Harry Magnet's Blog

David Brooks on American Politics

2011-12-31T13:00:00.002-05:00

David Brooks has an interesting perspective on American politics and public policy. A New York Times Op-Ed columnist, his viewpoint can be described as moderately conservative (a vanishing breed in contemporary American politics). His commentary is informed by a humanities and social sciences perspective that is rare among political analysts today. I earlier blogged about his criticism of the current American meritocracy. I want to talk today about two of his recent columns that provide an interesting perspective on what’s wrong with our political thinking. While he doesn’t provide specific solutions, he talks about some failings among both parties, along with how we need to change our thinking about what we want government to do. As we enter the election year 2012, in which Americans will choose between the same tired and failed alternatives, it’s important to think about our political problems in a different way, as Brooks does.

His first article entitled The Two Moons, is named after Samuel Lubell’s concept of a “political solar system.” Lubell, writing in the 1950’s, proposed the idea that at any moment there’s a Sun Party (the majority party) and a Moon Party (the minority party). The Sun Party drives the agenda, and the Moon Party (which shines by reflecting the Sun’s rays) opposes the Sun Party. During the New Deal, the Democrats were the Sun Party. During the Reagan Revolution, the Republicans were. Between 1996 and 2004, the two parties were tied. This was a transition time, in which from historical experience a Sun Party usually emerges. But no Sun Party emerged. No party was able to take the lead; they both are now Moon Parties. Both Republicans and Democrats have record low approval ratings. “Neither party has been able to rally the country behind its vision of government.”

Having two simultaneous minority parties leads to strange outcomes. Both parties embrace minority mentalities. Democrats feel oppressed by big business and big finance, while Republicans feel oppressed by big government and the big liberal establishment (the media, academics, judges, artists, Hollywood, etc.). Neither side wants to compromise, feeling that the outside world, and especially members of the opposing party, are hostile. They instinctively protect their special interests (labor unions, the poor, the old, and minorities for Democrats; the rich, big business, big finance, and evangelicals for Republicans), and refuse to engage or try to convert outsiders. Neither party engages in serious internal debates, and moderates are no longer welcome.

The Two Moon era is volatile. Voters reject one party, then two years later reject the other party. That happened in the 2008 and 2010 elections, which had a historically large shift from Democrat to Republican. Usually, minority parties suffer a string of election defeats, promoting modernization and revision. The Republicans’ defeats in 2006 and 2008 did help promote internal change via the Tea Party. But rather than owning up to the failures of their neoconservative ideology, and moving more to the center, Tea Party Republicans pushed the party to an extreme libertarian agenda. The Republicans’ 2010 victory encouraged them to act like a Sun Party, trying to force their Tea Party agenda, but were stymied by the fact that they were not a true majority party, and that Democrats controlled the Senate and Presidency. The Democrats’ defeat in 2010, along with subsequent Republican intransigence, is making the Democrats become more extreme. Even if they win big in 2012, however, they do not have the broad-based support to become a Sun Party.

How will the Two Moon era become resolved? Brooks suggests either a third party or a crisis. A third party faces enormous obstacles in the American political context, as discussed in this article. A third-party presidential run has always lost, but sometimes (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, or Ross Perot in 1992) can spoil an election. Even in the unlikely event that a third-party candidate can win the election, he’ll have to govern with a Congress in which almost all members are Republicans or Democrats. For a third party to make fundamental changes in government, it needs to control both the executive and legislative branch, which the American political system makes virtually impossible.

This leaves a crisis as a way to break the Two Moon deadlock. It’s possible that a financial panic and/or war will force some major political change. Exactly how the events will unfold and what the responses will be are impossible to determine, but the American political system will have to undergo a radical (and painful) transformation for the Two Moon deadlock to become resolved.

* * *

Brooks’ second article is entitled Midlife Crisis Economics. Brooks criticizes the Obama’s administration’s historical accuracy. When the administration first came to power in 2009, it compared the current situation to the 1930’s, and promoted a second New Deal. Obamacare was a product of this thinking, a successor of ambitious social legislation like Social Security. The problem is that the public’s perception of government has radically changed since the New Deal. “Today, Americans are more likely to fear government than be reassured by it.”

The Obama Administration then switched historical analogies from the New Deal to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Obama’s “Roosevelt Speech” in Kansas). There are some similarities between today and a century ago. “Then, as now, we are seeing great concentrations of wealth, especially at the top.” But the differences outweigh the similarities. The economy was much different back then, a vibrant jobs machine at the height of the industrial era. The information age we live in today is not a jobs machine. The industrial decline and elimination of jobs due to outsourcing/offshoring/automation was taking place well before the current recession. Factories that used to employ 1000 workers can now produce more products while employing fewer than 100 workers.

Inequality, while due partially to government policy, has a structural economic component that would be difficult to reverse (short of communism). Inequality is growing in all developed countries, including ones (e.g. Sweden and Germany) that have much more generous welfare states.

Brooks succinctly summarizes the essential differences between today and a century ago: “In the progressive era, the economy was in its adolescence and the task was to control it. Today the economy is middle-aged; the task is to rejuvenate it.” A century ago there were few or no government agencies, institutions, or regulations to protect workers, the sick, the disabled, the old, children, minorities, etc. Today, we have more than enough government; the challenge is to make government more effective. We need to reform existing programs to make them deliver more services at less cost.

Brooks also talks about the moral differences between today and the progressive era. The beginning of the twentieth century was still a time of Victorian culture, with its strict moral code. Individuals and the government taking on debt that they had no hope of repaying would have been considered sinful. Illegitimacy and divorce were culturally prohibited and very rare.

These moral differences have major practical consequences. It’s obvious today what harm the contemporary embracing of public and private debt has caused our economy. Subprime and other risky mortgages led directly to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession. Deficit financing that the American federal government has been doing routinely for decades has led to a buildup of unsustainable debt, and is preventing the government from responding in an appropriate way to the magnitude of the current crisis. The fact that 40% of American children are born out of wedlock leads to a number of social and mental health problems that were unknown a century ago. These problems, including crime, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, dangerous neighborhoods, failed schools, etc., forces the government to intervene in family life and child upbringing, and spend billions of dollars that it otherwise would not have had to spend.

My favorite quote from this article is the following: “One hundred years ago, we had libertarian economics but conservative values. Today we have oligarchic economics and libertarian moral values — a bad combination.” It’s important to understand that the last (and only) time that libertarian economics was ever practiced, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in America, Britain, and (to a lesser extent) in other Western European countries, was a time of strict conservative Victorian morality. There is no historical example of a combination of libertarian economics and libertarian morality. There is no contemporary example of libertarian economics. Contemporary countries with strong, rapidly growing, export-oriented economies, e.g. China, are anything but libertarian.

Ron Paul’s fans need to understand that they are advocating an experimental system, something never before tried. They also need to understand that the rise of American government deficit spending, regulation, waste, inefficiency, and all the other things they complain about occurred during a time of increasing libertarian morality. It was the 1960’s embrace of individual social liberty, of personal and sexual freedom from authority, of licentiousness, that represented a cultural revolution, something unique in history. The trend for increasing individual social freedom and autonomy has only increased since the 1960’s. During that period, government deficit spending, regulation, litigation, interference with the economy, waste, fraud, and incompetence has also increased. The two are clearly correlated; it’s impossible to prove whether libertarian morality caused the explosion of government spending and regulation.

Note that Brooks said that we have “oligarchic economics” in America today, not “socialist economics.” The distinction is important. It implies that libertarian ideas did in fact influence not only social and cultural life, but also the economy. Instead of moving toward the libertarian ideal of limited government, however, we moved toward a corrupt, oligarchic form of government, one in which the rich and powerful use a bloated government to become more rich and powerful. The most egregious example is explosion in growth of the financial sector, which occurred after libertarian-inspired deregulation. The investment banks won the freedom to gamble on risky mortgage-based securities, a gamble that led to the 2008 crisis. Unlike in a truly free market, they felt secure enough to make these gambles knowing that the government would bail them out.

As usual, Brooks has no specific solutions to the problems he talks about. “The job is to restore old disciplines, strip away decaying structures and reform the welfare state. The country needs a productive midlife crisis.” I’d agree with that, but how is it going to happen? How can we reform an oligarchic government while maintaining libertarian moral values? How can people from different socioeconomic status, intelligence, race, age, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. come together and agree on anything, when libertarian morality tells them to pursue their own self interest no matter the social cost? Will they be willing to make sacrifices for the common good, whether it take the form of accepting fewer government benefits, more taxation, or a combination of the two? I doubt it. My view is that the “productive midlife crisis” our country needs must include a serious re-evaluation of the permissive morality that has been dominant since the 1960’s.

Daylight Saving Time Change = Mood Change?

2011-11-07T12:24:00.002-05:00

I’ve updated my Are You Sensitive page to include two additional tests of possible sensitivity to the Earth’s magnetic field. One is any mood change from the daylight saving time change. In the U.S., we set our clocks back an hour yesterday (Sunday, November 6). I noticed a mood change this morning. I also have a mood change when the spring ahead time change happens in March. Why does the daylight saving time change cause a mood change in magnetoreceptive people? It has to do with circadian rhythms, internal rhythms that are approximately one day in length. I’ve found that circadian rhythm affects both my mood and my ability to locate my magnetic home. When we shift our clocks forward or backward, one of my circadian rhythms changes, and this change causes symptoms. I’ve found ways to compensate, including going to bed earlier in the fall, and later in the spring.

The second additional test is the presence of seasonal changes in symptoms. Although the daylight saving time change is associated with seasonal changes, I have something different in mind here. Winter depression is an example of a seasonal change in symptoms. Unlike the daylight saving time change, which happens once in the fall and once in the late winter, seasonal depression and other seasonal symptoms are more gradual. They get progressively worse before the solstice and better after the solstice. Magnetoreceptive people can have seasonal symptoms when the location they’re living in is far enough north or south of where they grew up. During childhood, seasonal changes in day length are “programmed in”, and your body expects similar seasonal changes throughout your life. If you live far enough north or south of where you grew up, day length around the solstices can be different enough for your body to notice it. For example, if you live in New York and grew up in Florida, in New York you’ll have fewer hours of daylight in December than you did when living in Florida. Your body reacts to this difference, causing symptoms. I don’t think that the symptoms are caused, as commonly believed, to it being too dark in the winter. I had winter and summer seasonal symptoms when I lived in North Carolina, which was about 600 km (370 miles) south of where I grew up (New Jersey). These symptoms consisted of sleep problems, anxiety, tics, and agitation. I didn’t have seasonal symptoms when I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, which, while being far west of New Jersey, is close in north-south distance to it. The best way to compensate for seasonal symptoms is to move away from the place that is causing symptoms. If that’s not possible, then temporarily increasing dosage of medication to get through the tough times, or using a bright light box can be helpful for some people.

A Psychiatrist Criticizes His Own Profession: A Review of “Unhinged” by Daniel Carlat

2011-09-24T16:46:00.007-04:00

It’s not news that the profession of psychiatry is in a crisis state. I’ve talked about problems with psychiatry on this blog, and there have been many books, articles, and blogs written criticizing psychiatry. There’s no shortage of things to criticize. The fact that there is little understanding of the neurobiology of psychopathology, that there are no diagnostic tests for psychiatric disorders, that drugs have become widely prescribed with little evidence supporting their long-term efficacy, that most psychiatrists have become exclusively pill pushers, eschewing the need to understand and connect to their patients beyond a 15 minute med check, and that many psychiatrists have allowed themselves to be corrupted by drug money, are some of the problems with contemporary psychiatry.

Daniel Carlat, in his book Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry—A Doctor’s Revelations about a Profession in Crisis, provides an insider’s look at the problems with psychiatry. Carlat was motivated to pursue a career in psychiatry because of his depressed mother’s suicide. He begins his book by giving an account of his medical training. Much of what he learned from the medical school curriculum and clinical rotations was useless in his later practice. Psychiatrists don’t perform surgeries, don’t order lab tests (except to rule out rare physical problems), and (usually) don’t order brain scans. They diagnose based on symptoms, which is what all doctors used to do before the twentieth century, but which is only a minor part of medical diagnosis today. Psychiatrists, like other doctors, prescribe drugs, so they need to understand psychopharmacology, but as Carlat describes in his book their decisions about medications are usually subjective.

Carlat did his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), beginning in 1992, after the introduction of second generation antidepressants like Prozac. Although his supervisors were divided between therapy and drug advocates, Carlat admits that “the main thing you learn in a psychiatric residency, then or now, is how to write prescriptions” (p. 34). After completing his residency, Carlat, like most psychiatrists of his generation, specialized in psychopharmacology, i.e. prescribing drugs. He saw patients for 15 to 20 minute medication visits. The reason why he and other psychiatrists did this was that it was more profitable. Seeing three patients an hour for med checks allowed him to make about $180 an hour minus expenses. Seeing one patient an hour for therapy allowed him to make between $80 to $100 an hour, which is about 50% less. Carlat blames managed care companies for forcing psychiatrists into becoming pill pushers. But managed care companies can’t force psychiatrists to do something that they don’t believe in. The “key opinion leaders” in psychiatry, those leading academic psychiatrists who set the direction of their profession via their research and publications, are fanatical advocates of the biochemical/drug paradigm. This advocacy is quite profitable for them, as Carlat describes in his book.

Carlat talks about his experiences as a “hired gun,” someone who is paid (i.e. bought out) by drug companies. Carlat worked for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals to promote the antidepressant drug Effexor to primary care doctors. He made $750 per talk. He describes that although he was officially an “expert consultant,” in reality he was basically a highly-credentialed salesman. Sales reps attended his talks, and they communicated to him via body language and other feedback whether he was doing what they expected of him, i.e. to promote their product. When he tried to be more balanced and neutral, they criticized him. He eventually gave up his hired gun position.

Although Carlat was a minor figure among the drug company hired guns, he assumes that the same thought processes and corruption happened among the more famous and successful psychiatrists. He discusses the Senator Grassley investigations of several key opinion leaders in psychiatry, including:

Melissa DelBello, a researcher who was paid $180,000 by AstraZeneca to promote the antipsychotic drug Seroquel.
Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens, and Thomas Spencer of MGH, who were paid a combined $4.2 million by drug companies over a 7 year period. These men also received taxpayer money in the form of NIH research grants, which explicitly disallows such large drug company income. Biederman and colleagues pioneered the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in toddlers, which has led to thousands of preschool children receiving drug cocktails including powerful antipsychotics.
Alan Schatzberg of Stanford, president of the American Psychiatric Association, controlled more than $4.8 million of stock in Corcept Therapeutics, a company he cofounded to test a drug to treat psychotic depression. He was also the principal investigator of a huge NIH study to test the same drug. This combination represented a major conflict of interest.
Charles Nemeroff, chairman of the department of psychiatry at Emory University, earned $2.8 million from consulting arrangements, but failed to disclose at least $1.2 million. Some of this money was from the drug company GlaxoSmithKline, whose drugs Nemeroff was studying with $3.9 million of taxpayer money.

Carlat describes the insidious methods that drug companies use to market their products to psychiatrists. He used the epilepsy drug Neurontin as an example. The evidence in favor of Neurontin’s effectiveness for treating psychiatric disorders was poor, and did not meet the FDA’s criteria for effectiveness. Warner-Lambert, the drug company that introduced this drug, decided to illegally market it off-label for various disorders, including bipolar disorder, pain, and anxiety. The company bribed doctors to prescribe Neurontin, and hired marketing firms to ghost-write articles pushing this drug. It also paid doctors to allow drug reps to shadow them during their patient visits. These drug reps persuaded some doctors to prescribe Neurontin off-label. The sleazy techniques paid off, earning Warner-Lambert $2.7 billion in 2003 Neurontin sales, almost all of them from off-label uses.

Carlat describes his own experiences with the pharmaceutical marketing machine. One experience was a lavish party put on by Janssen, the manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, during the 1999 American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. Janssen rented the entire Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, with live jazz band, buffet food, and free drinks, all for the benefit of psychiatrists whom they wanted to prescribe Risperdal.

Another experience was with Valerie, his Ambien rep. Ambien, marketed by Sanofi-Aventis, was the first in a new category of non-benzodiazepine sleeping pill. Since Ambien was going off patent soon, Valerie tried to sell him Ambien CR (“Controlled Release”), a longer-acting drug than the original. Carlat was skeptical of the science behind the new pill. Valerie knew that he wasn’t prescribing much Ambien CR. She had access to this information since pharmacies have been selling their prescribing data to drug companies since the 1990’s. Valerie was persistent, offering a free medical textbook as a gift. Carlat prescribed Ambien CR to a patient, subconsciously or consciously reciprocating Valerie’s gift. The patient didn’t like the drug due to a hangover side effect. Carlat didn’t tell his patient that he prescribed Ambien CR as a favor to a drug rep.

Carlat criticizes the chemical imbalance theory. This theory, i.e. that depression is caused by a deficiency of the neurotransmitters serotonin and norepinephrine, and that schizophrenia is caused by too much dopamine, came about from discoveries of the pharmacology of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs. It’s now known that antidepressant drugs block the reuptake of serotonin and/or norepinephrine (thus increasing the amount of these neurotransmitters in the synapse). Antipsychotic drugs block dopamine receptors. The chemical imbalance theory took as a given that the drugs were effective, and that they were not just treating symptoms, but treating the biochemical cause of mental disorders.

There has been no direct evidence in favor of the chemical imbalance theory. Part of the problem with verifying the theory is that scientists can only indirectly measure neurotransmitters via breakdown products in the blood, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid, or post-mortem exams. The studies utilizing these techniques have been inconclusive for both depression and schizophrenia. The result is that since virtually all biological psychiatric research in the past several decades has been based on the chemical imbalance theory, “the shadow of our ignorance [of psychiatric disorders] overwhelms the few dim lights of our knowledge” (p. 80). Carlat admits that with the lack of a scientific basis for drug choice, prescribing is more of an art than a science. “To a remarkable degree, our choice of medications is subjective, even random. Perhaps your psychiatrist is in a Lexapro mood this morning, because he was just visited by an attractive Lexapro drug rep” (p. 83).

Carlat talks about the overdiagnosis of psychiatric disorders, which is caused by a combination of lack of scientific understanding of mental disorders, and greed. The DSM-IV, the “bible” of psychiatry, classifies mental disorders based on a list of symptoms. If you have five of the symptoms it mentions, you have depression. If you only have four, you don’t have depression. Since this symptom-based diagnosis is ultimately based on subjective or arbitrary factors, there is no way to prevent multiplication or redefinition of disorders. One of the criticisms of the upcoming revision (entitled “DSM-V”), is that new definitions of disorders would make it too easy to diagnose patients. An example is the proposed “prepsychotic” category, attempting to identify individuals who might in the future develop schizophrenia. In the words of Allen Frances, who was the chair of the DSM-IV committee, these broadened categories “would be a wholesale imperial medicalization of normality that will trivialize mental disorder and lead to a deluge of unneeded medication treatment” (p. 65).

