knights in shinning armor. That caught me off guard. Surely even a group like this couldn't believe that. Anyway, here's the way it really was - verily - back then.

According to historical accounts such as those found in B.W. Tuchman's A Distant Mirror despite all the bawdy talk you may have heard at your local Renaissance Faire, Medieval life was far from an unfettered orgy. According to the Book of Sidrach, it was not murder, robbery or assault that was the most heinous of sins but sodomy. And that covered a lot of territory. Homosexuality along with the use of an unfit orifice or an unfit position; spilling one's seed according to the sin of Onan; auto-erotic emission and intercourse with beasts would all result in damnation. Similarly, marriage was not the bed of roses idealized in tales of the "...and they lived happily ever after" genera. Indeed, the Dunmow Flitch tradition points to quite a different reality. Any couple traveling to Dunmow (in Essex, UK) and swearing that after a year of wedlock they'd do it again, would received a side (a flitch) of bacon. Considering the value of a pig at that time, it may be assumed that not that many couples got to bring home the bacon.

As for being swept off one's feet by a brave knight in shining armor astride a thundering stead that was at least half-right. Clad in 55 pounds of plate and carrying a lance 6-yards long, crashing into an opponent at full gallop and then having to deal with that self same sword wielding, battle-ax swinging gentleman on foot would have made today's average case of road rage a mere fillip. In days of olde they do most certainly appear to have been bold. But forget the being carried off part. Contemporaries understood Romantic Love as love for its own sake. Unassociated with property or family, it must of necessity focus on another man's wife as marriageable maidens were obviously going to be ruled out. It was justified as a means of ennobling a man causing him to show goodness and courteous manners, to be well groomed and valiant. The woman, in turn, was seen as an inspirer of male glory; a sure step up from a mere breeder of children and conveyor of property.

Romantic Love began with the knight worshiping from afar before declaring his passionate devotion. This was followed by deeds of heroic proportion and met with virtuous rejection by the lady in question. On moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire, the knight might eventually win his true love's heart. Endless risks and subterfuges in the hopes of gaining a few stolen moments together followed. Of course, any such liaison was considered both a sin by the church and a crime by the state. Furthermore, on learning of this affair, the lady's husband, who was also a knight, would be expected to kill both his unfaithful wife and her lover. Romance in the time of Chivalry was not the gay and elevating pursuit it's thought to have been by modern day readers of Romance novels. It invited dishonor and lead to a tangle of irreconcilable fantasies and conventions. By comparison, today's most rootin-tootin, huffin-puffin, orgy is going to come off as being a decidedly more romantic event. But you just try explaining all that between commercials on an afternoon TV program!

Conservative Republicans as Sexy Swingers

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:39:06 +0000

Recently, I wrote about the popular - though thoroughly neurotic - need to try and control everybody else's sex life. A good example was the city councilman who told a local newspaper reporter that he spent virtually all of his waking hours searching out pornographic threats to his community. From eliminating sex education classes to closing adult bookstores, this man was on the job protecting decent folk from a clear and present danger. That he was currently serving his third term suggested that decent folk felt they needed just such protection.

If I had to guess at the councilman's political affiliation, I'd say he was most likely a Conservative Republican. But, as it happens, I didn't have to guess because this fact was reported as part of the story. So it all fit in with my view of the world. Profiling pays off. Conservative Republicans can't handle sex! Or can they?

I don't really mind being proved wrong because - after the initial shock - I truly believe that being exposed to errors in my thinking is a growth experience. One does indeed make great gains when seeing old things in new ways. So it was only after the initial shock that I realized couples in the Lifestyle are most likely Conservative Republicans. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite of what I would have believed. And I'm sure I'm not alone. Doesn't it seem obvious that it's the Liberal Democrats who should be swapping mates at every turn? A couple in Canada made much the same point. A slightly condensed version of their comment follows:

Hi There. We are a middle-class, mid 30's swinging couple from Toronto and we agree with much of your article but how can swingers be politically conservative yet sexually liberal? When we watch US politics, sex and abortion are so often wrapped in political discussions. Do US swingers think liberally but vote conservatively? www.FantasyPlan.com

A good question...which is what people typically say when they don't have an answer. Why is it that swinging couples that are so Blue State sexually can be so Red State in every other area of their lives? I asked another couple if they might shed some light on this issue? Again, a slightly condensed version of their comment follows:

We were talking about swinging vis-à-vis conservativism and think it's probably a mix of habitual critical thinking about almost any question. Then there is our distrust of authority-- unless in a peer reviewed publication. We also feel that swingers and conservatives are more clearly focused on how people REALLY think and react to others rather than how the bishop tells us we ought to act. And we are more in tune to our innate "hard wired" genetic drives. We don't like to be told what to think or do and we do enjoy doing what comes naturally. We definitely don't like hearing criticism or directions from clergy or other more or less continuously hypocritical authorities or church fathers. Conservatives enjoy living their lives the way they want to and tend to pay a good deal less attention to local, state or national politician proclamations or self-serving speeches. Both groups feel that hard work and intellectual achievement are the way to help one do their own thing and at the same time to enjoy doing it. And we all enjoy living and have discovered a marvelous way to enjoy it even more. Swingers and conservatives usually work hard and are successful in the marketplace. AND, they dislike governments taking what they have worked for to distribute to illegal aliens or welfare moms or other freeloaders that the left seem to need to care for by using our money to give to them. Well, enough already from us but I would like to hear your take on this topic.

And I, in turn, would like to hear your take. Since you read Psychology Today, you probably have a keen interest in why people behave as they do and why, on occasion, it would appear to be in so contradictory a fashion. What's with Conservatives that they can be so liberal sexually and do Liberals, in similar fashion, have a conservative streak that's not often brought to light?

You can view the original Neurotic Control of Sex piece at:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200908/the-neurot...

Intro to Psych: A Roadmap for Life

Stephen Mason, Ph.D. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:39:16 +0000

Matthew Hutson, the news editor at Psychology Today, recently asked contributors to come up with a research finding that caused a significant change in their behavior. My problem was not so much thinking of one but of narrowing it down to the first fifty. I have often said that if only students paid stricter attention during Psych 101, it would do more to prepare them for life than any other class. Why should this be so? Because the lessons laid out in the introductory textbook explain and demystify every bit of behavior you're likely to encounter during the rest of your time on the planet.

Had John Dean not been looking out the window during the lecture on Authoritarianism, he might have better understood the machinations that transpired during his years in the Nixon Whitehouse. Not until the Bush era - when he wrote Conservatives Without Conscience - did it finally click. How many others are still wondering what happened? And how many more are relying on Confirmation Bias to convince themselves it didn't really happen?

Along with the economic collapse came the realization that corporate CEO's actually pull down hundreds of millions while their minions go home with tens of thousands. Or maybe they don't go home...because their houses have been foreclosed. So here there were two chapters missed in that General Psychology text. One involved all the insights from classic run away markets (like the South Sea Island Bubble and the Tulip Mania) that were forgotten or, more likely, never learned. The other involved motivation. Everyone seemed to forget that paying out fantastic sums of money is counterproductive when there's a job to be done. Those CEO's didn't have to like what they did or take pride in what they did. In short, the salaries were such that everything else (such as not running the business into the ground) didn't matter.

There was a big fuss (as there always is) when that Bible-Thumping, Family Values congressman got arrested in an airport men's room. That priests and politicians are worst than the rest of us never fails to come as a shock when, in fact, it's exemplary behavior on their part that should set us back on our heels. Even if you were absent on the day Reaction Formation was covered, how could you have missed Shakespeare's Me thinks he doth protest too much in your Literary Masterpiece class?

As I approach my senior years, I know I should forget about inventing anything truly original and concentrate mainly on applying my old learning to new problems. I am constantly amazed at how few people seem to be aware of life's stages. There are certain times when you're primed to do certain things...almost like Jean Paiget's phases of childhood development. Creativity is for the young who don't yet know what's impossible...so they go ahead and do it. As you grow older and you no longer have the energy to sustain multiple failures, your creative urge is replaced by wisdom...or at least it should be. Here again, those who don't study their psychology lessons are doomed to go astray.

And speaking of going astray, how many remember the chemistry of neurotransmitters and how attraction is followed by passion, only to be followed - after marriage, a mortgage and a baby - by indifference? As the old joke goes, there's an organ for reason and an organ for sex but only enough blood to operate one at a time.

Research involving the Placebo Effect has certainly colored my reaction to new nostrums. Even when half the people swear by this supplement or that vitamin it means nothing. In fact, anecdotal evidence is usually worse than no evidence at all. And that's a good reason for questioning claims of the supernatural. After one classroom demonstration of the Phi Phenomenon, it should be obvious that Venus can indeed be seen to do figure eights in the night sky while Hypnopompic Hallucinations can account for even the sexiest alien abductions. Add Pareidolia and Satan's face in the smoke of the World Trade Tower becomes just that - smoke. Of course there will still be those who contend it was an inside job. Psychology 101 has an answer for that as well. If only more people paid attention.