Polyphasic sleep

Polyphasic sleep refers to the practice of sleeping multiple times in a 24-hour period—usually more than two, in contrast to biphasic sleep (twice per day) or monophasic sleep (once per day). Check this link for more information (see here).

And I bought a great book from the person who created the Uberman schedule. Check this link for the book and explore the blog (see here).

Looks great. I will try it when I get the chance.

Smile right

This was originally published by the BBC (see here).


There are any number of sayings about the power of the smile. 'Peace begins with a smile.' 'A smile is the universal welcome.' 'Life is short but a smile only takes a second.' All good advice. But it may not be as simple as that. According to new research, if you want to make a good impression when you meet people, it's not just that you smile. It's how you smile.

We all know that smiling is important when meeting new people. However, new research suggests that different types of smiles affect what people think of us.

The study was carried out by the Go Group, a business support organisation based in Scotland. They looked at people's reactions to different grins. They found that responses varied considerably.

Through this they say they have found three types of smile to avoid: The first is 'The Enthusiast', very wide, all teeth showing, possible evidence that you can have too much of a good thing. Then there is the 'Big Freeze', a fixed grin that looks practised and fake. Finally comes 'The Robot', a small, thin smile, lacking in warmth.

The group also warns about smiling too quickly, saying it can make you look insincere. The best smile, they say, is slower and floods naturally across the whole face.

The power of smiling

This is an amazing video. It describes all the amazing things that smiling can do...for you and others around you... Brilliant!

The genetics of happiness

I have spoken about the science of happiness before (see here). Now there is a gene that has been identified which is associated with happiness. The gene was identified by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, from the London School of Economics and Political Science (see here). People with one form of the gene are generally more satisfied with their lives that those carrying the other.

I don't think this discovery answers the nature / nurture debate - all it does is reinforce the fact that both play a role. There is as much evidence that our experience affects us as much as our genes.

I can see the future

Maverick psychologist Daryl Bem (see here) is about to publish a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (see here) entitled, "Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect". When translated into English, this paper provides evidence that we can see into the future. New Scientist covered this story in November 2010 (see here).

In summary, it describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather than before it. In one study, Bem adapted research on "priming" – the effect of a subliminally presented word on a person's response to an image. For instance, if someone is momentarily flashed the word "ugly", it will take them longer to decide that a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if "beautiful" had been flashed. Running the experiment back-to-front, Bem found that the priming effect seemed to work backwards in time as well as forwards.

The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all. But well-established phenomena such as the ability of low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks are based on similarly small effects, notes Melissa Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, who has also blogged about Bem's work at Psychology Today.

Obviously the jury is still out on this controversial, yet fascinating study, but kudos to Bem for devising such an ingenious way of exploring the topic using true scientific methodology in a field that has been notoriously in the fringe. Even if this study isn't the smoking gun on precognition, it's acceptance for publication and peer review in such a reputable journal is nothing short of a ground-breaking achievement.

Animal rights, human wrongs

Animal testing is contentious. Responsible practices are essential and animal cruelty is disgusting. But true animal testing, the use of animal models to test medical treatments in development that could help mankind, is essential. How else would the average lifespan of people in Europe be 70 plus years? Treatments for the world’s most prevalent diseases have all had, at some stage of their development, tests in animals and animal cells. Fact.

It is therefore delightful to see the news that five callous, sadistic and malicious animal rights campaigners have been jailed (see here). The group intimidated individuals from Huntingdon Life Sciences by delivering false letter bombs, amongst other disgraceful activities. Hopefully time in prison will allow them to reflect and develop a more balanced view of the world. Hopefully they will have a headache and take an aspirin.

Watch 'Surrogates' streaming

Here is a movie which shows how our understanding of brain functioning can manifest itself. Watch, think and enjoy.

Double click so it pops up into a new window.

Controlling our brains

Here's a great video from TED that demonstrates how we can read our brainwaves in real time and learn to control ourselves (our experiences, emotions etc) by modulating our own brain chemistry.

Human-computer interaction

Human–computer interaction (HCI) is the study of interaction between people (users) and computers. A brain–computer interface (BCI), sometimes called a direct neural interface or a brain–machine interface, is a direct communication pathway between a brain and an external device.