The problems with the DSM also affect clinical practice. For example, bipolar disorder is a diagnosis in the DSM based on symptoms such as alternating manic and depressive episodes. This diagnosis was intended for adults, although sometimes older teenagers have these symptoms. Joseph Biederman and his colleagues at MGH decided to expand the diagnosis of bipolar disorder to toddlers. In 1996, Biederman published a paper reporting that nearly a quarter of children he was treating for ADHD also met his criteria for bipolar disorder. Since preschool children don’t have mania or depression, how could they have bipolar disorder? Biederman decided that irritability was a defining attribute for mania in young children, even in the absence of euphoria or grandiosity. How could he make this diagnostic change? It wasn’t based on science, since the neurobiology of bipolar disorder in adults or children is unknown. Biederman was able to do this, and get a lot of other psychiatrists to follow his lead, because he was a full professor at Harvard, next to God, in his own words, on the psychiatric prestige scale. His diagnostic change led to a forty-fold increase in the number of children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder. These children have been prescribed powerful drug cocktails, including antipsychotic drugs. The antipsychotic drugs have side effects such as sedation and weight gain that are much more harmful to children than adults. As I mentioned above, Biederman and colleagues received over $4 million dollars from drug companies, which was certainly a powerful incentive to expand diagnosis (and drug treatment) of bipolar disorder to children.

What is Carlat’s prescription for change in his broken profession? Carlat wants psychiatrists to go back to providing therapy, which can be balanced with medications. 15 minute medication checks are not sufficient to get to know a patient, to know what makes him tick. Sometimes changes in symptoms are not due to medications but life changes or stresses. Since most psychiatrists don’t have time to inquire about anything other than symptoms and medications, they are blind to what is going on in their patients’ lives. Carlat changed his own practice from exclusively 15-20 minute med checks, to somewhat longer medication sessions (20- 25 minutes), alternating with 45 minute therapy visits. He doesn’t use traditional psychodynamic therapy, but instead “a version of supportive therapy that I now try to weave into the fabric of all my sessions with patients, whether they are seeing me primarily for medications or for therapy” (p. 199).

Carlat also wants to see an alternative to medical school for training psychiatrists. He feels that medical school, in addition to be largely useless to future psychiatrists, indoctrinates these students into an excessively biomedical viewpoint. It also makes them feel inferior to other doctors, since psychiatry is in such a primitive state compared to the rest of medicine, and makes them feel superior to other mental health professionals, since psychiatrists have a medical degree. Carlat would like to see a new training program modeled on the “Doctorate in Mental Health” experiment in San Francisco in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This program combined two years of medical and psychological classes with three years of on-the-job training similar to a psychiatric residency. This shaved three years from the standard medical training, but unfortunately fizzled when psychiatrists successfully lobbied to prevent its graduates from being licensed. This program can be revived, and serve as a way to train new practitioners who would be better able to integrate drugs and therapy.

Carlat assumes that drugs are effective. In his book, he gives a number of case examples of patients who he says were helped by medications he prescribed. But how does he know that? His conclusions about drug effectiveness are based on his own clinical observations, which derive from 15 to 25 minute appointments. How can he, or any other psychiatrist, make any conclusion about effectiveness based on such short patient visits, and in the absence of any objective lab tests? Many people with mental disorders are in a complete state of denial about their condition. They are unable to recognize when they’re behaving strangely or irrationally. Family members and friends can usually notice changes, but they don’t always accompany a patient to a psychiatrist doctor visit. Even if they do, they may not speak up.

I have a personal example to support this. I have a relative who for years has been in denial about his depression, anxiety, paranoia, and OCD. When he went for his 10 minute medication visits (which was every month or every other month), he would tell his psychiatrist that everything was fine. His psychiatrist didn’t have time to ask probing questions or to try to make some independent observations. My relative's wife, who would drive him to the appointment and usually not go into the doctor’s office, was afraid to speak up. She was afraid because if she did speak up, my relative would become extremely angry, paranoid, and hostile, and blame her for triggering his bad mood, which would persist sometimes for days. So in the absence of any contradicting information, the doctor would usually tell him that he was doing great, and refill his prescriptions. This is pill pushing, not medicine. But it is the current standard of care in psychiatry.

I can give an example of where a 15 minute appointment would represent quality medical care. Let’s take a hypothetical example of Mary, who has diabetes. She is in denial about her condition. When she goes to the doctor, she tells him that she feels fine. He looks at her lab tests, however, and sees that her blood sugar is elevated. He tells her that she’s not fine, and then discusses possible causes for the elevated blood sugar, and prescribes a treatment plan. The doctor has an independent, objective source of information to balance Mary’s account of how she feels.

A psychiatrist doesn’t have any objective lab tests to balance a patient’s testimony. He needs more time to make an accurate diagnosis of the patient’s current state of mind. I think that an hour a patient is a bare minimum, even if the psychiatrist is only prescribing drugs, and not doing any therapy. In an hour, the psychiatrist has more time to observe and hear the patient, and ask questions. While it’s easy for a disturbed patient to put on an act for 15 minutes, it’s a lot harder do maintain this for 50 minutes. If a family member is present, it would also give the psychiatrist time to interview the family member away from the patient.

Psychiatrists, including Carlat, blame managed care companies for forcing them to have such short patient visits. But it is psychiatrists who set the standard of care for their profession. If leading psychiatrists said that they needed to see patients for a longer time, that 15 minute visits represented poor patient care and shouldn’t be reimbursed at all, and they lobbied the government, Medicare, and managed care companies to reimburse them at a higher rate for longer visits, then these changes would get made. Psychiatrists are not helpless pawns in the face of powerful entities, they have significant power themselves and can use that power to improve patient care.

Carlat doesn’t question the basic effectiveness of psychiatric drugs. His prescribing habits seem conventional, including prescribing drug cocktails. He gives an example of James, whom he calls a “typical success story of modern psychopharmacology” (p. 70). Carlat prescribed James five different medications, including Celexa for depression, Ativan for anxiety, Ambien for insomnia, Provigil for fatigue (a side effect of Celexa), and Viagra for erectile dysfunction (another side effect of Celexa). Is this a success story, even if James reported feeling happier? Carlat compares James to an old pickup truck, held together with baling wire and duck tape. Is turning patients into fragile jalopies a good thing?

Drug cocktails make it impossible to identify what drug is responsible for what side effect or reaction. How does one know if the patient’s fatigue or agitation is due to Drug A, Drug B, Drug C, the interaction between Drug A and Drug B, the interaction between Drug B and Drug C, or the interaction between Drug A and Drug C? This is for only 3 drugs. If a patient is on 5 drugs, as is James in the case mentioned above, then there are 10 possible interactions to consider. (The number of drug interactions can be expressed as [{n*(n-1)}/2], where n is the number of different drugs).

Drug interactions aren’t the only thing to worry about. There is also the question of dose sizes. Maybe Drug A is causing problems because it’s at too high a dose. But with the drug interactions and the effects of Drugs B and C, it’s not easy to identify Drug A’s dose as the problem. Also, drugs have different long-term effects from short-term effects. If a patient is on three different drugs, and suddenly develops severe anxiety, how does one know if this anxiety is due to the long-term effect of a drug? More likely, the doctor will add another drug to the regimen, or increase the dose of the anti-anxiety pill. But the better solution would have been to reduce or eliminate the drug that is causing the reaction, a drug that is impossible to ascertain because the patient is on too many drugs.

I emphasize these problems with drug cocktails because of my own personal experience with psychiatric drugs. I avoided drug cocktails, usually talking no more than two drugs at a time. With two drugs, there is only one interaction to worry about. For a period of time, the two drugs I took were the antidepressants Anafranil and Zoloft. After two years on this combination, I had an attack of severe anxiety. Rather than allowing my psychiatrist to prescribe an anti-anxiety drug, which would have been the typical response to this problem, I discontinued taking Zoloft. I had been on Anafranil for 3 years before I started Zoloft, and I didn’t think that Anafranil was the problem. The anxiety abated, and never returned to the level it was. If I were taking three or more medications, it would have been harder to identify the drug that was the problem.

Psychiatrists, including Carlat, have a knee-jerk reaction to add more drugs when there is a problem, rather than take drugs away. This is how drug cocktails come into being. Drug cocktails represent a type of off-label prescribing, because the individual drugs in the cocktail were never clinically tested or approved as part of a cocktail, only when taken individually. They are part of what’s wrong with psychiatry today, something that Carlat doesn’t acknowledge.

It’s unlikely that Carlat would accept Irving Kirsch’s thesis in his book The Emperor’s New Drugs (which I review here) that antidepressants are no better than placebos, or Robert Whitaker’s more radical thesis in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (which I review here) that psychiatric drugs do more long-term harm than good. The reason for this is that Carlat has spent his entire career prescribing drugs. For him to acknowledge that they are placebos with dangerous side effects, or that they harm patients long-term, would be for him to admit that his life’s work was a failure. It’s similar to getting a district attorney who, after years of prosecuting and convicting an innocent man, to admit that he made a terrible error. There are not many district attorneys who can make this admission. In the case of psychiatrists like Carlat, most will not admit that they have made a terrible error and harmed patients by prescribing drugs. Thus Unhinged, while a call for change in psychiatry, doesn’t go far enough in questioning the efficacy of drugs. Such questioning usually comes from people outside the profession, such as a clinical psychologist (Irving Kirsh) who treats patients via psychotherapy, and a journalist (Robert Whitaker) who isn’t a mental health practitioner.

In conclusion, Unhinged is a well-written, honest account of systemic problems in psychiatry written by someone with an insider’s perspective on the profession. Carlat does an excellent job describing the drug money corruption in psychiatry, in the overmedicalized view of a complicated phenomenon such as mental illness, and in the need for psychiatrists to better know their patients and provide some of them with therapy. He fails, however, to go far enough in questioning drug (and drug cocktail) efficacy.

Are Tea Party Republicans Anarchists?

2011-07-18T15:22:00.002-04:00

NY Times columnist Timothy Egan’s recent article describes radical Republicans as anarchists, seeking to destroy the U.S. government. Their refusal to raise the debt limit, and refusal to deal at all with Obama and Democrats, threatens America with another financial crash and economic catastrophe. This “burn-it-all-down position” indicates that the Tea Party Republicans “didn’t go to Washington to find solutions; they went there to destroy the place.” Is Egan being fair in his description of radical Republicans?

Anarchy is the absence of government, a condition of complete freedom from government coercion. Anarchists are people who want to bring about this utopian condition. Tea Party republicans claim to want to reduce the size of government, not eliminate it entirely. So by the strict dictionary definition, radical Republicans aren’t anarchists. They are extremists, however, and this extremism threatens the stability and health of our government and society. It also threatens to bring about a condition of anarchy.

Extremists share some common attributes, whether they are anarchists, libertarians, communists, Nazis, sixties radicals, or religious zealots:

Promoting extreme change
Wanting the extreme change now
Being unwilling to compromise
Promoting violence

I’ll go over these attributes and see if the Tea Party Republicans fit these characteristics.

Extreme change: The Tea Party Republicans claim to be conservative, wanting the federal government to return to its small pre-Great Deal size. But since so many people have become dependent on government programs, and we’ve had for decades a large military, progressive income tax, and widespread regulation of industry, a return to the way things were 80 or more years ago is an extreme change from the status quo. Thus I can conclude that radical Republicans promote extreme change.
Wanting the extreme change now: Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare doesn't take effect until 2022, exempting people 55 and older from the change. Although it proposes a radical change to Medicare, it’s not extremist in the sense of wanting the change now. The refusal to extend the debt limit in the absence of an immediate agreement to major cuts in government spending is, however, extremist. It threatens economic catastrophe unless changes are made now. While it’s true that changes are badly needed in Washington, threatening an economic crisis unless changes happen immediately is extremist and very dangerous. So I conclude that in the context of the debt crisis radical Republicans want extreme change now.
Being unwilling to compromise: Tea Party Republicans are refusing to compromise with Obama and the Democrats on the issue of tax increases. They will not accept any deal that involves tax increases, even if the spending cuts vastly outnumber the tax increases, as is the case in the Obama plan. This “my way or the highway” attitude is definitely extremist. Tea Party Republicans have exuded this type of extremism since they began their term in office.
Promoting violence: Tea party advocates and representatives so far haven’t advocated violence or committed any violent acts. But the other three extremist characteristics that describe Tea Party Republicans make it highly likely that violence will eventually happen. If one of the two major American political parties wants extreme change, wants it now, and is unwilling to compromise, then the legislative process will grind to a halt. We can see that happening already. If legislators cannot accomplish anything, then the government won’t be do anything, even to pay its bills. This will provoke a crisis.

While it’s possible that the crisis can be solved peacefully, I wouldn’t bet on it. Historically, economic crises have sometimes led to violent revolutions in other countries. The French Revolution and subsequent reign of terror was a product of a financial crisis. The Bolsheviks came to power in the context of the economic and political chaos of World War I.

A revolution can sometimes be a good thing, right? What about the American Revolution? The Tea Party Republicans may claim to be intellectual heirs of the American Revolution, but in reality they are far apart ideologically. Compared to other revolutions, the American Revolution was moderate. Before the revolution and after, Americans enjoyed the privileges of a representative government, freedom of expression and religion, a capitalistic economic system, and the absence of any hereditary aristocracy. The biggest change was the withdrawal from the British Empire and the establishment of a new republican political system. While this was a substantial change, it didn’t affect the daily life of most people. There was no widespread expropriation of property or political murders that characterized the contemporaneous French Revolution.

The Tea Party Republicans may not provoke a revolution at all. Since their dominant ideology is anti-government, if they succeed in bringing the economy and the federal government to their knees, we may end up with a condition of anarchy. The best contemporary example is Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Like the Iraqi government, the American government may become so weakened and ineffective that terrorists and criminals will basically take over the country. Anarchy is an unstable condition, so it won’t last forever, but as we’ve seen in some countries (e.g. Somalia) this could last for years and possibly decades.

I think that America has too much going for it (i.e. its wealth, history, political system, social structures) that we will become another Iraq or Somalia. But there’s a real chance of some major political and economic disruption that will affect the lives of millions. If the Tea Party Republicans get their way, this disruption will happen soon.

Genetically-Engineered Flies Prove That a Human Eye Protein Has Magnetoreceptive Characteristics

2011-06-23T09:33:00.001-04:00

The journal Nature Communications published an article this week that supports the hypothesis of human magnetoreception. Steven Reppert and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts Medical School did a study in which they genetically engineered fruit flies (Drosophila) to produce a human eye protein called cryptochrome. This protein is known to be important in circadian clock regulation along with light-dependent magnetoreception. Normal Drosophilia flies have magnetoreceptive ability that can be behaviorally tested in a lab. Flies that are genetically engineered not to produce cryptochrome lose their magnetoreceptive ability. In this experiment, flies that were genetically engineered to produce the human (not fly) version of cryptochrome had magnetoreceptive ability similar to normal flies.

It’s important not to get too excited about this experiment. The study did not show that humans have magnetoreceptive ability. It only showed that human cryptochrome can give magnetoreceptive ability to Drosophilia. The fact that humans have this magnetoreceptive protein doesn’t imply that any people actually use it for navigational purposes. It could be a vestigial protein, an evolutionary leftover that has no function, like the tailbone or appendix.

The authors of this study suggest that “[a]dditional research on magnetosensitivity in humans at the behavioural level. . .would be informative.” I agree, and point to my paper as something I hope to guide future research.

Here are some links to nontechnical articles that talk about this experiment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13809144
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2068170/human_retina_can_sense_earths_magnetism/
http://www.geekosystem.com/flies-magnetic-fields-protein/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/science/28magnet.html?_r=1

Can Creative Genius Be Scientifically Studied? A Review of “Origins of Genius” by Dean Keith Simonton

2011-06-16T14:37:00.003-04:00

It’s common to think of the genius of men like Shakespeare, Darwin, and Einstein as something impossible to understand or study, kind of like a miracle. But psychologists consider all facets of human behavior to be fair game for research, no matter how strange or unusual. The geniuses who wrote Hamlet, who painted the Sistine Chapel, and who discovered the theory of relativity are extreme examples of personality traits like creativity, intelligence, and literary/artistic/scientific ability that all people posses to some extent. Dean Keith Simonton is a psychologist who specializes in studying creativity and genius. In his book Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity, Simonton applies Darwin’s theory of evolution to the study of creative achievement.

Simonton begins by defining “genius”. A genius isn’t someone with a high IQ, although most people we consider geniuses were very intelligent. A genius is someone who accomplishes something that sets him apart from everyone else, i.e. someone who has achieved eminence. Beethoven is a musical genius because of his symphonies, piano concertos, and other works that continue to be performed almost two centuries after his death. If Beethoven hadn’t composed any music, he wouldn’t be considered a genius, no matter how much intelligence or ability he possessed. “The phrase unrecognized genius becomes an oxymoron” (p. 5).

A “creative genius” is someone who invents or discovers an original, adaptive idea or product. Originality is required because mere imitation isn’t creative. Adaptiveness is required because if the new mousetrap doesn’t work, it isn’t any better than what we have now. If the new theory doesn’t fit the facts, or has internal contradictions, it won’t help advance science. If no one wants to listen to the new symphony, then no matter how original it is, it won’t be considered a great musical composition.

Given these definitions, Simonton goes on to present the research, theories, and biographical information that have advanced our understanding of creative genius. He begins by examining the thought processes of geniuses. To understand how Darwinism can be applied to this thought process, Simonton mentions Donald Campbell’s theory. This theory states that creative thinking involves 3 conditions:

There exists some process that generates ideational variations, similar to genetic recombinations and mutations.
These variations are subjected to a selection mechanism, similar to natural selection, but more cognitive or cultural in nature.
There is some retention procedure that preserves and reproduces creative ideas, similar to genetic retention.

In simpler language, creative people come up with their ideas blindly (i.e. without knowing beforehand whether or not they will be successful or adaptive). They select the most promising ideas, and publish or otherwise share them with other people. The audience they share with further selects the creators’ ideas, rejecting some of them and accepting others. The ones that win out in the end, and become the acknowledged masterpieces, are a small fraction of the total number of ideas and products generated by the creators.

The more ideas, the greater chance that one or more of them will become a masterpiece. The most successful geniuses are also the most prolific. Shakespeare, Beethoven, Newton and others created (or discovered) many things that are now forgotten. The few things for which they are remembered are only a fraction of their total output.

How do creative people think? Like other people, they use imagery, intuition, and insight, along with analytical thinking. The main difference between creative and ordinary people is that creative people utilize remote association and divergent thinking. Remote association is making connections between separate ideas. A historical example of remote association is Einstein’s connecting relative space and time with the constancy of the speed of light. Before Einstein, scientists had considered these separate subjects.

Divergent thinking is the ability to come up with original ideas, solutions, and responses to questions. It is distinguished from convergent thinking, which is the coming up with the expected solution or response, e.g. the correct answer on a standardized test. Some fields require more divergent thinking than others. For example, artists, composers, and creative writers usually think more divergently than scientists.

Creative people also have different personalities than most other people. They have broad interests, they’re open to novel and ambiguous stimuli, they have trouble focusing on any one thing, they are flexible cognitively and behaviorally, they are more likely to be introverted, and are nonconformists. While not all creative geniuses fit this personality profile exactly, most exhibit at least some of these traits.

