"Researchers" say, CONFORM - or your brain will SHRINK!

[Jerry Biggers]

Where is Rand's "The Horror File" (a section of The Objectivist devoted to examples of irrationality equal, or worse than, what Rand described in Atlas Shrugged) when we really need it!

Try this choice example of using "scientific research" as an idelogical club:

http://www.philly.co...phy__Study.html

The "scientists" claim to have found that ANY thought or belief held by individuals that does not conform to the mainstream views of society - whether "born again" christians or nonbelievers - will experience "stress" that will shrink their hippocampus! No, really! According to the reporter, the researchers who performed this study come right out and say it.

I wonder how these "researchers" would explain the fact that most scientific discoveries have come from those who did not conform, but instead have a critical and questioning mind?

[Reidy]

This is not surprising. If the subjects were born again, they're decades younger than the members of the control group, who were born only once. Thus you'd expect the born-again brains to be smaller.

[studiodekadent]

I think you're reading something into the study that isn't there.

"Nonconformity Can Be Stressful" = Duh. "Stress can shrink the hippocampus" might be a possibility.

But "smaller brain = dumber" is simply not true and the study does not allege that nonconformity will make you dumber.

Believe me, if a study said precisely this I'd rage non stop against it. I'm the most militant nonconformist you will ever find. But the study merely alleges that the stress associated with holding non-mainstream social beliefs may have neurological implications. Its a preliminary study that needs to be replicated and verified.

In short, Chillax.

[syrakusos]

First of all, you should read the actual paper itself, not a newspaper summary.

Here is the link to the full paper:

Religious Factors and Hippocampal Atrophy in Late Life

Amy D. Owen1, R. David Hayward2,3*, Harold G. Koenig1,2,4, David C. Steffens2,4, Martha E. Payne2,3

1 Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America, 2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America, 3 Neuropsychiatric Imaging Research Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America, 4 Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America

Abstract: Despite a growing interest in the ways spiritual beliefs and practices are reflected in brain activity, there have been relatively few studies using neuroimaging data to assess potential relationships between religious factors and structural neuroanatomy. This study examined prospective relationships between religious factors and hippocampal volume change using high-resolution MRI data of a sample of 268 older adults. Religious factors assessed included life-changing religious experiences, spiritual practices, and religious group membership. Hippocampal volumes were analyzed using the GRID program, which is based on a manual point-counting method and allows for semi-automated determination of region of interest volumes. Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was observed for participants reporting a life-changing religious experience. Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was also observed from baseline to final assessment among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again. These associations were not explained by psychosocial or demographic factors, or baseline cerebral volume. Hippocampal volume has been linked to clinical outcomes, such as depression, dementia, and Alzheimer's Disease. The findings of this study indicate that hippocampal atrophy in late life may be uniquely influenced by certain types of religious factors.

Jerry Biggers asks: "I wonder how these "researchers" would explain the fact that most scientific discoveries have come from those who did not conform, but instead have a critical and questioning mind?"

The study showed cumulative affects, not acute affects. Disagreeing once does not shrink the hippocampus, but a lifetime of being outcast does. Those who were successful (Edison, Ford, Gates, Jobs) would have found social support. In addition, they were non-conformist in early life. The consequences suggested are cumulative. Furthermore, discovering a new mousetrap is not a religious experience that makes you question your deepest beliefs. Invention and discovery in technical fields (including fine arts) would be expected behavior, supported within a society of innovators. The authors suggest that profound religious experiences are personally unsettling as well as socially isolating. And it correlates with depression, which would seem to be suggested by many life course histories of inventors, creators, and innovators.

On that second aspect, I do point out that here as on other Objectivist boards, yea-saying, and hand-holding, and group hugs are rare. That suggests something supported by this study, though not investigated directly: the inverse relationship between social support and dementia. However, a more cogent interrogation might consider a supporting group that rewards non-conformity with attention.

If anything is to be questioned about this study, it is the function of the hippocampus and its (apparently putative) affects on depression, dementia, and Alzheimer's. Over the years, three main ideas of hippocampal function have dominated the literature: inhibition, memory, and space. (Wikipedia here.)

[Jerry Biggers]

Thanks to both of you for the detailed responses,

but I think that your interpretations of the published study grants it much more credibility than it deserves. Its methodology and conclusions have been called into question, elsewhere. (References will be provided in my next post on this issue).

Michael: Indeed, one should read the source paper and not just what some media reporter claims it said.

I did read the article, and the critical comments made in The Scientific American and also the references with links to other critiques, at its original online publication website.

I do not agree with your observation that innovators and other creative types were only nonconformist in early life. The innovators you cite, and many more which can be found in their biographies and/or autobiographies, did not cease their nonconformity just because their discoveries or innovations were given more credence by their peers, and by others, in society. Opposition to the innovator, and to his findings, often continued and in some cases increased.