The future is here. Take a look at these two videos from TED showcasing recent and amazing advances.

Synthetic life

I've talked about synthetic biology before (see here). This video from TED comes straight from the pioneer who created the first synthetic lifeform. The science is amazing, the ethics are profound and it puts a whole new spin on the concept of creationism (yes, as an atheist, I am being ironic). This, no doubt, opens up a new era in science which needs to be dealt with responsibly.

Scent Bomb

Have you ever walked past Lush? That's the shop you can smell 200 meters away that makes smelly bathroom products. It has been around for a long time and everyone knows it as the shop that smells. Well it is not the only one. Lots of businesses are starting to develop their own scent brand - the view is that it helps make a distinct emotional connection with the consumer. Is this a new fad or something for the long term? Is this ethical? How much work goes on behind the scenes to get the right scent? Is it a form of air pollution? The questions go on...

In a recent article in Business Week, the latest ambition is to plant a scent bomb into a low income housing development in New York in an attempt to make the residents happier. Smell does affect mood - we don't need scientists to tell us that. So the concept is sound. And if there are ways of helping people then lets do it. I just hope it is used responsibly and does not turn our high streets into an overwhelming and unpleasant experience. There is something nice and comforting with consistency - even if it is the consistent smell of background pollution.

Genetically modified crops, nanotechnology and synthetic biology

I have talked previously about fashion issues - issues which are at the front of society's mind then fade away as the next issue takes centre stage (see here). One of the issues I mentioned was genetically modified crops. If you go back a decade, there was a global outcry at the prospect of breeding GM crops for human consumption. Monsanto pulled out of the UK market and research grants for plant science declined. This was largely due to negative public sentiment - governments had to respond. The science was sound but the companies who were pioneering the research did an awful job of explaining the science and bringing comfort to the public. Fortunately, research did continue and Europe continues to invest in and mature the science. However, a variety of maize that has been banned by the EU, was accidentally sown in Germany (see here). This is a mistake. The interesting thing is that this never made front page news and the public seem uninterested. Greenpeace made a statement and the German government is taking action to remove the planted seed before it flowers. However, research continues, government have policy and EU member states have ageed to two GM varieties which can be grown commercially. This is progress. And I believe it is partly possible because the populace are not interested... Just another fashion issue.

Remember nanotechnology and grey goo, made popular by Prince Charles in 2004? The scientists learned from the GM crop problems and played a fantastic game of PR - offering seminars, co-chaired with government officials, wooing the media. The public were not interested and any controversy related to nanotechnology was quietly retired.

Synthetic biology is the latest controversy (see here for a definition). Perhaps the name is a little contentious as it does sound a bit like 'playing god'. However, it is more like experiments in engineering than creating Eve from Adam's rib. Recently, for example, a synthetic cell was made from generating DNA fragments artificially and transplanting it into another cell which was able to reproduce (see here). The bits required to propagate the cell lineage existed already in the recipient cell although the DNA was made artificially. So it is more about augmentation than creation. The production of non-native proteins in cells has been happening for decades so Synthetic Biology, in this case, is only a step forward to offer a new method for producing desired proteins in a 'foreign' bacterium.

Franken-cell? Should we really be so afraid? The answer is in the application and we have seen this all before. Providing the science is responsible, a set of ethical standards are developed and adhered to within the research community (public and private sector) and governments take an early interest...not to mention some good PR...the benefits to humanity should be clear for all to see.

Watch Idiocracy streaming

A great movie from 2006. It's all too true. What are we doing as a species? How is it that we have failed to value intelligence, knowledge and wisdom? It is our responsibility to safeguard the future of the planet and this starts with valuing and preserving the basics.

Buying without buying

In a recent study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, it was demonstrated that purchasing behaviour is predictable and not dependent upon the level of attention paid to specific products (see here). This is an important piece of scientific research to support Fred Dretske's research around epistemology, specifically Perception without Awareness.

Here is a video where Dretske describes his work. Fascinating.