Creative people are also more likely to have psychiatric problems than the average person. There are many examples of depressed, bipolar, alcoholic, suicidal, and psychotic creative geniuses. Famous names with severe disorders include Vincent Van Gogh, Robert Schumann, Ernest Hemingway, Peter Tchaikovsky, and Charles Darwin. It’s important to understand, however, that most creative geniuses don’t exhibit high levels of psychopathology, or they would never have been able to create anything. Their symptoms tend to be midway between normal and abnormal.

Not surprisingly, geniuses usually grow up in enriched family environments. Their parents tend to have higher-than-average levels of formal education, with at least one parent working at an intellectual profession. Their parents value learning and supply their children with an ample supply of books, magazines, games. Visits to museums, exhibits, galleries, libraries and other places that stimulate intellectual development are common.

What’s unusual about geniuses’ childhood experiences is that they frequently face adversity. Geniuses often have physical or sensory disabilities, or chronic childhood illnesses. Sometimes their parents become bankrupt or impoverished. Many geniuses have experienced the death of one or both parents at an early age. These adverse experiences may set the young future genius on a developmental path different from most of his peers.

While geniuses are all highly intelligent, many of them lack advanced degrees or do poorly in school. Artistic creators generally have less schooling than scientific creators. Formal schooling suppresses creativity in favor of memorization and conformity. So it makes sense that many geniuses would dislike school. Since education and training is required for acquiring the necessary expertise in one’s profession, creators who drop out of school always are autodidacts. Many geniuses have one or more mentors who help compensate for the lack of formal education.

Like all complex human behaviors, creative achievement is a product of both nature and nurture. On the nurture side, as I mentioned above, creative people tend to grow up in enriched home environments, and also experience more traumatic childhood experiences than usual. But many people grow up in enriched environments and have adverse childhood experiences. Only a tiny fraction become geniuses. So there must be a unique genetic predisposition that interacts with these experiences to produce a genius. The technical term for this is “emergenesis”, or a combination of multiple genetic components, each of which must be inherited for the trait to appear. An emergenic trait is shared but identical twins, but doesn’t run in families. Evidence that creative genius is emergenic comes from family studies of geniuses. Many of the greatest geniuses in history, including Newton, Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Michelangelo, have no relatives of distinction.

Unlike intelligence, which is normally distributed in the population (i.e. having a bell-shaped curve), creative achievement is highly skewed. There are two mathematical laws describing this skewed distribution. The Price law states that if k represents the number of active creators in a field, then √k of these creators contribute about half of the products in the field. For example, assuming that there are 100 total architects, then 10 out of 100 architects are responsible for half of all building designs. The Lotka law states that the number of creators who contribute n products is inversely proportional to n squared. For example, the number of creators who contribute 10 products is c/100, where c is a constant. The number of creators who contribute 20 products (twice the number) is c/400, only 1/4 of who contribute 10 products. If you go up to 50 products (five times the original number), then the number is c/2500, or 1/25 of who contribute 10 products.

These laws hold whether one is considering all works created, or just works that have stood the test of time. For example, all of the works that make up the standard repertoire of classical music (i.e. works that are still performed today) were composed by about 250 composers. The square root of this number is about 16, which is the number of composers accounting for half of all the pieces performed today. Mozart alone composed 6.1% of the standard repertoire, which is slightly greater than the sum total of the bottom 150 composers!

The level of creative achievement varies across a creator’s career. At the beginning of his career, his output gradually increases. At some point he reaches a peak, after which his output declines. This trajectory is based on career age rather than chronological age. Late bloomers will have a later peak. Some disciplines, such as mathematics and poetry, have a much earlier peak than other disciplines, such as geology and philosophy.

One of the most interesting and difficult-to-explain aspects of creative genius is that achievement isn’t constant over place and time. Genius tends to cluster in some places at certain times. When these places experience a burst of creative achievement, they are said to have experienced a “golden age”. Eventually, and for reasons not fully understood, these golden ages decline to silver ages, and finally to dark ages. Examples of golden ages of achievement include Ancient Greece, the European Renaissance and Scientific Revolution, and similar (but less golden) ages in China, Japan, and other places.

It’s easy to understand how the presence of genius in one’s time can help spur additional genius. This can occur by means of immediate predecessors and contemporaries. “[T]he number of eminent creators in one generation is a positive function of the number in the preceding generation who are active in the same or affiliated domains” (p. 206). These eminent predecessors serve both as role models and mentors. Charles Darwin had Alexander Monro and Adam Sedgwick as his teachers, and was influenced by Hutton, Lamarck, Sprengel, Malthus, Lyell, and others. Beethoven studied under Haydn, and was influenced by Mozart.

Eminent scientists and artists are more likely to occur during eras in which they can form relationships with contemporaries in their fields. These contemporaries don’t have to be at the same level that the geniuses are. “No matter what the domain of achievement, genius of the highest quality tends to be contemporaneous with genius of a lesser rank, and even with the more obscure also-rans and nonentities” (p. 208). Geniuses need audiences, professional contacts, and social networks to help motivate them to create. The idea of the lone-wolf genius, like Howard Roark in the novel The Fountainhead, doesn’t correspond to historical fact. While there were likely potential geniuses during the European Dark Ages, the barren cultural milieu prevented them from achieving anything.

Geniuses tend to live during eras of high intellectual receptiveness, ethnic diversity, and political openness. Some level of basic political freedom and economic prosperity is required for creative flourishing. It must be noted, however, that most creative achievement occurred under regimes which by today’s standards would be considered autocratic and unfree. Remember that Socrates, who lived during the Athenian creative golden age, was executed for his beliefs. Galileo, who lived during the European scientific revolution, was persecuted by the Catholic Church.

The division of labor is an important sociological factor that contributed to the emergence of creative genius. If every person in a society is engaged in physical labor such as hunting, gathering, homemaking, or farming, no one will have any time to create. With increased population comes specialization and division of labor, including jobs for creative people such as painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, and engineers. The European scientific revolution gave birth to another profession that gave men opportunity for creative achievement. Population size is a necessary, but not sufficient factor for the emergence of creative genius, as there were many large societies (e.g. Europe during the dark ages) that had very little creative achievement, and smaller societies (e.g. classical Athens) that had a great deal of achievement.

Origins of Genius is strong in its understanding and analysis of individual genius. Simonton does an excellent job explaining creative thought processes, in presenting what personality characteristics distinguish geniuses from everyone else, in explaining how developmentally and genetically they are different, and in describing the mathematical laws that show the skewed output of creative achievement.

The book’s main weaknesses have to do with group phenomena, including clustering of genius, and gender differences in genius. While Simonton can explain why having creative achievers in one’s own and preceding generations can help spur geniuses to accomplishment, he can’t explain what starts and ends this process. Since genius occurs in golden ages that come and go, something must occur to start the process of creative achievement, and something must end it. Simonton has little to offer to explain this.

Another problem is that Simonton completely ignores the cultural and creative dark ages we are currently living in. As I explain in an earlier blog post, dullness has become triumphant in our times. In the arts, modernism has completely destroyed all the great European traditions, and we have a reign of mediocrity. This isn’t just my personal opinion. I can prove this by asking who are the great contemporary artists, writers, and composers. Various people will provide different responses, but none of the names mentioned will have the recognition that the great artists of the past have. As Simonton mentions in his book, an unrecognized genius is an oxymoron. A genius who is unrecognized in his own time will most likely remain unrecognized in future generations.

In the sciences, there is some low-level creative group achievement, but no individual geniuses on the level of Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. As proof, I’ll offer the same name recognition test that I did for artists. While every year a handful of scientists win Nobel Prizes, they are always people no one (outside their fields) has heard of. These people, while accomplished, are not geniuses.

One of the problems with both the arts and sciences is that both have become so highly professionalized and esoteric that people can gain distinction in a field, but be unknown outside the field. This is partly due to the disintegration and balkanization of our culture, which has various causes, including modernism (in the arts) and technology (e.g. the Internet). But it is partly due to declining accomplishment. If someone accomplished something at the level of Einstein, Michelangelo, or Beethoven, most educated people would have heard of him. This is as true today as it would have been true centuries ago.

One historical fact that Simonton tries unsuccessfully to explain on environmental grounds is the almost complete lack of female creative geniuses. “In Western civilization, for example, women make up only around 3% of the most illustrious figures of history. And many of these females [e.g. monarchs] entered the records in part by birthright or marriage. (p. 215)” Almost all geniuses in history have been male. Some fields, such as mathematics, physics, and music composition, are completely dominated by men. The one field where women have a minor presence is literature.

Simonton rejects biological explanations such as lower IQ, less variable IQ, and biologically-based personality differences. He provides more conventional environmental explanations such as child-rearing practices, the costs of marriage and family to female achievement, sex discrimination, and philosophical/cultural hostility to female employment and achievement. He claims that female achievement in literature is due solely to the fact that creative writing requires little start-up cost or overhead. But he ignores that publication (including book marketing) does require overhead. Many women had access to musical instruments in their home. Why didn’t they use these instruments to compose music, as men did? Why is the female lack of creative achievement universal across societies, including cultures that had little interaction with each other (e.g. Eastern and Western societies before the modern era). Why, in contemporary America and Europe, when all these environmental hindrances to female creative achievement have been removed, do we still see so little female achievement?

In conclusion, Origins of Genius is an excellent summary of scientific knowledge about creative genius at the beginning of the new millennium. It provides a wealth of detailed facts and analyses that illuminate our understanding of this strange and wondrous phenomenon. Its main weakness is a lack of understanding of what environmental factors bring about creative golden ages and dark ages. This weakness makes it unhelpful in trying to engender new works of genius, i.e. helping bring about a new golden age of creativity.

How Greed and Ideology are Endangering America’s Financial and Mental Health

2011-05-04T12:52:00.001-04:00

I just watched the excellent documentary Inside Job about the financial crisis. Its main point is that the 2008 crisis and subsequent Great Recession were a consequence of deregulation of the financial sector. This deregulation (primarily in the United States, but also in other countries like Iceland and Ireland) led to an explosion of trading in risky investments like CDO’s, that in turn led to the housing bubble and crash. The tragic thing about this crash is that if we had kept the regulations in place that came about after the 1929 crash and Great Depression, we would never have had the recent crisis. Protections such as separation of savings and investment banks, restrictions on leverage, and enforcement by the SEC and other regulatory agencies of securities and fraud laws were stripped away in recent decades. Also, the financial services industry created new exotic “financial weapons of mass destruction” and successfully lobbied to keep them unregulated.

How did this unstable and risky situation develop? Inside Job argues that a combination of greed and free market ideology led to the housing bubble and bust. The greed came about from the enormous profits generated by the deregulated post-1980 financial services industry. This money flowed to traders in the form of multi-million dollar bonuses, to politicians in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions, and to academic economists in the form of consulting fees. The free market ideology, promoted by right-wing think tanks, politicians, and academic economists, provided a rationalization for the government to deregulate the financial services industry. This ideology argued that allowing an unfettered financial services industry to generate incredible amounts of wealth, and to make riskier and riskier investments, was good for the economy. This attitude is best summarized by Gordon Gekko’s memorable line in the first Wall Street movie: "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

While the free market ideology is seductive, and I admit that I was once an enthusiastic follower, it clearly failed as a rationale for financial services deregulation. While it’s easy to blame the government for everything bad that happens, and the government did promote home ownership for people who should have been renting, the leaders of the Wall Street investment banks were the main culprits. They knowingly and deliberately invested their client’s savings in risky mortgage securities, sometimes while simultaneously betting against the securities (i.e. betting that their own clients would lose money). It was Wall Street money that bid up housing prices, that promoted subprime mortgages, that paid the ratings agencies to give ridiculously high ratings to what was basically junk, and that led to the worst financial crash and recession since World War II. Some foreign banks also were to blame, as they did the same thing that the Wall Street banks did. Ireland and Iceland are two egregious examples of investment banks destroying their economies. The executives in charge of the investment banks got greedy, and even after their companies lost billions and needed to be bailed out, they got to keep their multi-million dollar bonuses and salary. The most disgusting thing is that not one of them has been prosecuted (in the U.S.) for fraud or securities violations.

When an ideology fails in the real world, people who believe in it have two options. One is to accept reality, and stop believing in the ideology. The other is to continue believing in the ideology, and abandon reality. Most Democrats, who in the past (especially in the Clinton administration) joined with Republicans in eagerly stripping away financial services regulation, realized after the crash that they made a grave error. When they were in charge of Congress, they passed the Dodd-Frank bill to improve regulation of Wall Street. These regulations, while inadequate, were better than doing nothing. These regulations are now law, but as Paul Krugman writes in an article, they are in danger of not being enforced. The reason for this is that Republicans have chosen to keep their free market ideology, while abandoning reality. Republicans are now in charge of the House, and Republicans don’t believe in regulation in any form. Since they control the funds, Republicans can prevent the SEC and other agencies from doing any regulating and investigating. Wall Street will then be free to create more bubbles and more crises.

Why do people continue believing in an ideology when it has clearly failed? To answer this, consider the historical example of Communism. Within a few years after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, it was clear that Communism was failing in its ability to provide goods and services that people wanted. That’s when the scapegoating started. It wasn’t Communism’s fault, it was the fault of the capitalists (or the kulaks, or the imperialists, or the fascists, etc.). That scapegoating continued for decades, until finally no one believed the ideology any more, and all that was left was greed and corruption.

In the case of Republicans, the scapegoat is the government. Wall Street didn’t do anything wrong, it was government intervention in the economy that caused the crash and recession. The fact that the financial services companies made many risky investments and bad decisions, not just in the U.S. but also overseas, is also a result of U.S. government intervention. If the government hadn’t provided guarantees and bailouts, the companies wouldn’t have made these risky investments.

In the context of a mixed economy, with an internationally-linked market, the government needs to regulate the financial markets. If Republicans get their way, and repeal or refuse to enforce the new regulations, another crash will happen. We’ll then be in the same situation in which the choice will be government bailouts or a second Great Depression. Blaming the government for all our problems is similar to the Communists blaming the capitalists for all their problems. The free market ideology has failed the reality test vis-à-vis financial regulation, and continuing to adhere to it is a sign of either delusion or greed. Regarding the latter motive, Wall Street continues to utilize its vast wealth to lobby politicians to weaken and gut regulations.

Now let me turn to mental health and psychiatry. While watching Inside Job, I was struck with the parallels between the financial services industry and the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry. While the free market ideology is used by the financial services industry to justify deregulation, the chemical imbalance ideology is used by psychiatists to justify their prescribing drugs to patients. The chemical imbalance ideology states that schizophrenia is caused by too much of the neurotransmitter dopamine, and that depression is caused by too little serotonin. These imbalances can be treated by antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs, respectively. Patients who take their drugs restore balance in their brains, become symptom free, and function better than patients who are unwilling or unable to take drugs.

This chemical imbalance ideology doesn’t fit the facts. As Robert Whitaker describes in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (which I reviewed in a previous blog post), after many millions of dollars of research money, and enormous time and effort spent, this theory remains unverified. Scientists haven’t made much progress in understanding the cause or pathophysiology of mental illness. Diagnosis is still based on symptoms due to a lack of any reliable or valid lab tests. Drugs that seem to help patients in the short term, have a much more problematic long-term outcome. As newer drugs began to be prescribed more frequently, patients seemed to function worse than they ever did before, many of them becoming permanently disabled and unable to work.

Just as the free market true believers identify the government as an all-encompassing scapegoat, the chemical imbalance true believers come up with their own scapegoat: the disease. The reason why juvenile bipolar disorder prevalence skyrocketed, why so many children were being diagnosed and treated with drugs, and becoming permanently disabled, wasn’t due to drugs they were being prescribed. It was due to something else in the environment causing a psychiatric epidemic. It’s almost comical reading Whitaker’s description of how bipolar disorder was “discovered” in children. Before psychiatric drugs were widely used, children never got bipolar disorder. The fact that stimulant and antidepressant drugs induce manic episodes, and that many more children were taking stimulants and antidepressants than ever before, was conveniently ignored. Since many children taking antidepressant drugs became bipolar, some researchers argued that the drugs were an effective diagnostic tool, unmasking the bipolar disorder that was hidden underneath. Diagnostic boundaries for juvenile bipolar disorder were expanded to include irritable and antisocial children, and these children were given drug cocktails that led to functional impairment and serious physical and mental side effects.

Another similarity between the financial services industry and the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry is greed. When the ideology has cracks, fill in the gaps with cash. Just as academic economists receive thousands of dollars from the financial services industry in consulting fees, academic psychiatrists receive thousands of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. This money provides an incentive for economists to spout free-market/deregulation dogma, and psychiatrists to promote drugs.

This ideology-greed connection becomes self-perpetuating. Academic economists promote deregulation and free markets, which leads to more profits for Wall Street, which means more consulting fees, which means more economists promote deregulation, etc. Academic psychiatrists promote the chemical imbalance theory and drug treatments, which means more profits for the pharmaceutical industry, which means more consulting fees for the psychiatrists, which means more psychiatrists promote drugs, etc.

What can be done to emerge from these vicious circles of greed and failed ideology? Reform from within isn’t an option. Both the financial services and psychiatric-pharmaceutical industries are too hopelessly corrupt to reform or regulate themselves. The only institution powerful enough to take on the economic and ideological might of these two industries is the federal government. But the government is itself corrupted by Wall Street and Big Pharma money. The government must be spurred into action by grassroots advocacy groups.

Any advocacy group needs to have a clear, specific goal in mind. The American Tea Party had a vague goal of opposing big government and bailouts. It has now been hijacked by libertarian/free market extremists.

The group that takes on Wall Street should have these goals: Phase 1 should be to pressure the government to fully fund all the regulatory agencies involved in enforcing Dodd-Frank. In addition, the government should prosecute bank and financial executives who committed fraud and securities violations during the housing boom and bust. Phase 2 should be to make even more ambitious reforms to curb the power, influence, and money of the financial services industry.

The group that takes on Big Pharma should begin with pressuring for congressional hearings. Robert Whitaker and other people who criticize the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry should be allowed to speak, along with academic psychiatrists, drug company representatives, and parents and patients. If it turns out that there’s not enough evidence to demonstrate that drugs do long-term good (the burden of proof is on the pro-drug people to show that they work), then Phase 2 should be a major overhaul of psychiatric drug regulation. This can include banning drug advertising, banning off-label prescribing, banning prescribing the drugs to children, and extending clinical trials to several years (from the current 6 weeks).

We Got Bin Laden (Finally)!

2011-05-04T12:18:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to everyone responsible for taking down Osama bin Laden. After all the bad news we’ve been receiving, it’s nice to hear about things going right for a change. Praise is due to President Obama, his national security advisors, the CIA, the Navy Seals who conducted the raid, and others involved in the operation. Obama made a smart decision to not delegate this to the corrupt and incompetent Pakistani government. Our President took a calculated risk, and it paid off.

Did America’s Economy Implode Because the Rich Are Too Wealthy? A Review of “Aftershock” by Robert B. Reich

2011-04-24T15:38:00.000-04:00

The Great Recession has forced Americans to confront political and economic issues that have been ignored for decades. Since around 1980, middle class real wages have stagnated, both personal and government debt have increased to unsustainable levels, infrastructure and education have declined—and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. The optimism, pragmatism, “can-do” attitude, and belief in continual progress that characterized America for most of its history (with some notable exceptions, including the Civil War and Great Depression) have been shattered. Americans have grown increasingly pessimistic that their children and grandchildren can achieve the “American Dream.”