The implications of your observation, "Disagreeing once does not shrink the hippocampus, but a lifetime of being outcast does". is rather startling. First, where exactly has this "shrinksage of the hippocampus" been postulated, and what evidence was produced? And where has this alleged shrinkage been conclusively linked to those holding nonconformist views and lifestyles (other than this inadequate, if not inept, research paper).

As is mentioned in some critiques of this paper, some "shrinkage" of the volume of the brain occurs naturally with aging. Alarming as that sounds, it has not been definitively linked to decline in mental capacity. Some very bright people maintain their mental capacity well into their eighties, and beyond. Alzheimer's disease, for example, is not defined by "brain shrinkage," but by a constellation of symptoms, most prominently, the development or increase in amyloid plaques in brain tissue.

By the way, if you really hold to your assertions in your post, then some of the prime foundations of Rand's views on individualism, creativity, technological progress,social change theory, etc., are completely wrong (Which, of course, could be true, but most arguments against both the foundations and the conclusions of Objectivism have not been able to demonstrate this. Rather, I think the evidence from human history supports her conclusions), especially her statements on these issues as expressed most eloquently in The Fountainhead, in Roark's trial speech.

For a diametrically opposite view on the relationship (and value) of nonconformity, social isolation, to creativity see, in particular, "Solitude: A Return to the Self," (1988) by Anthony Storr. Also, a more recent effort, "Party of One: The Loner's Manifesto," by Anneli Rufus.

According to your second paragraph, all us proto/neo/open/orthodox Objectivists are careening down into the abyss of dementia and into the clutches of the "ignorance is bliss" happy-farms (i.e., nursing homes). Could be. There certainly is enough schismatic craziness to cause "stress", not to mention the generally hostile reception to Rand as expressed in the MSM and in academia. In the first case, (the internecine schisms), they are evidence of the "tribalism" and "group-think" described by David Kelley and others. But if so, that is the opposite of the (media reported) conclusion of the research study. That is, adherence to group conformity, not independent thinking, causes mental distress.

Your third paragraph passes over the inadequate design of this study (which, in itself, invalidates its conclusions) and refers to the controversies over the role of the hippocampus, which are interesting, but not conclusive, and do not sufficiently support.the contentions of the researchers.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Reidy]

As fate would ordain, Weekly Standard has just published an article about politically tendentious research in the social sciences.

[anthony]

Interesting.

My girl-friend's mother contracted Alzheimer's, and I saw the terribly destructive stages of it over years until her death.

It so happened that she had a few years earlier become a Jehovah's Witness - from an irreligious, vivacious, tennis-playing, writer and reader - to all the narrowness of that cult.

I wondered about a possible connection many times - but no, Alzheimer's IS a genetic and physical disease of the brain, a form of dementia, disconnected from cognitive/behavioral influence, according to neurologists. As far as I know.

Certainly it has nothing to do with ageing.

[Reidy]

If this research stands up to scrutiny and to attempts to reproduce its results, I can think of some alternative interpretations. One, which I haven't seen on this thread, is that religion, not noncomformity, makes your brain smaller (i.e. literally). Another, which #7 touches on, is that people get into fringe religions because their brain is starting to go, not the other way around. Either should sit better with the current readership.

[Jerry Biggers]

The researchers had another category, imprecisely labelled as "nonreligious," which also showed evidence of "shrinkage" of the hippocampus. Hence, they used "nonconformity" as the uniting criteria.

A point which has not been raised here, is that the hypotheses and the conclusions of the study appear to suspiciously match the stated views of one of the grantors, the John Templeton Foundation. However, some critics of the study interpret its findings as questioning the healthful benefits of religion and therefore not to the liking of the Foundation. The disparate evaluations of this study as to what it actually says, is partly the result of its poor methodology, study design, and selection and size of the sample populations. This is a polite way to say that it is "junk science."

The John Templeton Foundation also set up the institute of which the researchers are employed. Templeton invested his millions into a foundation whose goal was to fund efforts to support the value (actually, the necessity) of religious faith. This raises the issue as to how objective the researchers were in conducting this study. But, even if there was a "conflict of interest" issue (i.e., that they found what the Templeton Foundation "wanted" them to find), that in itself it does not invalidate its conclusions. The study must be evaluated on its merits.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

First of all, you should read the actual paper itself, not a newspaper summary.

Here is the link to the full paper:

... Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was observed for participants reporting a life-changing religious experience. Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was also observed from baseline to final assessment among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again. These associations were not explained by psychosocial or demographic factors, or baseline cerebral volume.