Brain scans as lie detectors

I have talked about the use of technology that reads brain patterns - and the applications that we are starting to see (see here). This technology is new and experimental. As in all cases, the robustness of the theory is yet to be fully corroborated through rigorous field testing. While the potential uses are unquestionable, the reliability of the application will take time to validate. This week, experts warned that measures are needed to stop brain scans being misused by courts, insurers and employers (see here) as evidence of people lying.

Clearly the technology, in this case imaging technology (not EEG), is courting attention - a welcome indicator of the sign of things to come. But anticipate this boom in commercialising bioscience, with neuromarketing being another application, to be enveloped in ethical debate and government policy.

Neuromarketing

Neuromarketing is a new field of marketing that studies consumers' sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective response to marketing stimuli. Researchers use technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain, electroencephalography (EEG) to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in one's physiological state (heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it. Marketing analysts will use neuromarketing to better measure a consumer's preference, as the verbal response given to the question, "Do you like this product?" may not always be the true answer due to cognitive bias. This knowledge will help marketers create products and services designed more effectively and marketing campaigns focused more on the brain's response. This makes neuromarketing and its applied results potentially subliminal. Neuromarketing will tell the marketer what the consumer reacts to, whether it was the color of the packaging, the sound the box makes when shaken, or the idea that they will have something their co-consumers do not.

Here is a video on the subject (you have to wait for the advert to pass - sorry but I can't do anything about it).






Beyond subliminal advertising, Darpa (the Pentagon's innovation department) has invested $4m in an attempt to help soldiers communicate by telepathy. See this link: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push/

This truly is mad science but the ideas are sound. Using EEG, if a device can collect, transmit, receive and translate brain waves, soldiers will be able to communicate by telepathy.

Judge me on my intent

I previously raised the question of judging someone based on their actions or intent. It seems that scientists have taken us one step towards answering this question. When we are faced with a simple task, scientists are able to predict our actions by analysing our brain activity in real time. These simple tasks can be adding or subtracting two numbers. By scanning our brains, scientists can predict our intent before we are consciously aware.

Here is an article from New Scientist that describes the work.

This form of mind reading leads to a philosophical and ethical consideration. If our intent is a true and unconscious reflection of our belief system, do our actions always mirror our intent? The answer has to be 'no'. We have a conscious filter that stops us acting on gut instinct, that forces us to behave appropriately in polite situations. If someone were to commit a crime would they be guilty if their intent was never to take part - perhaps they had been coerced, or felt obliged for some reason?

As we learn more about the brain, society will need to hold these debates. As we, individually, learn more about the brain, we have a responsibility to increase our self awareness and be 1) mindful of our intent 2) conscious of our actions.

Global cooling

With all the attention on global warming, are we about to be saved by the sun's inactivity? In a recent article published in Environmental Research Letters from Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading, it looks like we're entering into an historic low in solar activity which is resulting in cooler, drier winters. This is a trend seen every few hundred years. So as the world is heating up (maybe), as the atmosphere is becoming polluted with greenhouse gasses (maybe) and politicians and scientists can't agree on a way forward...are we about to be saved by mother nature?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8615789.stm

Le Chatelier's principle is: if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change. This is similar to the Gaia principle in which the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth maintain a preferential homeostasis. In other words, systems have a way of correcting themselves. Perhaps humanity is about to have a lucky break.

Are people inherently good?

The Bible, Confucius, Sharia law and the Constitution of the United States of America are all historical examples of guidelines that set out the proper behaviour of people. This begs the question: if people are inherently good, altruistic may be a better word, and act for the greater good of their communities why have certain behaviours been mandated again and again through thousands of years of history? Agreed they all have their nuances. But fundamentally they all state a series of rules, rituals, principles or laws that are to be followed without question. There are, of course, cases where the rules have evolved – the best example in Western culture is the evolution and reinterpretation of Jewish law by the Christians and even differences have evolved between different Jewish and Christian groups.

If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.

If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.

Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.

Racist? Sexist?

Are we really as balanced and considered as we like to think? Is our thinking process truly rational? Do we have valid defences to our reasoning?

Project Implicit uses the Implicit Association Test to scientifically demonstrate our unconscious prejudiced associations. Gender, race, religion etc.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

It is controversial - the data says what it says. We exist in a society of 'equal opportunities' but is this how our minds really work.

Take the tests and challenge your thinking.