Robert B. Reich, former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton, writes about the causes of America’s economic problems in his book Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future. His central message is that the concentration of wealth at the top of the income ladder results in insufficient domestic demand for products and services, which leads to economic stagnation, anemic recoveries, and deep recessions.

There’s no question that income has become more concentrated the last 30 years. In the late 1970’s, the richest 1% of the country took in less than 9% of the nation’s total income. By 2007, the richest 1% took in 23.5% of the nation’s income, or more than double what it was before. Real wages of a typical American worker, however, stagnated during the same time period. If the gains of the American economy had been more equally distributed during the last 30 years, a typical person would be making 60% more now than he did then.

The problem with the rich becoming too wealthy is that they don’t spend enough. They live too modestly compared to what they can afford. The overall demand for goods and services shrinks because the rich invest most of their income. If more of the nation’s wealth went to the middle class, who spend a greater percentage of their income than the wealthy do, demand would increase, businesses would expand and hire more, and the economy would grow.

Reich writes approvingly of the period of the “Great Prosperity”, the years 1947 through 1975, in which American implemented a “basic bargain”: workers made enough to buy what was produced, resulting in complementary mass production and mass consumption. Wages of lower-income Americans grew faster than those at or near the top, doubling over these years. Productivity also doubled, giving the lie to those who argued that large inequality was needed for economic growth. It’s true that high income and wealth is an incentive for entrepreneurial and executive achievement, but how high does this income and wealth have to be? Even though CEO’s made only 30 times the typical worker salaries during the Great Prosperity (as opposed to 300 times today), they seemed motivated enough back then to do their jobs well.

The Great Prosperity also included powerful unions, generous health and pension benefits, minimum wage and overtime laws, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (in 1965), and interest deduction on mortgages. The G.I. Bill and expansion of the public university system helped make college affordable for the middle class. The interstate highway system became the most ambitious public works program in American history. The Cold War resulted in continued high military spending, which (via the “military-industrial complex”) led to the invention of the transistor, laser, computer, jet engine, and Internet. Unlike today, there was a societal consensus that this high level of government spending had to be paid for. The top marginal income tax rates in the 1950’s were 91%, and were 77% as late as 1969.

After the late 1970’s, the Great Prosperity ended and America began a period of increasing inequality. Reich recognizes that both globalization and automation led to the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs. New jobs that were created, mainly in the service sector, didn’t pay as well as the jobs lost. At the same time that the middle and working classes had to accept lower wages, however, business executives and Wall Street traders saw their incomes skyrocket.

Government could have enforced the basic bargain, and reversed these trends leading to more wealth concentration at the top. For example, it could have given employees more bargaining power to get higher wages, especially in industries sheltered from foreign competition. It could have enlarged safety nets, financed Medicare for all, and forced industries laying off large numbers of workers at once to pay a year’s severance, along with training them for new jobs. It could have raised taxes on the rich and cut them for the poor. Instead, it did the opposite. Under the influence of libertarian, free-market economists, the government deregulated, privatized, cut taxes, and shredded the safety nets. It allowed companies to bust unions, slash jobs and wages, cut benefits, and move factories and jobs overseas. Government deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. This changed the finance industry from the servant to the master of American industry. Wall Street demanded short-term profits over long-term growth. “Between 1997 and 2007, the finance sector became the fastest-growing part of the U.S. economy” (p. 56). Finance and insurance companies’ share of American corporate profits increased from 10% to 40%.

It’s true that confidence in government began to decline toward the end of the Great Prosperity, with events such as the Vietnam War, Watergate, oil shortages and double-digit inflation. This confidence has continued to decline since. Reich attributes this decline to deterioration of government services and explosion of deficits, both of which were caused by the tax cuts. Also important was the increasing appeal of free-market dogma, which came through think tanks, books, media and ads that were largely financed by the rich and powerful.

Middle class Americans developed three “coping mechanisms” to help mitigate the effects of their declining economic status. These mechanisms included:

Women moved into paid work. In 1966, 20% of mothers with young children had jobs outside the home. By the late 1990’s, this had risen to 60% of mothers. While women with college degrees were able to land high-paying jobs, most women worked low-wage jobs to try to prop up stagnant and declining family income.
Everyone worked longer hours. By the 2000’s the typical American family worked 500 hours, or 12 weeks longer per year than it had in 1979.
People saved less and borrowed more. During the Great Prosperity, the American middle class saved about 9% of their after-tax income each year, and their debt averaged 50 to 55%. The savings rate declined to 2.6% in 2008, while debt exploded to 138%. Reich sees this indebtedness not as a moral failing, but as a way to try to maintain their previous lifestyle. When the debt bubble burst during the Great Recession, people were unable to continue borrowing.

The wealth inequality today is similar to what it was in 1928, just before the Great Depression, and Reich draws parallels between the two eras. There were high levels of private debt, especially mortgage debt, in both the 1920’s and 2000’s. Richer Americans speculated on a limited range of assets, resulting in stock market and real estate bubbles. The 1920’s even witnessed a Florida real estate boom, similar to recent times.

After the Great Recession that began in 2007, the U.S. government kept interests rates near-zero, bailed out the banks, and printed a great deal of money. This helped avert a second Great Depression, but left the federal government with vastly increased debt and deficits. Unlike during the Great Depression, in which the Roosevelt administration created a new economic order through its New Deal policies, the post-Great Recession Obama administration has done very little fundamental reform. The problem of widening inequality will likely continue. Reich predicts many years of high unemployment, middle class economic insecurity, and economic stagnation. From this Great Recession “aftershock”, we’ll see either a major political backlash against both big business and government, or large-scale reforms.

Some reforms that Reich would like to see implemented include:

A reverse income tax that supplements the wages of the middle class.
Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy.
A carbon tax, to promote the development of “green” technologies.
A redesign of the unemployment system, making it a “reemployment system” that smoothes the transition to a new job.
Replacing spending on public schools with vouchers based on family income, which would force wealthy suburban schools to take in lower and middle-income students.
Making tuition free in all public colleges and universities, which will be financed by requiring that all graduates pay a fixed percentage of their taxable income for the first 10 years of full-time work.
An expansion of Medicare to all Americans (replacing the current private insurance system).
Expanding government spending on public goods such as transportation, parks, recreational facilities, museums, and libraries, making them free for all.
Strengthening campaign-finance laws, funding elections publically, and limiting issue advertising.

Reich’s agenda for change makes sense in a nation in which there’s a consensus for government activism, high taxation, and social programs, in which people respect and admire politicians and bureaucrats, and are confident in the competence and ability of government to follow through on its promises. Such a nation doesn’t have anything in common with contemporary America. Reich’s laundry list for change has no chance for passage.

Reich’s views are similar to those of Nobel Prize-winning Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The Reich/Krugman viewpoint can be classified as “Liberal Democrat” and “Keynesian”. Unlike Thomas Friedman, who focuses on competitiveness and tries to appeal to both ends of the political spectrum (see my review of his book The World is Flat), Reich and Krugman focus exclusively on the demand side of the economy, and their appeal is mainly to liberals.

Was the Great Recession caused by too much wealth possessed by the rich? The speculative real-estate boom that led to the Great Recession was a world-wide phenomenon. Lax regulation certainly contributed to it. I’m not sure that American wealth inequality was a direct cause, although it may also have contributed to it. European countries have much less wealth inequality than America, yet they also suffered from the recession. The fact that the rich invest most of their money has led to more speculation and greater influence and power of Wall Street.

Regarding Reich’s point that the economy would be doing better if there was less inequality, I don’t agree with that. The American economy grew enormously during the (relatively) laissez-faire period of 1870-1928. This graph shows how real per capita GNP in the U.S. more than doubled. During that period, there were significant inventions and technological advances that improved the standard of living of many Americans, including electric power, electric lights, bicycles, telephones, automobiles, airplanes, widespread use of railroads and steamboats, medical advances, improved public sanitation, central heat, air conditioning, appliances, and radio. While there were few government social programs, and little military spending, America emerged from the ashes of its Civil War to become the world’s premier economic power. So I don’t agree that government programs are necessary to have a robust, vibrant economy, or to have a higher standard of living for the majority of people.

On the other hand, contrary to what many conservatives and libertarians say, a mixed economy with substantial military and social welfare spending, along with high marginal taxes, isn’t inimical to economic progress. Reich and Krugman are correct that the Great Prosperity (1947-1975) period in America was a time of enormous economic and technological progress, along with an improved standard of living for the majority of people.

Both liberals and conservatives agree that the last 30 years has been a period of economic decline in America. They’re in sharp disagreement, however, over the causes. Liberals such as Reich and Krugman argue that the decline was due to tax cuts and subsequent reduced government investments in social programs and infrastructure, along with deregulation, leading to wage stagnation among the middle class, concentration of wealth at the top, and increased deficits and debt. Conservatives argue that government social welfare and entitlement spending, regulation, and litigation exploded, leading to increased taxes, deficits, debt, and economic decline.

Both sides are right. Liberals are correct that the tax cuts have largely benefited the wealthy. Infrastructure has been neglected. Deregulation led to the housing boom and bust. Conservatives are correct that social welfare and entitlement spending has increased, along with some types of regulation and litigation (especially connected to employment, discrimination, and civil rights).

I think the problem isn’t the level of government spending or taxation, but fundamental disagreements between the two parties that has led to gridlock. Both periods of growth and progress, the laissez-faire one of 1870-1928, and the mixed economy one of 1947-1975, were a time of general consensus. While there were people and groups who opposed the consensus, they were an insignificant minority. During both periods, there was a long-term vision, and large investments in infrastructure and education. The infrastructure and education investments during the laissez-faire period were largely private; during the mixed economy period they were mostly public and military. The private versus public nature of the infrastructure and education investments is less important than the fact that they get done. They haven’t been getting done the last 30 years—existing American infrastructure and education has not been well maintained, and new investment is virtually nonexistent.

The Great Depression and World War II eras (1929-1945) were a transition time from a laissez-faire to a mixed economy. Reich argues in this book that the Great Depression was caused by income inequality, leading to inadequate demand. Conservatives would counter that the Great Depression was caused by government meddling in the economy, both before (income tax, antitrust regulation, the Federal Reserve), and after (New Deal regulations and programs, increased taxation). I would argue that the laissez-faire consensus was lost during the Great Depression, and the fact that the consensus was lost led to the length and severity of the depression. The crisis of World War II created a new consensus for big government, and led to the mixed economy Great Prosperity of 1947-1975. It was a combination of the transmutation of liberalism from a strictly economic philosophy to a combination economic-social philosophy in the 1960’s and 1970’s, along with the religious and libertarian conservative backlash that began with the Regan administration in the 1980’s, that led to the demise of the Great Prosperity consensus.

As further evidence of the importance of consensus to economic progress, consider contemporary China. It’s difficult to characterize the political-economic situation there—part Communist, part mixed-economy, part laissez-faire—but it’s undeniable that whatever they are doing, is working. The consensus there is produced partly by a dictatorship that tolerates no dissent, but this dictatorship, unlike the Maoist one, isn’t based solely on fear and ideology. The people in China are seeing their standard of living improve—millions have achieved middle class status, and the general progress there is perhaps the greatest economic miracle of our time. Compared to how other countries have fared in the Great Recession, especially America, China has weathered the downturn well.

This Chinese success story directly contradicts both the liberal and conservative perspectives. As Reich notes in his book, most of Chinese government spending is devoted to production, not consumption. Chinese people have virtually no safety net—spending on social services is about 6% of the economy, compared to an average of 25% in most developed nations. China isn’t following the Reich-Krugman vision of a demand-oriented, socially-generous nation. It also isn’t following the conservative/libertarian vision of “free minds and free markets.” The basic political system is a Communist dictatorship that arrests and jails dissidents, limits families to one child, and suppresses religious expression. Contemporary China bears little resemblance to past or present America. Yet its economy is one of the fastest-growing in the world. This chart shows China’s explosive GDP growth since 1990, 5 times America’s growth during the same period.

Since neither Reich’s liberal agenda, nor a libertarian/conservative agenda can be enacted in the current political climate of gridlock, what can be done to achieve a new consensus that will allow America to grow and prosper again? One possibility is for centrists like Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Fareed Zakaria, and others to bring the two sides together and come up with a workable compromise. The problem is that the two sides have been trying to compromise for 30 years, and the compromises haven’t been working:

Conservatives cut taxes and increased defense spending, while liberals increased social welfare and entitlement spending. This has led to skyrocketing deficits and debt, along with declining infrastructure and education.
Conservatives deregulated the financial industry, while liberals used the government to insure against poor investments and losses. This led to the financial crash and bailout of 2008.
Conservatives tried to keep some private sector, free market elements in the American health care system, while liberals tried to expand the public sector options and give more people access to care. The conservative influence has produced a supposedly competitive private insurance sector that fails to control costs, and the liberal vision has produced a public sector that provides all the benefits of socialized medicine (free and unlimited health care for seniors and the disabled) without any of the cost controls (i.e. rationing). The result is the most expensive health care system in the world that provides mediocre results. We have the highest infant mortality among the world’s industrialized nations, and our life expectancy is shorter than 40 other nations.
Conservatives promoted school choice, especially private schools, while liberals maintained the status quo in the public schools. The result has been that most students today attend mediocre public schools, while a few lucky or rich kids attend charter or private schools.
Conservatives promoted oil drilling and other fossil fuel development, while liberals advocated for conservation and green technology. The result has been that we’ve had no energy policy, and we’re almost twice as dependent on foreign oil today than we were at the time of the first oil crisis in 1973.

These differences and failed compromises on economic issues are only part of the bad blood between conservatives and liberals. The other part is the profound differences over social issues. Since the 1970’s, liberals have become more secular and hostile to traditional religion, as exemplified in their using the courts and legislation to legalize abortion, to restrict public religious expression, and promote alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality. At the same time, conservatives have embraced fundamentalist Christianity, seething at the godless liberals and their secular-humanistic agenda. For many liberals and conservatives, these differences are more important than the economic ones.

The over 30-year marriage of modern liberals and conservatives has failed. The two sides have spent most of the time attacking and criticizing the other, neglecting their duty to promote the public good. It’s unlikely that centrist marriage counselors like Thomas Friedman can do anything constructive to bring the two sides together. It’s time for a divorce.

I propose that the country split into two, a predominantly liberal Coastal America, and predominantly conservative Middle America. Coastal America would include most of the “Blue” states. Some states in the middle portion of the country would likely join, such as Illinois. Some states in the Southeast, such as South Carolina, would likely not join. Middle America would include most of the “Red” states. My guess is that the capitol of Middle America would be in Texas, the most heavily populated among the “Red” states. Splitting the country this way would cause major logistical and transportation issues, since some state borders would transform into international borders. If, for example, Kansas joins Middle America, and Missouri joins Coastal America, many commuters in the Kansas City metro area would have to cross an international border to get to work. Also, the “marriage settlement agreement” (i.e. splitting the assets and debts between the two countries) would be a source of contention. Would both sides get nuclear weapons? There would be a possibility of military engagement between the two sides (perhaps leading to civil war, as it did 150 years ago).

While not an ideal situation, and one with many obstacles and pitfalls, it’s the best of several bad alternatives. One alternative is to continue the way we’ve been going. This will lead to continued economic decline, neglect of infrastructure and education, growing frustration at government, and the increased possibility of widespread political unrest or civil war. Another alternative is to wait for some crisis or external threat to bring the sides together. Even in the unlikely event that some unifying crisis will happen, such as the 9/11 attacks, this crisis won’t change the fundamental differences. Just as with the 9/11 attacks, after the crisis is over the status quo will resume. Another alternative is for one side to establish a dictatorship, imposing its ideas on the other. That’s the only way that either the liberal Reich or the conservative/libertarian agenda can be achieved in an intact America. An American dictatorship would be impossible without first a civil war, a major economic disaster, or both.

Reich’s agenda has a good chance for passage in Coastal America. While there would be some conservatives there, they wouldn’t be numerous or influential enough to stop the liberals from passing the legislation, and a President Obama or some other liberal President from signing it. Reich, Krugman, Obama, Hillary Clinton and others can transform Coastal America into a European-style welfare state, complete with high taxes, universal Medicare, and, most importantly, public investment in infrastructure and education. Their model would be the Great Prosperity America of 1947-1975, along with contemporary European countries. One thing liberals need to understand is that the aging of America, along with foreign competition, forces them to be much less generous with social welfare and entitlement spending than they were in the past.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Ron/Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich and others can transform Middle America into a Libertarian-Christian utopia, using as their model the laissez-faire U.S. from 1870-1928. They can promote private investment and free markets in health care, infrastructure and education. Since American today is closer to the 1947-1975 model than the 1870-1928 model, and many people depend on social welfare and entitlement programs, the conservatives would have a harder time enacting their agenda. One thing that conservatives need to understand is that the America of 1870-1928 had very little defense spending (with the brief exception of World War I). If Rush, Glenn, Sarah and the others want to cut taxes to pre-1930 levels, or eliminate the income tax, they’ll need to radically cut defense spending.

The good thing about a split America is that neither the Coastal nor Middle parts would have any pretensions about being a superpower. There would be no need for (or ability to fund) the level of military spending we have now. We wouldn’t be able to send troops to a future Iraq or Afghanistan to try to perform nation building. We would have to sell off or destroy much of our military hardware, and send most of our troops back to private life. Our military would transform from being the world’s policeman to being a self-defense force.

Like with West and East Germany between World War II and the destruction of the Berlin Wall, Coastal and Middle America can be seen as a large-scale political-economic experiment. If one is vastly more successful than the other, as West Germany was compared to East Germany, then perhaps the failed one will eventually agree to accept the system adopted by the successful one. Like with the reunification of Germany, America may then become reunited again. On other hand, if both are successful, or neither one successful, then perhaps America may remain divided for a long time.

In conclusion, Aftershock has some good examples of how our country has become more economically unequal in the last 30 years. The middle class has struggled while the rich have gotten much richer. The coping mechanisms that those in the working and middle classes have used to try to maintain their standard of living, including having both spouses work, increasing their work hours, and increasing their level of debt relative to income, have been exhausted. The money going to the rich, unlike that going to the middle class, is usually invested, not spent, which helps out Wall Street but not Main Street.

I don’t agree with Reich’s argument that a massive increase of government social welfare spending and taxation is needed to grow America’s economy. While such a policy will lead to more equality, there are other ways to promote economic growth and improved standard of living that rely more on stimulating production than consumption. These alternatives include laissez-faire economics that America utilized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, along with a mix of Communist dictatorship and capitalism that contemporary China uses. Reich’s agenda can only be achieved in a Coastal America that results from splitting the country into two. Such a split is the best of a number of bad alternatives that face America today, a result of a failed marriage between modern liberals and conservatives.