Michael,

There's also another possible explanation than conformity. When people stop thinking deeply about what the meaning of life is, once they become sure (like born-again Christians or fundamentalist atheists), they no longer use the part of their mind that seeks answers to this. They know, so no further thinking is needed for anything other than reinforcement.

Since the hippocampus is greatly involved in emotions at a really low level and fundamentalists have cut off their brain use for many "big picture" emotions (positive and negative) by simply refusing to seek further into any "big picture" issues, it stands to reason that less use leads to atrophy. I'm presupposing that contemplating the meaning of life cuts into emotions at the hippocampal level.

Here's an example of what I mean: death. Fundamentalists are 100% certain of what will happen when they die--or, at least they try to be. Fundamentalist atheists are certain it's all over and fundamentalist Christians are certain of heaven and hell. The idea of "what if?" doesn't arise in their minds. And when it does, they shoo it away as weakness or sin.

To people who introspect a lot on "what if?", the idea of personal death brings a very rich spectrum of emotions with it--ranging from terror to blind hope at the extremes--depending on the rest of the thought. And it's all peppered with a strong sense of need for more information before committing (even if this is not always verbalized).

I imagine that "nonreligious" people (and that would include "non-philosophical" in my speculation) don't use their hippocampus much in this manner because they simply don't think about the meaning of life often or deeply.

It's funny, but I've never had a problem identifying fundamentalist Christians of the goody-goody two-shoes type. It's all over their faces--a kind of soft smoothness in their forehead and muscles around their wide eyes. I wonder if this is related to hippocampal atrophy.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

As I said, no need to attach a lot of significance to this study, because it is "junk science," or at least poorly-done, unverifiable science (if that qualifies as a separate category from junk science). Of course, I was the one that started this thread in the first place!

"What is the meaning of life?" has the implicit assumption that something, some higher Intelligence, created humans for some specific purpose. According to the fundie types, that purpose is Serve God, to praise Him and to give one's self up to God (which clearly means that God has some specific purpose for you, which is, of course, the "meaning of life").

From an atheist standpoint, (which does not accept the idea of an incorporeal, non-material, Intelligence that created everything and that intervenes in human affairs), the term, meaning of life, only makes sense if it refers to what meaning each individual decides to give to his/her life.

Michael, your comment about the facial expressions of the fundamentalist goody-goody two shoes type is something we have all encountered. A number of years ago, I was in Salt Lake City, and visited their main tabernacle, which is a showpiece in the center of town. You cannot walk by this place, much less go on their tour of temples areas open for non-Mormons, without being accosted by young earnest types, Mormon "missionaries" eager to convert you to their faith. They all had that same expression characteristic of the "born again" Christians that you referred to. They are all exceedingly polite. When I asked one if she ever questioned the tenants of the Mormon faith (which has some Grand Canyon [actually, more like Valles Marineris])-size gaps in credibility around Joseph Smith's accounts, she replied "No." With the same blank ("mindless"?) expression. Which, incidentally, is the identical answer that Mormon Senator Orrin G. Hatch gave when a TV reporter asked him the same thing.

Whether this belief system has shrunk their hippocampus, I haven't a clue. Or even if that would make any difference. I have enough problems trying to deal with my hippocampus, as well as all the other body parts competing to shrivel up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I didn't mean to slight you. I actually was going to address the post to you, but since I used Michael's quote, I figured that wouldn't make any sense.

"Meaning of life" is a big issue and we all think about it at times--some more than others, of course. And some deeper than others. I don't agree that just asking the question implies a higher intelligence (in human terms), but I do hold that the question implies something higher. For instance, the universe (or reality) works for me. That is bigger than mankind.

So you could ask, did the universe create humans or did humans emerge from the universe? I say both.

Religious people say God created us (being that God created the universe to them) and atheists tend to say that we emerged from the universe.

I see how "create" and "emerge" can be mutually exclusive concepts, but I don't see how humans can know such exclusivity in terms of how human beings came about. That's why I say both. It makes more sense to me. Granted, my knowledge of this is projection, not direct observation. I see form being imposed and I see form emerging in the universe. I understand that humans are part of the universe, so I see this process applying to the human species.

(But nothing by any gigantic white bearded dude in a robe... )

On another note, I have also seen that Dobie Gillis "wholesome pureness-like" facial expression on Muslims and, believe it or not, communists.

In Brazil, I knew some really pure innocent people who were communists. I don't know if they still are, but when I think about them, I do so fondly. Actually, they probably are not communists anymore.

There was not a spec of evil in them. They honestly thought big corporate wealth and power always meant war and oppression--and they called that capitalism. All they wanted to do was protect themselves and those they loved. (I think I put a crack in their belief, system, though. )

And boy do I hear you on each taking care of his own hippocampus.

Michael