Can Humans Perceive the Geomagnetic Field and Utilize it for Navigation? A Review of “Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense” by Robin Baker

2011-04-13T15:49:00.003-04:00

As evidence has accumulated that many animals utilize the Earth’s magnetic field (aka the geomagnetic field) for navigation, it’s reasonable to wonder if humans also do so. Since some members of every group of vertebrates possess the magnetic sense, why shouldn’t humans? Aren’t humans animals? Doesn’t modern biology, including the subdisciplines of genetics, evolution, physiology and anatomy, neuroscience, etc., emphasize the link between humans and lower animals? How can animals have an entire sensory apparatus that nature neglected to grant to humans?

Robin Baker, formerly a professor of zoology at the University of Manchester, asked these same questions over 30 years ago. He didn’t just ask questions, but conducted a pioneering research project to answer these questions. He wrote two books summarizing his research: Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense, at the beginning of his project, and Human Navigation and Magnetoreception, at the end. Having already read Human Navigation and Magnetoreception, I decided to read the earlier published book.

Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense focused on only one type of experiment, bus experiments (he would later add chair and walkabout experiments). It talked a lot about the animal magnetoreception research that motivated Baker to conduct his human research. A frequently-mentioned example was homing pigeon experiments. In these studies, researchers looked at homing success after release from a considerable distance, direction of vanishing point, i.e. the last observed position of the pigeon after release, and the pigeons’ directional preferences in an orientation cage. Experimental manipulations included altering the magnetic field surrounding the animal by means of coils and bar magnets attached to the head. Disruption in homing ability by means of magnets demonstrated that homing pigeons and other animals can perceive and utilize the geomagnetic field to navigate.

Since pigeons can find their way home after being displaced tens of kilometers, why not see if humans can do the same? Since a pigeon’s ability to find its way home is disrupted if a bar magnet is attached to its head, wouldn’t the same hold for a human? That’s the logic that motivated Baker, whose background is zoology, to apply to humans what researchers up to his time had only studied in animals.

How can you prove that humans use a “sixth sense,” i.e. a magnetic sense, to navigate? The simplest and most cost-effective way to transport people from home to the release point is by bus or van. People can make note of landscape details and roads traveled as they are driven around. If they are familiar with the area, they can make educated guesses about where they are based on what they observe.

To get around this problem, Baker decided to blindfold his subjects. Blindfolded subjects wouldn’t be able to observe landscape details. Unless they had an ability to navigate by feeling the twists and turns of the bus (i.e. an “inertial sense”), they would quickly get lost. By suppressing their visual sense, he believed, their magnetic sense would become activated.

Baker drove his blindfolded subjects between 6 and 52 km from the university, which was the “home” reference point. Some experiments involved transporting subjects in a van, and others a motor coach. Along the way, and after reaching the destination (the “release point”), subjects were asked to write down or say their estimate of direction of home and air-line distance from home, and to point to home. They had to do this while still blindfolded.

To summarize the results, Baker found that blindfolded subjects possessed a weak but statistically significant navigational ability. Bar magnets or helmets with electromagnetic coils disrupted this navigational ability. Baker concluded from these results that the blindfolded subjects’ weak navigational ability was due to a “compass in the head”, i.e. a magnetic sense.

Baker made frequent use of charts and diagrams in the book to present his results. Despite these visual aids, I found it hard to understand what was going on. Some of the results could have been more thoroughly explained. The biggest problem, however, was trying to connect the results to a coherent theory. On this conceptual level I found the book lacking.

Reading this book three decades after it was published, I have the advantage of knowing the subsequent bizarre history of the project. I was beginning high school the year the book was published, and don’t remember hearing anything about Baker’s human magnetoreception claims. I think it was publicized more in Great Britain than in the United States.

To summarize the history, after publishing this book and some articles, Baker continued his research project, trying additional types of experiments such as a spinning chair. In the spinning chair experiments, after being blindfolded and spun around, a subject indicated what compass direction he was facing. While Baker was continuing his research in the 1980’s, other scientists in Great Britain and the United States tried to replicate his results. They focused on his claim that blindfolded humans driven in a bus have a weak navigational ability to locate home. They didn’t use the bar magnets or electromagnets, but simply tried to replicate the “control” condition in which the purported magnetic sense was supposed to function. The majority of attempted replications failed. To add to the confusion, Baker claimed that the supposedly failed replications actually succeeded, but that the researchers drew the wrong conclusions from the data.

After Baker published Human Navigation and Magnetoreception in 1989, which was both an answer to critics and a summary of his completed research, he changed gears entirely. He moved on to popular science books on the evolutionary biology of sex, such as Sperm Wars. His latest book is a novel.

Once Baker left the human magnetoreception research field, no one else picked it up. It disappeared, as if it fell into a black hole. Unlike the animal magnetoreception field, which developed into a prolific research specialty, the human magnetoreception field went into a long-term coma after Baker left it.

There were fundamental problems with Baker’s experimental methodology that led to his failure to scientifically establish the existence of a human magnetic sense. One problem was that he blindfolded subjects. We now know the magnetic compass that birds and some other animals use for navigation is part of the visual system, and requires light. This is known as the “radical pair” mechanism. Blindfolding subjects will block such a compass, assuming that humans have one. To be fair to Baker, when he began these experiments over 30 years ago there was little evidence in favor of the radical pair mechanism.

Another fundamental problem was that Baker assumed that the magnetic sense was unconscious. Since we can’t ask animals what they feel or perceive, we don’t know if their magnetic sense is conscious. But the five “basic” senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) are conscious, so it’s difficult to accept the existence of an unconscious sense. It’s even more difficult to prove it, as Baker found out after publishing this book. Baker compares the magnetic sense to a sense of time, which is unconscious. But time isn’t an environmental stimulus that is sensed by a specific organ, as the geomagnetic field is believed to be sensed by the magnetic sense organ.

Baker made a crucial error in assuming that possessing the magnetic sense was normal and functional. According to Baker, “[I]f a sense normally exists, absence of that sense may have clinical side effects” (p. 123). He studied normal people, usually college students. He made no effort to isolate or identify people who had special abilities. As a result, the group composite navigational abilities he studied were weak, masked by considerable statistical noise, and difficult to replicate.

Another problem with Baker’s research is that he assumed that humans could utilize their magnetic sense to point toward home, or write down or say the distance from and direction toward home. It’s not clear that even animals that are known to possess the magnetic sense could do such things, if they had the brain capacity to do them. Animals are tested by measuring in what direction they move toward home. Moving toward home is not the same thing as pointing toward home, or telling what direction home is.

Baker assumed that magnetic home and the university were one and the same. But what if magnetic home was located far away from the university? How could the subjects’ magnetic sense guide them back to the university, if their magnetic home was located hundreds of kilometers away?

Based on my own research, I have come to the conclusion that the magnetic sense is a conscious sense, based on feelings, dysfunctional, and possessed by a minority of people. These magnetically perceptive people feel differently if they are north or south of magnetic home. Magnetic home is not the same as actual home. The location of magnetic home, which is a north-south transition, is based on where and when a person grew up.

While for pigeons and migratory birds the magnetic sense is normal and functional, for modern humans in developed countries it isn’t. Feeling depressed if we’re north of home, or manic if we’re south of home, provides no navigational benefit. Familiarity with the area, maps and GPS devices can tell us where we are relative to home with much more precision than our magnetic sense does. Also, the fact that we travel so much and live much longer than our primitive ancestors did makes it likely that magnetic home and actual home will be separated by a considerable distance. Our magnetoreceptive feelings interfere with our ability to function in the modern world. In fact, they interfere to such an extent that most people with these feelings are diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications.

Baker’s research paradigm of driving subjects around in a bus can be modified to test these human navigational abilities that I assert are based on a magnetic sense. I talk about experimental methods in depth in my research paper, but I’ll summarize them here. Instead of blindfolding subjects, which blocks their visual-based magnetoreceptor, the bus windows should be covered. The internal bus lights will provide subjects with the light they need to activate their magnetoreceptor. Since the magnetoreceptive feeling of being north or south of home is greatly enhanced by looking directly at the early afternoon sky, a sunroof should be installed that is usually kept closed. When opened, subjects will be able to look at the sky without seeing landscape details. Subjects should then be driven to areas close to their magnetic home. Since magnetic home is different for each person, only one person at a time should be driven around in the bus. By looking at the sky through the open sunroof, the subject can then indicate where he is relative to his magnetic home. Since he’ll have no knowledge of what direction north or south is, he won’t be able to point to home, as in Baker’s experiments. He also won’t be able to estimate distance to home, since the feelings aren’t capable of being converted to distance. All that his magnetic sense can tell him is whether he is north of, south of, or in his magnetic home.

This experimental methodology is more a series of in-depth case studies than a group experiment. While labor-intensive, the only equipment needed is the bus. Although case studies provide limited generalizability, the navigational ability should be strong and reliable enough that it can be replicated.

For any scientist contemplating doing these above-mentioned bus experiments, an important question is: how do I select individuals with this ability? I mention some tests that can be done in my Are You Sensitive page, but I admit that I don’t know how this magnetic sense functions in other people. As with any new research area, the initial experiments will require adaptability and persistence, along with the willingness to take risks and accept failure.

Robin Baker was a pioneer, but most pioneers fail. Human magnetoreception has always been a controversial subject, one that few researchers dared to touch. Several centuries ago, Mesmer became a famous fraud by claiming that humans possess a magnetic sense, and today we call a hypnotized person “mesmerized”. I give Baker credit for jeopardizing his career by being the first person to systematically study the human magnetic sense. The world (especially the magnetoreceptive psychiatric population) now desperately needs a scientist with the courage to follow in Baker’s footsteps and restart human magnetoreception research. With the improved knowledge of animal magnetoreception that we possess today, along with my human magnetoreception hypothesis, this new research could lead to the breakthrough that Baker was denied.

Are Antidepressants Effective? A Review of “The Emperor’s New Drugs” by Irving Kirsch

2011-03-13T16:18:00.000-04:00

It’s common knowledge now that antidepressants are no better than placebo for the majority of patients. Only ten years ago, however, this was a very controversial idea. Back then, doctors, patients, the media, and the general public believed that Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and other “wonder drugs” helped millions of people overcome their depression by correcting chemical imbalances. It’s the story that drug companies, regulators, and academic psychiatrists told us. Many people still believe this, and doctors write out millions of antidepressant prescriptions, but it’s contrary to evidence. It’s true that antidepressants successfully treat depression. The problem is that sugar pills (“placebos”) also successfully treat depression, and the sugar pills are about as effective as antidepressants, without any of the drugs’ side effects.

Irving Kirsch, a researcher who pioneered the use of meta-analysis in studying antidepressants, writes about the chimera of antidepressant effectiveness in his book The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth. Unlike Robert Whitaker’s book The Anatomy of an Epidemic, which talks about all the major psychiatric disorders and classes of drugs, Kirsch restricts his analysis to depression and antidepressants. Kirsch’s main argument is that placebos are effective treatments for depression, and that antidepressants add very little except side effects.

Before conducting his research project, Kirsch, like most people, believed that antidepressants worked. A clinical psychologist, Kirsch used to refer depressed people to psychiatrists so that they could obtain prescriptions for antidepressants. He trusted the data in the published literature that demonstrated the effectiveness of antidepressants. He changed his view after doing his research.

After analyzing 38 clinical trials involving more than 3000 depressed patients, Kirsch found that only 25% of the benefit of antidepressant treatment was due to the drug effect. The placebo effect, the patient’s hope that he will improve from treatment, was twice as powerful as the drug effect.

When analyzing the data, Kirsch also found that the newer antidepressants (e.g. SSRI’s) were no better than the older antidepressants. Even more surprisingly, he found that sedatives, barbiturates, antipsychotic drugs, stimulants, opiates, and thyroid medications were as effective as antidepressants in treating depression. The only thing that these drugs have in common is that they produce easily noticeable side effects. Kirsch explains that in a clinical trial, patients are randomly assigned to either a treatment (drug) group or a placebo group. If the patient knows that he’s been assigned the drug, he’ll feel more hopeful and optimistic—i.e. he’ll feel less depressed. Since the studies are supposed to be double-blind, the only way the patient can know this is if he gets side effects. If he tells his doctor about the side effects, then the doctor will also know that he’s been assigned the treatment. The doctor may have a different attitude toward the patient if he knows that he’s been assigned the treatment. So the supposedly double-blind study isn’t really double-blind. That’s the reason why the other drugs also were effective for depression. Any drug that causes side effects will make both the patient and doctor more confident and hopeful, since the side effects make them know that the patient is receiving the actual treatment. The placebo effect, not the chemical action of the drug, treats the depression.

Additional evidence for this hypothesis that drugs are only active placebos is that there’s a near-perfect correlation between improvement and the experience of SSRI side effects. The more side effects the patient has, the more he improves on the drug. Another way to interpret this, however, is that patients who actually benefit from the chemical action of the drug also tend to experience more side effects.

As part of his research project, Kirsch used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain unpublished clinical trial studies from the FDA. Combining this data with the published studies, Kirsch found that the drug effect was less than 20%. By contrast, the drug effect for pain medication is about 50%. Kirsch also found that the therapeutic effect of antidepressants, unlike most other medications, is not dose dependent. Higher doses of antidepressants produce more side effects, but don’t reduce the symptoms of depression more than lower doses.

These above-mentioned results were well known by researchers, regulatory agencies, and drug companies, but not by most doctors and patients. Pharmaceutical companies have used some tricks to keep this “dirty little secret” from the general public, including:

Withholding negative studies from publication
Publishing positive studies multiple times
Publishing only some of the results from multi-site studies
Publishing data that was different from what they submitted to the FDA

Why were the drugs approved, when they show so little benefit over placebo? Regulators only require two clinical trials having positive results. Negative trials don’t count. Drug companies can conduct as many trials as they want until they find two with positive results. Kirsch calls this “voodoo science.” It makes things too easy for drug companies.

Part of the reason for the popularity of antidepressants is that doctors and patients have been told that depression is a brain disease, a chemical imbalance that can be treated by medication. Kirsch tears apart the chemical imbalance myth. “Not only is the chemical-imbalance hypothesis unproven, but . . . it is about as close as a theory gets in science to being disproven by the evidence” (p. 81). The chemical imbalance theory states that depression is caused by inadequate levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. The two neurotransmitters that are most associated with depression are norepinephrine and serotonin. The theory came about from the supposed successes of antidepressant medications in treating depression. These drugs either block the destruction of norepinephrine and serotonin, or inhibit their reuptake, which result in more of the neurotransmitters in the brain. Additional evidence in favor of the chemical imbalance theory came from studies of a depression-causing drug resperine. These studies found that resperine decreased brain levels of norepinephrine and serotonin.

The problem with the chemical imbalance theory is that it doesn’t fit the data. Reanalysis of the data showed that resperine doesn’t actually cause depression. Antidepressants don’t really help treat depression, either, since most of their effectiveness is due to the placebo effect. Studies have been conducted in which norepinephrine or serotonin is experimentally reduced. This neurotransmitter reduction does not cause depression in healthy volunteers, or depressed people off medication. Rapid depletion of serotonin only triggers depression in patients currently taking SSRI’s. The final nail in the coffin of the chemical imbalance theory is the effectiveness against depression of tianeptine, a new antidepressant that has an opposite chemical effect as that of SSRI’s. Tianeptine is a selective serotonin reuptake enhancer, increasing the amount of serotonin in the brain. Depressed patients respond identically to tianeptine as they do to SSRI’s. Since it has an opposite chemical effect compared to the SSRI’s, any improvement in depression symptoms can’t logically be due to the chemical action of the drug.

In the last three chapters, Kirsch discusses at length the placebo effect. “The word placebo is Latin for ‘I shall please’” (p. 102). Placebo effects are examples of how suggestion can change how people feel and behave. Expectancies are important in placebo effects. If people expect to get better, depending on how strong they believe this, and what kind of disorder they have, there’s a chance that they will get better. Depression and pain are two disorders that respond well to placebos. The way in which the placebo is administered (e.g. pills, injection, or surgery), along with its brand name, color, price, and dosage are factors controlling its effectiveness. Placebos, like drugs, can produce changes in brain activity. For example, both patients given Prozac and those given placebo had reduced brain activity in the limbic system, the area of the brain associated with sadness and depressed mood.

Since placebos work so well for depression, why not prescribe placebo pills to depressed patients instead of medications? Placebo pills are cheaper and don’t have any side effects. Kirsch argues that this is wrong because it involves deception. A better alternative is psychotherapy, especially cognitive-behavioral therapy. Therapy is the “quintessential placebo,” a treatment that utilizes the placebo effect (i.e. the relationship between therapist and client, and the client’s expectancies of getting better), but does so without deception. Psychotherapy has a number of advantages over medication, including no side effects, reduced likelihood of relapse, and less long-term cost.

One problem with this book is that Kirsch seems to think that placebos will effectively treat all kinds of depression, including the more severe kinds. He acknowledges that the placebo response is reduced for the most severe types of depression. In other words, medications are more effective relative to placebos for the most severely depressed. He explains this by saying that because the severely depressed patients are more likely to have been on antidepressant medication before, and have higher dosages prescribed, they can more easily recognize whether they are on the actual drug or placebo. This will reduce the placebo effect for those assigned the sugar pill, which means that the drug effect is really a placebo effect in disguise. I don’t agree with this explanation. I think that some of the severe types of depression are biologically based, not responsive to placebos, but responsive to antidepressant medication.

Another problem is that Kirsch doesn’t once mention bipolar disorder. Would placebos successfully treat symptoms of depression associated with bipolar disorder? I doubt that they would for the majority of people with this disorder. What about seasonal affective disorder? Would placebos treat symptoms of depression for most people with this disorder? I doubt it. Like with severe (unipolar) depression, I think that bipolar disorder and seasonal affective disorder are biologically based, and don’t respond well to placebo. How about OCD, which although is not classified as a type of depression, has been successfully treated with SSRI antidepressants? Having had OCD, I don’t think that my core symptoms would have responded to a placebo pill. I know from experience that my symptoms didn’t respond well to psychotherapy (although I appreciated the advice from one therapist).

In conclusion, The Emperor’s New Drugs is an excellent account of the ineffectiveness of antidepressants, written by a pioneering researcher. It makes one wonder how so many people were fooled for so long into thinking that antidepressants treated patients by correcting chemical imbalances. Its weakness is that the author doesn’t distinguish between the majority of cases of mild to moderate depression in which drugs are no more effective than placebo, and the small number of biologically-based more severe cases in which placebos aren’t effective, but drugs are.

Are American Educators Living in a Fantasy World? A review of “Real Education” by Charles Murray

2011-02-23T15:03:00.001-05:00

I enjoy reading books by Charles Murray. Although he identifies himself as a libertarian conservative, he’s an independent thinker. His books The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment are examples of his unique perspective. A central point of the The Bell Curve is that intelligence, which is determined by genes and early childhood experience, is a major factor in determining who succeeds in life and who doesn’t. Since whether a man is intelligent or not is outside of his control, there’s no basis for the libertarian argument that those who are financially successful have “earned” their money. A less intelligent person can work just as hard as a more intelligent one, sometimes harder, but only make a fraction of what the smart person is making. In Human Accomplishment, which celebrates past creative achievements in the arts and sciences, Murray doesn’t find any correlation between political/economic freedom and rate of achievement. I’d expect a conservative writer to argue that living in a free and democratic society promotes achievement, but that would ignore the facts of history. Most great achievement occurred by men living in monarchies and aristocracies that had very little freedom or liberty in the modern sense.

In his latest book, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality, Murray again stakes out an independent position. While one would expect a conservative writer to extol the virtues of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” initiative, Murray is very critical of it. Murray also is realistic about the limitations of conservative initiatives such as school choice, charter schools, and tuition vouchers.

Murray’s 4 simple educational truths are:

Ability varies
Half of the children are below average
Too many people are going to college
America’s future depends on how we educate the academically gifted

I’ll discuss Murray’s arguments for each of these truths. In the case of “ability varies,” Murray focuses on academic ability, which correlates highly with intelligence. The simple truth is that “half of the children are below average” in academic ability. Research has shown that there’s a normal (“bell curve”) distribution of academic ability. It follows that half the children will be on the left side of the bell curve, i.e. below average.

Murray next argues that there’s not much that schools can do to improve performance of below-average ability children. This is much more controversial than the statement that half of the children are below average. Murray presents actual questions from standardized tests that below-average ability children have problems answering. These are pretty simple questions, and it’s surprising that so many children have difficulties with them. The fact that they can’t answer them, however, could be indicative of a problem with the schools, not their lack of intelligence.

Murray then discusses various programs designed to improve students’ test scores, including preschool programs (Abecedarian Project and Infant Health and Development Program), and elementary/secondary school programs (Title I and No Child Left Behind). His conclusion is that these programs produced little to no improvement in student achievement. His case is bolstered by the results of the Coleman Report, which studied the effects of inequality of educational opportunity on student achievement. The Coleman Report found that quality of schools explains almost nothing about differences in academic achievement. Family background is more important a determiner of student achievement than any educational measure. What about the terrible quality of many American public schools, including chaotic and sometimes violent classrooms, incompetent teachers, low standards, and dearth of teaching resources such as textbooks and computers? Murray states that these “worst of the worst” inner-city schools only affect about 2 to 3 percent of all students. Based on the failure of programs to improve test scores, the results of the Coleman Report, and the small percentage of students attending failing public schools, Murray says that “[t]o continue to assert that major improvements are possible in the academic test performance of the lower half of the distribution through reform of the public schools is more than a triumph of hope over experience. It ignores experience altogether. It is educational romanticism” (p. 62).

I have a few criticisms of Murray’s argument. The first has to do with the way the book is structured. In a chapter that focuses on below-average students, Murray makes his case that schools can’t do much to lift student achievement. Murray separately discusses gifted children in another chapter. He doesn’t have much to say, however, about average and above-average (but not gifted) children. Wouldn’t better schools help improve scores of average and above-average students? Wouldn’t these students have more potential to achieve than below-average students?

I’m also not convinced that schools can’t do better for below-average students. Murray says that failing public schools only affect 2 to 3 percent of all students. But these are the “worst of the worst”, the most extreme examples of poor schools. Is he implying that no other public schools have problems with lack of discipline, gangs, violence, incompetent teachers, and low standards? In other words, that 97% of American public schools today have absolutely no problems? I think that many schools have similar problems, but not just as extreme as the worst of the worst inner city schools. Students in these moderately bad schools can perform better if their schools had higher standards.

In a book on education, it’s surprising that Murray ignores international comparisons. I constantly read articles and charts showing how poorly American students compare to students in some other countries. Based on his argument that schools can’t do much to lift ability, it follows logically that the reason why Singaporean students perform so much better than American students is that their students are a lot smarter than ours are. This might be true, but I would have liked to see Murray discuss this in his book. Is the fact that Singaporean public schools have very high standards, excellent teachers, a demanding curriculum, and no discipline problems completely unrelated to the fact that Singaporean students score higher than American students? I find it hard to believe.

Murray’s next educational truth is that too many people are going to college. He makes some good arguments that many people, including some who have the ability to get a bachelor’s degree, would do better in some other type of post-secondary education. He uses an example of a young man deciding whether to become an electrician or white-collar manager. He’s smart enough to get his bachelor’s degree in business, but is this the right choice? He has special small-motor and spatial skills that would make him a good electrician. He’d probably be an average manager. Based on his abilities, interests, and future career opportunities (mediocre managers are much more likely to be laid off than top electricians), becoming an electrician would be a good option. In fact, skilled technicians and artisans are in high demand even in this recession, while many white collar jobs have been downsized and outsourced.

There are many students such as the one described in the above paragraph, who choose a 4-year college over other options (e.g. technical school, community college, or apprenticeship). The reason why they choose college is that their parents, teachers, and guidance counselors push them in this direction. The reason why adults push children into college is that our society has made the bachelor’s degree a requirement for professional success. Murray questions this cultural worship of the bachelor’s degree. There are some for whom college is appropriate. This includes good math and science students who major in engineering and the hard sciences. It also includes good students who want to study pre-med or pre-law. But for the vast majority of students, especially those who become liberal arts or business majors, college is not the best option. It’s not good for their personal development, as they don’t learn much self-discipline or self-restraint with their light workload or partying lifestyle. It’s not good for their professional development, as their BA degree doesn’t give them the specific skills to get good jobs after they graduate. When I graduated college over 20 years ago, I was basically a liberal arts major with no job skills. My first job out of college was a management trainee at a shoe store. I eventually got a job at a computer help desk, which gave me my start in IT, but it was at near-minimum wage. Today, it’s even tougher for liberal arts majors. The recession has hit them especially hard, leaving them with a lot of student debt and little opportunity for a good job.

Murray next discusses education of the gifted. America’s future depends on the (unelected) intellectual elite, those who have risen to the top jobs that directly impact the nation’s culture, economy, and politics, along with those who influence smaller communities. “The members of the elite are drawn overwhelmingly from the academically gifted. We had better make sure that we do the best possible job of educating them” (p. 107).

Gifted children should be allowed to advance at their own pace, not be held back by their peers. This could include skipping grades, or getting advanced material within their age-appropriate grade. I found myself unchallenged as a gifted public school student, and would have been better off being pushed to take more demanding classes.

Murray focuses on training the gifted to be good citizens. This training should continue through college. “We need to structure their education so that they have the best possible chance to become not just knowledgeable but wise” (p. 112). Murray’s wisdom training of the gifted includes improving their verbal skills, teaching them how to make sound judgments, teaching them how to think about ethical issues, and teaching them humility. I’ll discuss each of these points below:

Verbal skills—SAT-Verbal scores never recovered from their decline in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. SAT-Math scores did recover, indicating that educational priorities led to a toughening of the math and sciences curriculum. These priorities didn’t result in improvement in humanities and social sciences education, fields that depend heavily on verbal skills. Part of this failure to teach verbal skills is a result of the progressive education movement, which emphasized creative self-expression over correct spelling and grammar. When I was in high school in the early and mid-1980’s, my school had very good math teachers, but mediocre English and social sciences teachers.
Sound judgments—Members of the elite make decisions all the time, judgments that affect the culture and nation. The Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq still impacts us eight years later. When music company executives decide to sign a gangster rap artist, and ignore a quality musician, they weaken our culture a notch. When the FDA approves a psychiatric drug for children that has been inadequately tested, it jeopardizes our children’s mental health and development. Some components of sound judgment are unteachable, such as intuition and common sense. A teachable component includes how to evaluate data, especially the knowledge of basic statistics. Another one is pattern recognition, including knowledge of history. Personal and vicarious experience is also important in being able to see patterns in different situations.
Ethical issues—Schools used to teach morality and virtue. Today, there is a widespread moral vacuum at all levels of education. This moral vacuum leads to nonjudgmentalism and ethical illiteracy. While there is more tolerance today than ever before, this tolerance extends to behavior that should not be acceptable in any society, including greed, selfishness, dishonesty, irresponsibility, and intemperance. It’s the function of the intellectual elite to help promote ethical behavior by example, by policy, and by writing and speaking. The default of the elite in this area has led to anomie and anarchy. We need to teach the gifted about virtue and ethics. This can be done by using examples from the great religious traditions and secular philosophers. These traditions and philosophies are in remarkable agreement on core issues (e.g. “the golden rule”).
Humility—The self-esteem and individual rights movements have led to a widespread decline in student humility and personal responsibility. If a student gets a bad grade, it’s not his fault, but the fault of his teacher. The teacher is violating his “right” to a good grade. Students are supposed to feel good about themselves, no matter what they do or how well they perform academically. Criticism should be avoided at all cost. Research has shown that improving self-esteem doesn’t raise grades, promote good achievement, or have any positive effect. While there’s nothing wrong with praising gifted children for their successes, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing them for their failings, either. Many parents and teachers do the former, but not the latter. To gain perspective, and acquire humility, the gifted need to be challenged enough so that they fail sometimes. A little humility goes a long way in promoting sound judgments and ethical behavior.

In conclusion, Real Education provides a different and valuable perspective on the failings in American schools. We need to be more realistic about the capabilities of below-average students, we need to offer more students an alternative to college, and we need to provide better wisdom-training of the gifted. I feel that Murray is too pessimistic about the capability of public schools to improve student academic performance, especially for average and above-average students. I recommend this book as an independent perspective on American education.

Soldiers Survive War Only to be Killed by Drugs

2011-02-13T16:06:00.000-05:00

I read a heartbreaking article in the New York Times today. Soldiers with PTSD, who come home from war with insomnia, anxiety and chronic pain, are prescribed powerful drug cocktails. The cocktails include pain, anti-anxiety, antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. Some soldiers also combine the prescribed medications with other illegally-obtained drugs. The result is a toxic combination. The article describes three cases, but there are many more.

I question the logic of "drug cocktails". How can you know the effect of a drug when it's combined with many other drugs? There are so many interactions and side effects to disentangle. I understand that these soldiers are in pain, but can't psychiatry provide better care for them?

Are Scientists Objective and Rational? A Review of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn

2011-02-11T16:02:00.000-05:00

We think of science as a rational, empirical alternative to religion and spirituality. The scientific method is a common denominator for all the different fields in science. Science is the basis for technology, which has improved the standard of living for billions of people. In the developed world, we pride ourselves on public policy being guided by science rather than superstition or tradition.

While science is objective and rational, what about scientists? Are scientists a bunch of supermen not subject to desires, wishes, and prejudices that non-scientists experience? Or are they human beings, with the same frailties and failings that other humans have? Thomas S. Kuhn takes up this question in his almost 50-year-old classic book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The question is still relevant today, as science impacts the daily lives of more people in the world than it ever has before.

The question I ask in the title to this review can be rephrased as: Is scientific advancement always linear and progressing at a constant rate, or is it characterized by long fallow periods interrupted by occasional revolutions? The media and textbooks favor the former interpretation. Almost every day, the media reports on some new study or experiment that adds to our scientific knowledge. Science textbooks give students the sense that past historical controversies are irrelevant, and they should focus on solving problems. Past controversies and changes in beliefs are usually only studied by science historians.

Kuhn sees the linear model of scientific advancement as flawed. It doesn’t reflect the reality of science history. Science history, like art, political/economic, technology, and religious history, is characterized by occasional bursts of radical change (i.e. revolutions) surrounded by long periods of stability. Unlike these other fields, however, which all past civilizations possessed in some form, science is much newer and for over four centuries monopolized by Europeans.

Kuhn gives a detailed account of how scientific revolutions happen. To understand revolutions, you need to first understand “normal science,” which is what Kuhn describes as everyday science. Normal science is what most scientists do most of the time. It consists of puzzle solving, of determination of significant fact, of matching facts with theory, and articulation of theory. Examples include determining structural formulas, specific gravities, the speed of light, and arriving at quantitative laws. Normal science is guided by “paradigms,” constellations of beliefs, values, and techniques that are shared by members of a scientific community. A paradigm accepted by all members of a scientific discipline is a prerequisite for normal scientific work. Fundamental disagreements are characteristics of early stages of scientific development, which go away with the adoption of a shared paradigm. An example is the field of optics before and after Isaac Newton. Before Newton, “though the field’s practitioners were scientists, the net result of their activity was something less than science” (p. 13). Because there was no shared paradigm, everyone writing on optics had to articulate the foundations of his viewpoint. After Newton, scientists accepted his theory of light, and normal scientific optical work began.

A contemporary example of a pre-scientific field is clinical psychology. Psychodynamic therapies differ on fundamentals with cognitive, behavioral, family, sociological, and biological therapies. There is no shared paradigm uniting those who practice these different styles of therapies. As a result, clinical psychology has not made the progress characteristic of mature scientific disciplines like biology, chemistry, or physics.

Newton’s particle theory of light was eventually replaced with newer theories. The first theory to replace it was the wave theory, which derived from the optical writings of Young and Fresnel in the early nineteenth century. This was then replaced in the twentieth century with the contemporary theory of light as photons, with some characteristics of waves and some of particles. This theory derived from the work of Planck, Einstein and others. Each of these changes in theory was an example of a scientific revolution, a topic to which Kuhn devotes most of his book.

Scientific revolutions begin with “anomalies”, experimental results that violate a paradigm-induced expectation. Anomalies usually come about as a result of normal scientific work. One famous example is the late-nineteenth century crisis in physics that led to Einstein’s relativity theory. The wave theory of light, which became the paradigm of the nineteenth century, held that there must be a mechanical ether through which light propagated. All other waves traveled through some medium, and light was no exception. Anomalies arose, however, when both celestial observations and terrestrial experiments failed to find any drift of light through the ether. These anomalies provoked a “crisis”, an unstable condition in which a new paradigm has a good chance of acceptance. Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which he published in 1905, was a direct response to this crisis. This theory led to a new physics paradigm not only about the nature of light, but also about relative space, mass, and motion.

The above analysis is compatible with objective and rational scientists. When they practice normal science scientists are objective. After a new paradigm is accepted, and the crisis which led to it is resolved, scientists are objective. It is in their response to anomaly, and their resistance to change during revolutionary periods, that scientists reveal that there are only human.

When anomalies happen, such as the problems verifying an ether medium through which light travels, scientists have a few options:

1) They can stick with the current paradigm, and either ignore the anomalies, or try to come up with theories explaining the anomalies. Many times these theories are competing. Sometimes these theories and revisions of theories create a confusing mess, such as the modifications to Ptolemaic astronomy that occurred during the Middle Ages.

2) They can abandon the current paradigm in favor of a new one. This presupposes that some creative individual or group of people has put forth an alternative.

When a new paradigm is offered to the scientific community, it usually has not been verified, and doesn’t fit the existing facts and observational data better than the old one. For example, Copernicus’ heliocentric theory did not explain existing astronomical data better than Ptolemaic geocentric theory. It took years for Einstein’s theory of relativity to be experimentally verified.

That’s why scientists cannot choose between competing paradigms based on fact or logic. Many times new theories have an esthetic appeal to some scientists. These scientists help promote the new theory, and bring a greater likelihood that experiments or observations will be done to verify the theory.

Most scientists will stick to the current paradigm, even if it has many anomalies. This is due to the fact that they are human, and most humans resist change. This can be seen in nonscientific contexts. Contemporary American political life is characterized by widespread corruption, inefficiencies, and indebtedness. But due to inertia, it’s very hard to enact even the most basic and obvious reforms. From an external, objective perspective, this resistance to change is irrational, just as scientists sticking to flawed paradigms are irrational. But most people will defy logic and reason in order to maintain stability.

There are some scientists who will embrace a new paradigm. These people have different personalities than most—more open to new experience, more novelty seeking, and less bound to tradition. The most extreme examples are scientists who come up with the new paradigmatic theories. They are usually very young or new to the field. Einstein was in his mid-twenties and not yet a professional scientist when he published his paper on the special theory of relativity.

Let me use a current example to illustrate Kuhn’s thesis. I previously mentioned clinical psychology as pre-scientific field, one that has competing paradigms and theories. This is true when one looks at clinical psychology as a whole, including both psychologists and psychiatrists. Let me focus, however, on psychiatry, i.e. medical doctors who specialize in mental health. They have a shared paradigm, the biochemical/drug theory, which states that mental disorders are caused by chemical imbalances that can be treated by drugs. It’s rare to find a psychiatrist who has time or inclination to provide any kind of talk therapy. Most of them are now pill pushers, who restrict patient interaction to brief sessions, primarily to make diagnoses.

This wasn’t always the case. In the middle of the twentieth century, psychiatrists had a much different paradigm, Freudian psychoanalysis. They spent their time in lengthy analytical sessions with patients. When psychiatric drugs were first introduced in the 1950’s, they were a novelty, and most psychiatrists continued doing psychoanalysis. But over the next few decades, psychiatrists eagerly embraced the new biochemical/drug paradigm. It isn’t hard to understand why. Psychiatrists are trained as medical doctors, which means that they have to take the same biology, chemistry, and physics classes that other doctors take. They had extensive knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry that was wasted when they became psychoanalysts. By prescribing drugs to treat mental disorders, however, they got to be “real” doctors. They could put their medical knowledge to use in their professional life, something that they couldn’t do when they were psychoanalysts.

Over the next half century, the biochemical/drug paradigm developed anomalies. These anomalies were summarized by Robert Whitaker in his recent book Anatomy of an Epidemic. The chemical imbalance theory, i.e. that schizophrenia is caused by too much dopamine, and depression by too little serotonin, was never verified. Scientists haven’t made much progress in understanding the cause or pathophysiology of mental illness. Diagnosis is still based on symptoms due to a lack of any reliable or valid lab tests. Drugs that seem to help patients in the short term, have a much more problematic long-term outcome. As newer drugs began to be prescribed more frequently, patients seemed to function worse than they ever did before, many of them becoming permanently disabled and unable to work. Corruption became endemic, with many leading psychiatrists becoming paid spokesmen for drug companies.

In spite of these anomalies, most psychiatrists (and biological mental health researchers) continue to support the biochemical/drug paradigm. Part of the reason for this is the normal resistance to change that I described above. Another reason is that there has been no newer biological paradigm for mental illness. According to Kuhn, “a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to takes its place” (p. 77).

There’s no way to predict how long the wait will be for an alternate candidate. In the case of the crisis in physics about the nature of light, a new theory became available within decades. It took over a millennium for an alternative to the geocentric Ptolemaic theory to arise.

The reason why we can’t predict when an alternate paradigm will come forward is that scientific creative achievement is not linear and progressive. As Kuhn describes in his book, scientific progress is characterized by long sterile periods of pre-science or normal science, interrupted by occasional revolutions. Many times these revolutions are the result of individual creative genius, as in the case of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. Understanding the psychological characteristics of creative individuals, and the social characteristics of societies that promote create achievement, is beyond the scope of this book. For a psychological perspective, I recommend Eysenck’s Genius or Simonton’s Origins of Genius. For a sociological perspective, I recommend Murray’s Human Accomplishment.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is only about 200 pages, and not difficult to read. I’m not interested in the philosophy of science, and sections devoted to philosophy I found boring. I’m more interested in historical examples, and found the historical sections more interesting. A problem is that Kuhn briefly goes over some of the older theories and experiments, and I would have preferred to see a more thorough explanation, including illustrations. Another problem is that Kuhn’s examples are exclusively in the physical sciences, and I would have liked to see more biological and psychological examples.

Notwithstanding these limitations, this book is a classic in the history and philosophy of science. I recommend it to anyone interested in science and creativity.

Robert Whitaker Debates Academic Psychiatrist Andrew Nierenberg at Massachusetts General Hospital

2011-01-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

When I first reviewed Robert Whitaker’s book Anatomy of an Epidemic, I was disappointed to find very few reviews or discussions by members of the psychiatric establishment. I was curious about their perspective on Whitaker’s assertions concerning the deleterious long-term effects of psychiatric drugs. It seems that the situation has changed somewhat now. On January 13, Whitaker was invited to speak at the famed “Ether Dome” at Massachusetts General Hospital, but with a catch—he had to consent to be rebutted by one of the members of the faculty there, Dr. Andrew Nierenberg. There’s an excellent article about the debate, along with some fascinating comments. Whitaker also reports on the debate in his blog.

It seems that some leading psychiatrists are taking his arguments seriously, although they still strongly disagree with him. My own perspective is that people need to make informed decisions about their treatment, which means that they should understand the risks of taking drugs, along with the benefits. From a scientific perspective, I hope that Whitaker’s book spurs new research on long-term drug outcomes, studies that are not funded by drugs companies. I agree with Marlene Freeman, an associate professor of psychiatry in the audience: “Well-designed studies to really answer the questions you raise are very expensive, she told Whitaker. If you could take some of your passion to the National Institute of Mental Health and get them to fund some of them, ‘We’d be very grateful.’”

How Did “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” Become the Land of Lawyers and the Home of Bureaucrats? A Review of “Life Without Lawyers” by Philip K. Howard

2011-01-09T15:23:00.000-05:00

In these recessionary times, Americans are divided along partisan lines on many important issues, such as whether to give tax breaks to the rich versus extending unemployment benefits. Democrats and Republicans argue about government spending, taxation, health care reform, immigration, foreign wars, and a host of other issues. But away from the spotlight of media attention and political debate is a cancer that has gnawed away at the social fabric of American society. This cancer has been growing for the last four decades, and shows no signs of improvement. I am speaking about the litigation and regulation explosion that has reduced Americans' ability to take risks, exercise authority, fire incompetent employees, maintain discipline in schools, and to take responsibility for their actions. The tragic part of this is that there is a bipartisan consensus for reform that is stymied by self-serving special interests such as trial lawyers and public-sector unions. Philip K. Howard takes up this issue in his latest book Life Without Lawyers: Restoring Responsibility in America

Howard, author of the best-selling The Death of Common Sense, has talked about the issue of excessive and nonsensical lawsuits and regulation in previous books. Since the problem hasn’t gotten any better, Howard revisits these issues, presenting newer examples, but also suggesting solutions. He also is trying to improve things via his organization Common Good.

There are two main points in the book. One, is that there are too many rules prescribing how to do things. These rules derive from the assembly-line mentality that arose from the Industrial Revolution. While some rules are necessary in any complex endeavor, such as a business, government, or school, our society has gone overboard with rules and organization. Too many rules stifle individual initiative and decision making. Howard presents many examples of this in the public schools. Teachers in New York City are forbidden from calling on students who raise their hands during the first part of class. A mother of a third grader, who arrived with a supply of birthday cupcakes, was turned away because there is a rule against parents in the classroom. Teachers write out detailed course plans every week that no one ever reads. Loudspeakers constantly blare out announcements, interrupting classes and making it impossible for teachers and students to concentrate. No Child Left Behind made things worse by focusing on standardized testing. Teachers’ union contracts dictate hours worked, limit teacher duties, and make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent teachers. Paint crumbles at the top of walls in some New York City schools because unions prohibit painting walls higher than ten feet.

The second main point is that since the 1960’s individual rights have trumped concerns over the common good. “Let any individual who feels aggrieved bring a legal claim for almost anything” (p. 23). This mindset arose from a desire to remedy abuses due to racial and gender discrimination. The problem is, however, that “[u]nlike constitutional rights, which shield citizens from state power, these new rights gave citizens a sword against other free citizens” (p. 23). It isn’t hard to find examples of how citizens utilize lawsuits as swords against other citizens. In 2007, a Washington, D.C. lawyer sued his dry cleaner for $54 million because he claimed that they lost a pair of pants. This idiotic and absurd case, which should have been immediately dismissed, was allowed to go on for more than two years, costing the family owning the dry cleaner over $100,000 in legal fees. While they won the case, they ended up having to close the store. Another example is a medical malpractice case. A dermatologist advised a patient to remove skin based on a biopsy indicating malignancy. The patient got a second opinion which indicated no malignancy, and didn’t get the skin removed. After getting terminal cancer several years later, the patient sued the first doctor on the basis that the doctor should have been more insistent about getting the skin removed. While the doctor prevailed in the case after seven years of legal battling, it could hardly be called a victory.

The result of out-of-control lawsuits is that Americans don’t trust the justice system anymore. They become defensive in their behavior, refusing to take risks out of fear of being sued. The most familiar and costly example of defensive behavior is in the field of medicine. Unnecessary care accounts for 30% of total health care spending. Nursing homes send dying ninety-year-olds to intensive care units, so that they can’t be sued for negligence in the person's death. Doctors have to document everything, in case they have to justify their decisions in court. Minor surgeries require expensive and unnecessary preoperative tests to prevent the providers from being sued.

The threat of lawsuits, combined with burdensome regulation, has eroded discipline in public schools. In a 2001 survey, 43% of high school teachers said they spent more time maintaining order than teaching. One in seven teachers in urban schools has been physically assaulted by his students. In New York City more than 60 steps and legal considerations are required to suspend a student for over 5 days. “Just sending a disruptive student out of the classroom requires layers of bureaucratic compliance” (p. 104). A violent autistic child in Hartford, CT, was kept in a regular classroom because his parents, exercising their rights under federal law, refused to allow him to be transferred to special ed. The school had to institute formal legal proceedings and receive a judge’s order to remove the disruptive child. After 2 years of hearings and thousands of dollars of expense, the school finally received the order to move the child.

Howard uses the “broken windows” analogy to explain how this erosion of discipline has harmed schools. If broken windows in a building aren’t fixed, the tendency is for vandals to break more windows, and eventually break into the building. After a few unchecked incidents, disorder takes over a school. “Young people aren’t known for their maturity, and pushing the envelope becomes a sport” (p. 105). Zero tolerance rules, which were supposed to counteract school disorder, only make things worse. The problem with these rules is that they can’t distinguish trivial from severe infractions. In 2001, a National Merit scholar in a Florida high school was suspended because of a small kitchen knife found in the back seat of her car on school grounds. “Instead of bolstering school authority, zero tolerance rules have become a symbol of lack of authority to do what’s right” (p. 106).

The fear and distrust of authority that began in the 1960’s was a major factor that led to our current legalistic mess. We tried to outlaw any type of discretion by people in positions of authority—teachers, administrators, managers, and government executives—by replacing this discretion with a tangle of rules and threats of litigation. But there is no substitute for good judgment, and good judgment relies on subjective and intuitive factors. Having to prove the correctness of decisions in legal proceedings leads to worse decisions. It’s true that people can explain why they did something, but only to a point. These explanations rarely rise to the level of legal proof.

“The alternative to absolute rights is not absolute discretion” (p. 58). Legislatures can establish clear public goals, and give officials the responsibility to achieve these goals. But meeting these goals requires the use of individual judgment, such as the decision that a student is too violent to be mainstreamed. People in power will at times make mistakes, and they should be held accountable for their mistakes. But trying to prescribe decisions by legal rule is a self-defeating way to organize our society.

Some specific reforms that Howard advocates include:

1) Judges must draw legal boundaries of reasonableness as they pertain to lawsuits. The “lost pants” type of lawsuit should be immediately dismissed. For other suits that aren’t obviously ridiculous, judges need to take into account whether a claim might undermine reasonable activities of people not in the courtroom. For example, the threat of lawsuits has resulted in playgrounds being stripped of fun equipment. Many schools have eliminated recess, and parents are afraid to allow their children to engage in unstructured play. As a result of these changes, children today spend much of their time in front of television and computer screens. This lack of exercise is one important factor in the obesity epidemic plaguing our nation’s youth. By trying to eliminate risky behavior among children, we’ve succeeded in making many of them fat, a health problem which will eventually cause much more suffering and death than an occasional accident.

2) Special courts are needed for medical malpractice claims. The problem isn’t the setting of standards of care. The problem is finding courts that are trusted to uphold these standards. Allowing medical malpractice claims to be heard in regular courts, with greedy trial lawyers manipulating clueless juries, has led to an explosion of defensive medicine. Special courts for medical malpractice would have the following characteristics: judges dedicated to health care claims, written judicial opinions rather than jury verdicts, neutral experts in place of hired guns, and expedited proceedings with incentives for early settlements.

3) Abandon the due process model for social services, especially public schools. Daily choices in schools and other public institutions need to be made by teachers and administrators with the freedom to use their judgment, without fear of lawsuit. These choices should not be determined by burdensome detailed regulation. In successful private and charter schools, teachers and principals are free to do what they think is best for their students. For public schools to succeed, their teachers and principals need the same freedom. This freedom includes the freedom of school administrators to fire incompetent teachers.

4) Don’t tolerate disorder in public schools. Principals and teachers need the authority to promptly remove disruptive students without worrying about following regulations or being sued by parents. Some students are too disruptive or violent to be mainstreamed, and they need to be removed from the regular classroom. Allowing individual students to disrupt classes makes it very difficult to properly educate the other students. While one student and his parents may win, everyone else loses. This individualistic and selfish model needs to change.

5) Discrimination cases should only be allowed for systematic practices of discrimination. This was the original purpose of discrimination laws, which since the 1960’s have been corrupted by greedy trial lawyers and irresponsible minority advocates. If a minority feels he’s being discriminated against, his lawsuit would be dismissed unless he can present evidence that the employer discriminates against minorities in general. Individuals should not be allowed to bring claims only on behalf of themselves. An exception is for individual claims of sexual harassment, but only if they rise to the level of quid pro quo.

6) Washington needs to be fixed from the outside. Partisan politics and special interests have made it impossible for our representatives to achieve any important changes in the areas that Howard talks about. As with the No Child Left Behind law, they just pile layers of legal concrete on people and institutions that are already crushed by law. We must form a national coalition of citizen leaders, a shadow government, to propose an overhaul of government. The models for this are the base-closing commissions in the 1990’s, or the current deficit-reduction commissions. To effect change, public opinion must be mobilized in a way that it hasn’t been since the 1960’s. “America doesn’t need a new Constitution, just a healthy spring cleaning and a practical approach to making public choices without crushing us under endless law” (p. 177).

The only problem with this book is that it lacks an index. I don’t remember ever reading a nonfiction book without an index.

Due to excessive regulation and litigation, America in the early 21st century is a shell of its former self. We’ve become afraid to take risks, afraid to use our judgment, and afraid to do what we think is right. Is this the type of mentality that motivated the early pioneers, people who risked everything to settle an unknown and sometimes hostile country? Is this the type of mentality that motivated the great American inventors, entrepreneurs, and other creative people? Would Edison have invented the light bulb if he was afraid of being sued by the candle makers? Would Tesla have invented A/C electric power if he was afraid of being sued by the family of the rare person who was electrocuted? Would railroads, cars, and planes have been invented and made available to the masses if companies were afraid of being sued due to accidents? Would America have risen to a leadership position among nations if its public schools were always in the sorry shape they are in today? Would a legal and political system have been a model to the world if it allowed a greedy scumbag to sue his dry cleaner for $54 million dollars?

The problems that Howard describes in his book are not the only problems that America faces. Obviously, we need to be concerned about other things, including the recession, our government’s long-term fiscal health, and the threat of terrorism. But overregulation and overlitigation, although less publicized, nevertheless affect Americans in their daily lives—in their schools, workplaces, doctors offices, hospitals, and even their homes. The cost in money, worry, wasted time, and unhealthy behavior is severe. I recommend “Life Without Lawyers” to all Americans.

A Review of “Science and Change 1500-1700” by Hugh Kearney

2010-12-30T14:11:00.000-05:00

We take modern science for granted, and assume that it has always been the way that it is today, with professional scientists, empirically-based research, peer-reviewed journals, laboratories, and a common scientific method accepted by all. But what we know as science today evolved over time. In the Middle Ages there were monks in monasteries studying “natural philosophy,” and alchemists doing chemical experiments, but no scientists in the modern sense. During the early modern period, something happened to transform natural philosophy and alchemy to science. Hugh Kearney discusses this crucial transition period, aka “The Scientific Revolution,” in his book Science and Change 1500-1700.

This book, originally published in 1971, is an old college textbook of mine that I decided to reread recently. It includes many fascinating images, reproductions of paintings, drawings, and diagrams that are relevant to the text discussion. The prose is clear and straightforward, and it includes a wealth of historical examples. The book’s theme is that the Scientific Revolution can be understood as a mixture of three intellectual traditions: organic, magical, and mechanistic. Each tradition had roots in ancient Greek philosophy. During the Middle Ages, the ancient texts were rediscovered and merged with Christian theology, becoming a new establishment, known as “scholasticism”. The Scientific Revolution was largely a revolt against this establishment, favoring empirical research over reliance on ancient authorities.

The organic tradition was based on what we now call biology, with the emphasis on study of living organisms. The Greek philosophers who most influenced men working in this tradition were Aristotle and Galen. Aristotle’s philosophy was wide ranging, but his empirical observations most influenced people working in the organic tradition. Galen, who came after Aristotle, was best known for his anatomical and medical work.

The University of Padua was the capital of the organic tradition during the Scientific Revolution. Some famous names of faculty members there include Andreas Vesalius (1514-64), the “father of modern anatomy,” and Gabriele Fallopio (1523-63), who discovered the Fallopian tubes. William Harvey (1578-1657), who discovered the circulation of blood, was a student at Padua.

The magical tradition provided a scientific framework in which nature was seen as a work of art. God was thought of as a magician or artist, and mathematics was a tool to understand the Deity. The Greek philosopher who most influenced this movement was Plato. His ideas were taken up and modified by the Roman philosopher Plotinus, who founded a movement called “neo-Platonism.” Also influential in this movement were writings attributed to a legendary Egyptian named Hermes Trismegistus, along with the Jewish Cabbala.

Some famous men in the history of astronomy were influenced by the magical tradition. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), who was influenced by neo-Platonism while living ten years in Italy, developed a mathematical heliocentric theory. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), who was influenced by astrology, made a large number of astronomical observations. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) made use of these observations to argue that planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun, and that the velocities of the planets are not uniform during the course of their orbits. Kepler utilized the magnetic theory of English physician William Gilbert (1540-1603) to explain planetary motion in terms of magnetic interactions. Kepler’s last book was a mass of neo-Platonic speculation. Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the discoverer of the universal law of gravitation, was in part a neo-Platonic mystic. He looked upon space and time as part of the Divine presence in the universe.

The mechanistic tradition viewed nature as a machine. Natural phenomena were regular and predictable, capable of being understood by mathematical laws. Greek philosophers in this tradition included Democritus (an early atomist) and Archimedes (a mathematician and engineer).

Some famous names in physics, chemistry and applied mathematics were part of the mechanistic tradition. Galileo (1564-1642) developed laws of motion based on experiment. He contradicted Aristotelian doctrine by showing that the speed of a falling body is not proportional to weight. Mathematician and philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) helped promote the mechanistic world view. Descartes’ philosophy conflicted at almost every point with Aristotelian principles, but his extensive use of deductive reasoning left him as exposed to experimental attack as any of the scholastics. Mathematician, experimenter, and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-62), who invented a primitive calculator, saw no trace of the Christian God in the world of nature. According to Pascal, God sometimes intervened miraculously, but didn’t interfere with the mechanical laws of nature. Pascal attacked the Aristotelian assumption that the vacuum doesn’t exist by doing a series of experiments. Robert Boyle (1627-91) applied mechanical philosophy to the world of chemistry. He formulated the law that pressure is inversely proportional to volume. Isaac Newton was in part a mechanist, especially in his optical work, which showed that light behaved according to mechanical laws when passed through different media.

What tradition won out in the end? For science, the mechanistic tradition became dominant. Physics and chemistry became the models by which all sciences were evaluated. Modern astronomy, which started with the neo-Platonic speculations of Copernicus and Kepler, eventually shed its mystical/astrological side and became a sub-discipline of physics. Even biology, which began in the Aristotelian/organic tradition, over time became mechanical. Darwin’s theory of evolution did away with the need for postulating Aristotelian final causes to explain higher organisms. Natural selection, not God’s will, explains how humans evolved from primitive ancestors. Cells, tissues, and organs became to be viewed as biochemical factories, randomly designed from a genetic blueprint.

For society as a whole, the mechanistic philosophy became most influential in the late 17th and 18th centuries. The philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, and the American and French revolutionaries were squarely in the mechanistic tradition. The Scientific Revolution influenced the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. For example, James Watt, inventor of the steam engine, was acquainted with scientist Joseph Black, who did work on latent heat. The neo-classical revival of the Age of Enlightenment was influenced by the mechanistic tradition. Clear and concise prose, such as that of John Locke, became a model for many others. Poetic satire such as Pope’s Dunciad replaced poetry based on magical and mystical sources of language and imagery. Neoclassical art, such as that of David, emphasized clarity and simplicity.

The Romantic movement that began in the late 18th century turned against the mechanistic/scientific viewpoint. It influenced philosophy, art, music, politics, and culture. Gradually, romanticism was replaced by realism and then modernism and post-modernism. While these subsequent movements revolted against previous movements, and had unique characteristics, none of them revived the mechanistic philosophy. This has led to a division between mechanistic scientists, engineers, technicians, doctors, lawyers, and other practical people, versus artistic, creative, philosophical, religious, spiritual, and other non-practical people, a divide that persists across the world today. This division is also present in most people, with a practical, mechanical side and a non-practical, spiritual side, with usually one side being dominant.

One criticism of Kearney’s thesis of the different traditions is that he may have emphasized too much the non-scientific views and philosophies of some of the early scientists. While Harvey was influenced by the organic philosophy of Aristotle and Galen, and Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton by neo-Platonism, are these influences essential in understanding their scientific achievements? These men are famous today because they made some discovery that influenced the future direction of science. Their discoveries came not from their philosophical and religious influences, but in spite of them. They applied the scientific method to refute some ancient authority or commonly-held belief. For example, is the fact that Kepler believed in neo-Platonism, but Galileo did not, reason enough to separate them into different traditions? They were both natural scientists who made important discoveries, discoveries that relied on observation, data, and mathematics. Are their religious or philosophical beliefs essential to understanding their contribution to science?

I recommend “Science and Change 1500-1700” to anyone interested in the history of science.

Thoughts on the One Year Anniversary of Harrymagnet.com

2010-11-01T17:15:00.002-04:00

The Harrymagnet.com site went live on October 25, 2009. The content on the site represented a summary of 2 years of my own independent research. This research suggests that I have the ability to perceive the Earth’s magnetic field, and that this ability directly influences how I feel. My psychiatric symptoms (OCD + tics + mild chronic depression) are navigational tools, directing me toward magnetic home. I had observed magnetic home (aka “The Happy Zone”) in Utah and North Carolina. By recording GPS coordinates and observing how my magnetic home moved in response to things like changes in bedtime and bed angle, I had acquired a great deal of data. I wrote a research paper that presented the data with my analysis. Before going public with the data, I first contacted some researchers, sending them my abstract and asking if they wanted to read the full paper. I found it difficult to select researchers to query, as I wasn't aware of anyone doing research in the navigational aspect of human magnetoreception. (Robin Baker studied this in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but has since moved onto other things). Only one (a British researcher who specialized in parapsychology research) asked to see the paper, and he didn’t provide any feedback.

Disappointed by the lack of interest in this initial query, I decided to adopt the pseudonym “Harry Magnet,” purchase a domain name, and put the research paper and some other information on the website. I had two goals in doing this:

Since I had no idea who might be interested in studying human magnetoreception, instead of my trying to find them, I’d let them find me.
I wanted to find out if there were other people with similar magnetoreceptive abilities as mine.

I utilized Google Adwords to market the site, along with sending select queries to additional researchers. After some time, my site became listed in the first 3 pages of relevant search results, such as “human magnetoreception” and “human magnetic sense.” Some people clicked on my Two Mysteries multimedia article by doing a Google image search.

After a year, I haven’t made much progress in either of my goals. Only one researcher has given me any feedback about my paper, an American psychologist named Jorge Conesa-Sevilla (whom I had queried). No one has expressed any interest in researching the human magnetoreception phenomena I describe in my paper. There may be some people conducting research without telling me, but I have no reason to believe that any such research is happening.

Perhaps more disappointing to me is the lack of feedback among people with similar magnetoreceptive abilities. I created an Are You Sensitive page, with some simple steps that people could take to verify whether or not they are magnetoreceptive. I provided several ways for people to provide feedback, including Facebook, anonymously commenting on my blog, and also contacting me directly. I only heard back from two people, who provided information suggesting that they may be magnetoreceptive, but I was unable to follow up with them.

I thought that my website might generate some online buzz, but there have only been two sites I’m aware of that have mentioned me. One, a bipolar discussion forum, talked about me soon after my site became live. Another, a mental health blog, mentioned one of my book reviews. While I’m grateful to these authors for their mentioning me, I was hoping for a great deal more buzz after a year.

I’m not currently doing Google Adwords. I get only a handful of daily hits to my site and blog. Otherwise, nothing. To what do I attribute my lack of success?

One observation I’ve made is that while it’s easier than ever to publish, it’s harder than ever to get anyone to read what you publish. The Web has allowed anyone with a computer and Internet connection to have a voice. While this democratization of publishing is a good thing, it has created a situation in which there is so much content that it’s very hard to distinguish the few gems from the mass of irrelevant, poorly written, and useless body of information. I imagine that the few people who have clicked on my site take a cursory look and then say to themselves, “Harry Magnet, who’s he? Why should I spend my time reading this stuff?” They then leave the site.

This is where a middleman can be very useful. A creative person cannot achieve eminence alone. He needs a middleman, an intermediary to tell people that his idea is important and worthy of notice. In the past, publishers and agents served this gatekeeping role, but today it is very hard for someone without a name to get published. I didn’t even try.

The problem with my project is that all my results are based on subjective experience. That’s why I’d never get published by a peer-reviewed journal, or book or magazine publisher. The middleman I need at present is a scientist willing to research human magnetoreception, to put to the test the claims I make in my research paper. Successful results, published in a peer-reviewed journal, would bring me attention and support.

As I said above, I’m not aware of anyone in the world studying the navigational aspects of human magnetoreception. That implies that if I want to find someone to research this, I’d need to convince him to go beyond his narrow subspecialty and begin a new field of research. It’s hard to find such a person, even though there are people studying related phenomena such as the human magnetic sense, and bioelectromagnetics. Scientific research in general has become very conservative, with few people daring to study new things. Curiosity was the primary motivator of the great scientists of the past, and I need at least one scientist to become curious enough about my project to risk defying conventional wisdom.

Another potential middleman is a practitioner willing to work with me to try out my techniques on other people. I’ve made some changes to my sleeping behavior and environment that have helped me feel better. Others can make similar changes. I have no credentials and cannot be an independent practitioner, but I’d like to work with someone. This will likely be someone I meet locally, as it is hard to try these techniques from a distance.

My experience the past year has convinced me that it was a mistake to rely solely on online media to spread my message. I should have focused more on developing local connections. One reason for this is that although I have a presence on Facebook, I have little interest in acquiring virtual friends. I prefer face-to-face interaction, and have a difficult time trusting or befriending people I haven’t met in person. Due to my exclusive use of online media, I haven’t made any progress on answering these important questions:

Who else has magnetoreceptive abilities like mine?
What psychiatric disorders are connected to magnetoreception?
How different are others’ magnetoreceptive experiences compared to mine?

I’m going to be leaving North Carolina soon, and I’m not sure yet where I’ll end up living. Wherever it is, I’ll try to network with other people with psychiatric disorders, along with practitioners and researchers. I’ll keep the website, Facebook page, and blog up, and utilize it both as something to refer my local connections to, along with having an online presence. Hopefully by the time of the second year anniversary of Harrymagnet.com, I’ll have more positive results to convey.

Is Globalization Good For America? A Review of “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman

2010-10-14T16:04:00.004-04:00

Globalization has its advantages and disadvantages. While American consumers can enjoy cheaper products and services thanks to manufacturing plants in China and call centers in India, many American workers have lost their jobs. What was an economic change affecting mainly manufacturing workers in the 1980’s and 1990’s has in the last decade, and especially since the Great Recession began, been transformed into a job-destroying mechanism for workers at all levels of ability, in many different fields. Secretaries, computer programmers, and even lawyers have seen their jobs outsourced to India and other countries. Does globalization benefit the country as a whole?

Thomas L. Friedman writes about globalization in his 2005 book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. I decided to read this book because I have read many New York Times opinion columns by the author, and found him to have an interesting perspective on the economy, politics, global warming, and the Middle East. Friedman is a journalist, and traveled extensively to research this book, interviewing business executives from around the world, from Bill Gates to Vivek Paul (president of the Indian outsourcing company Wipro). The book contains no footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography. Most of the material comes from Friedman’s observations and interviews.

Being a computer programmer, I have seen firsthand that many IT jobs have been shipped to India. I was fascinated by Friedman’s account of the history of this outsourcing process. It began with India’s opening up of its previously socialist economy in the early 1990’s, a political change influenced by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The computer, telecommunication, and Internet revolutions helped create a platform for globalization of IT. During the late 1990’s technology bubble, companies overinvested in fiber optic networks. The dotcom bust in the early 2000’s bankrupted many companies, but brought down the price of data and phone transmission. These technological and economic changes made India “the luckiest country in the history of the late twentieth century” (p. 103). Finding themselves with cheap fiber optic networks just waiting to be used, Indian entrepreneurs utilized homegrown engineering, computer science, and software talent to outsource American jobs. The Y2K computer crisis that occurred at the turn of the twenty-first century gave Indian outsourcing companies a big project to work on, and programmers there did much of the Y2K upgrade work. E-commerce was another important technology outsourced to India, and pretty soon it would be hard to find a technology or software product in which Indian companies didn’t have a footprint.

The title of the book reflects how technology, business process, economic and political changes have “flattened the world,” i.e. removed barriers that prevented individuals or countries from competing. The above paragraph shows how India benefited from these changes. China, Russia, Eastern Europe, and some countries in Latin America and Asia also benefited. Certain countries, such as many in the Middle East and Africa, have not benefited. Friedman talks about the reasons why Arab-Muslim countries have been left behind in the global flattening. In his view, anger and frustration at the Israeli occupation of Palestine, at the Arab-Muslims having to live under authoritarian governments, and at a decadent and promiscuous West has helped promote religious extremists such as members of al-Qaeda. He calls al-Qaeda terrorists “Islamo-Leninists.” Like Lenin, they have a utopian-totalitarian worldview, one in which their acts of terrorism against the West mobilize and energize the Muslim masses to rise up against their corrupt rulers. Unlike Lenin, however, they want to establish an Islamic state that spans the territory of the former Muslim empire. Desiring life and government to return to the way it was in the Middle Ages is not an attitude conducive to participating in the global economy. Friedman offers a counterexample of Arab entrepreneur Fadi Ghandour, cofounder and CEO of Aramex, a package delivery service company, the only Arab company listed on the Nasdaq. If more Arabs would desire to be like Ghandour, and fewer like bin Laden, the Middle East would be part of the flat world.

Friedman believes in free trade, the economic basis for globalization. Trying to protect certain jobs or industries, while helping one group of people, is not going to help the country as a whole. The wealth of examples he provides of how globally integrated our economy has become is good evidence in support of his view. An example is his description of how his Dell computer was assembled using a global supply chain. His order was emailed to a Dell notebook factory in Malaysia. The notebook was codesigned in Texas and Taiwan. The Intel microprocessor came from a factory either in the Philippines, Costa Rica, Malaysia, or China. The memory came from a factory in Korea, Taiwan, Germany, or Japan. The motherboard came from a factory in China or Taiwan. The hard drive came from a factory in Singapore, Thailand, or the Philippines. Note that the only thing from this list made in America was the notebook design, and it was only codesigned here. Most of the factories are in Asia.

While there may be transition phases in certain fields, in which wages go down, and people lose their jobs, there’s no reason to believe that this downward trend will be permanent. Not everything that can be invented has been invented. New technologies, new types of jobs will replace the ones lost. A good example is the computer/IT/Internet revolution. Fifty years ago, who could have imagined how the computer revolution would take place, how many jobs would be created, and how our lives would change? There will likely be new technologies that come into existence in the future, that no one can imagine now. These technologies will produce new jobs and new companies, just as the computer revolution produced Microsoft, Apple, and Google.

Friedman is sensitive to the plight of workers who become unemployed due to globalization. He would like to see instead of lifetime employment, lifetime employability. Government and business can both help in making a worker employable for his lifetime. Education is the key to this. Tertiary education should be government-subsidized for at least two years, whether at a state university, a community college, or technical school. Employers should help train and cross-train employees so that if their job is outsourced, they have the skills necessary to get another job.

Friedman talks about social problems in America that will make the country less competitive down the road, something he calls “a quiet crisis.” He wrote the book before the Great Recession began. Now, this crisis is becoming noisier than ever. One problem is that fewer Americans are becoming scientists and engineers, at a time when the number of jobs requiring science and engineering training continues to grow. A National Science Board report in 2004 notes that science and engineering degrees represent 60% of all bachelor’s degrees in China, 33% in South Korea, 41% in Taiwan, but only 31% in the United States. The number of American college-age students who receive science degrees has fallen to seventeenth in the world, when we ranked third 30 years ago. Immigrants have filled in some of this gap. 60% of the nation’s top science students and 65% of the top mathematics students are children of recent immigrants.

Another problem is that Americans have a sense of advantage and entitlement that makes them lazier than people who grow up in less affluent countries and homes. It takes a sense of self-discipline, delayed gratification, and long-term thinking to pursue higher education and achieve success in an intellectually-demanding career. Americans seem to have lost the ability to defer gratification and look to the long-term. The best example is the debt-fueled consumption of the recent decades, financed in large part by the disciplined and motivated Chinese. The Great Recession has forced many an American to “wake up” to the new reality, and redirect their lives.

Friedman doesn’t mention a related problem that seems to afflict Americans more than anyone else: the drug epidemic. Nothing represents a national failure to delay gratification more than widespread drug abuse and addiction. The illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, pot, and ecstasy give the user an immediate high, they feel good for a short time, but then pretty soon they feel miserable until their next fix. The legal psychotropic ones like antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and analgesics help people suffering from a variety of disorders to temporarily feel better. But they don’t provide any long-term relief. As I report elsewhere, many of these supposedly therapeutic drugs make people worse over the long run, suffering from chronic addiction, and physical and mental side effects. Antidepressants and antipsychotics also blunt motivation and emotion, something not conducive to career achievement. Doctors ignore these deleterious long-term effects, prescribing these drugs willy-nilly. A nation of drugged-up zombies and addicts can't compete in the global marketplace.

What should people do to keep from being outsourced? Friedman devotes a chapter to this. One suggestion is for people to work in a specialized field. Examples include specialized lawyers, brain surgeons, cutting-edge computer architects, and robot operators. This type of work cannot easily be digitized and transferred to a lower-wage location. The problem for most people is that they don’t have the skills or education necessary to work in these fields.

Another suggestion is to be anchored, i.e. to work in a service job that cannot easily be automated or outsourced. Robots or Indians can't serve you lunch or check out groceries, at least not yet. The problem with these jobs is that they are usually low wage.

Another suggestion is to be adaptable, to constantly acquire new skills, knowledge, and expertise. If you are a computer programmer and only know the C language, you’re not very marketable. The problem with this suggestion is that older and low-IQ people have difficulties being adaptable.

Friedman doesn’t mention that there is a large group of people who are being left behind in this new economy. They don’t have the intelligence, education, ambition, or skills necessary to work in a specialized field, or to be adaptable. The only thing left for them is to work in a low-wage service job. I have some friends, bright people, people who have worked in good, decent-paying, middle class jobs, who are unable to get a good job in the current economy. They are forced to take low-wage service or call center jobs. Eventually, as robots become more advanced and prevalent, even the service jobs will become automated. Then what will happen to people who can only work in these jobs? Will we have a large group of unemployable people who will have to rely on state assistance to live? How can society afford to support these people? What will being on chronic state assistance do to their inner dignity and self-worth? These are questions that Friedman and others who applaud globalization need to answer.

Do Psychiatric Drugs Do More Harm Than Good? A Review of “Anatomy of an Epidemic” by Robert Whitaker

2010-07-29T14:03:00.002-04:00

The idea that people with psychiatric disorders should “take their meds”, that these meds control their symptoms, that they’d better off on than off their drugs, is a noncontroversial position today. Decades of advice from doctors, nurses, therapists, academics, and drug company spokesmen have pushed people with disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and anxiety to take prescribed medications. We think of someone who decides not to take medications as acting in an irrational manner. Patients who are hospitalized don’t have a choice—they must take their medications.

Is this virtually monolithic societal support of the use of psychiatric drugs a group delusion, similar to the delusions that (nonmedicated) schizophrenics experience? Robert Whitaker takes up this question in his book entitled Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.

Whitaker has two main points in the book. One, is that there has been an epidemic of mental illness in America in the recent past. There is twice the rate of disabled mentally ill in 2007 compared to 1987, and six times the rate compared to 1955. This trend is even more obvious for children, where the number of disabled mentally ill children multiplied thirty-five fold between 1987 and 2007.

Whitaker bases these claims of an epidemic on SSI (Supplementary Security Income) and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) statistics. He compares these figures in 2007 and 1987 to hospitalization figures in 1955 (most disabled mentally ill in the 1950’s were cared for in state and county mental hospitals). These SSI and SSDI figures are not true prevalence figures, of course, since there are people disabled by mental illness not on these programs, and people on these programs who aren’t truly disabled. Since diagnostic criteria for mental illness has changed significantly in the past half century, it’s impossible to arrive at a true prevalence figure. But his general point of a mental illness epidemic is hard to deny, considering that America spent $25 billion in 2007 on antidepressants and antipsychotics. If there was little or no mental illness, why are doctors prescribing so many pills?

Whitaker’s second point is much more controversial. He says that this epidemic of mental illness is, in large part, caused by the very drugs that are being used to treat psychiatric disorders! Whitaker presents evidence in his book that psychiatric drugs do more harm than good when looked at from a long-term perspective. He acknowledges that these drugs make the patient better in the short term, such as the 6 week period in which clinical trials of new drugs occur. But, looked at over the period of years, not weeks, patients do better off drugs than on them.

Whitaker uses several pieces of evidence to craft his argument. One, is that the epidemic of disabling mental illness occurred during the period in which psychiatric drugs were used. During the early phase of psychiatric drugs (mid 1950’s through the mid 1980’s), antipsychotic drugs were used primarily on people with schizophrenia. Anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs were prescribed for people with anxiety and depression. Lithium was used as a mood stabilizer for people with bipolar disorder. Most of these early drugs (with the exception of the anti-anxiety drugs) had terrible side effects, such as tardive dyskinesia for the typical antipsychotics. These side effects limited the number of people willing to take these drugs. (The anti-anxiety drugs Miltown and Valium were very popular, especially among women, but also very addictive.) Studies showed that those on the drugs, including the anti-anxiety drugs, had worse long-term outcomes than those off the drugs. These studies were never widely publicized, and doctors continued to prescribe the drugs to adults (children rarely were prescribed drugs in this period, with the exception of Ritalin for ADHD).

The second period, beginning with the FDA approval of Prozac for depression in 1987, saw the release and aggressive promotion of “second-generation” psychiatric drugs, which included SSRI antidepressants (e.g. Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil), and atypical antipsychotics (e.g. Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel). Drug companies heavily marketed these drugs both to the public and to doctors, with the help of academic leaders in psychiatry. This period also saw a major increase in the diagnosis and drug treatment of pediatric psychiatric disorders.

The second-generation drugs had fewer and less-severe side effects than the older drugs, but weren’t any more effective than these drugs. They still had some serious side effects, however, such as increased risk of suicide for Prozac, and weight gain for Zyprexa. These adverse effects were generally swept under the rug as the pharmaceutical marketing machine (with the aid of drug-money soaked academic psychiatrists) promoted them as miracle drugs.

The release of the psychiatry reference manual DSM-III in 1980 led to a major change in diagnostic criteria, leading to more reliable diagnoses based on symptoms. The DSM-III (followed by the DSM-IV in 1994) made psychiatry appear more scientific and objective, since it dispensed with vague Freudian notions like “neurosis.” But the problem was that it wasn’t accompanied by any breakthroughs in the understanding of the biology of mental illness. The “chemical imbalance” theory, i.e. that schizophrenia was a result of too much dopamine, and depression a result of too little serotonin, was demolished by research findings. But drug companies and psychiatrists continued to tell people that this imbalance theory was true. Whitaker makes a good argument that the drugs actually cause chemical imbalances, not treat them. These iatrogenic (drug-caused) imbalances force people on the drugs to continue taking them, as they get terrible withdrawal symptoms if they try to stop. Getting children addicted to these drugs was a pharmaceutical marketing home run, as the kids would be hooked for life, a reliable long-term source of income.

It was during these last 25 years of widespread prescription of psychiatric drugs that the disability numbers soared. These drugs didn’t seem to be helping people over the long term, or else why would they be forced to go on disability? Large numbers of children started becoming disabled. According to Whitaker, the second-generation drugs had as dismal a long-term effect on patients as the first-generation drugs. The problem for society was that many times more people were taking them than took the earlier drugs. The few academic psychiatrists who questioned the efficacy of drugs were stripped of their positions and funding, and marginalized. Millions of dollars in drug money flowed to virtually all the academic leaders in psychiatry.

Whitaker weaves in anecdotes along with his research findings, enhancing the readability of his book. Some of the stories are haunting, such as the case of “Jasmine,” a girl prescribed an antidepressant for bed wetting in fifth grade. The agitation she got from this drug led psychiatrists to put her on a drug cocktail that included Zyprexa. She was hospitalized in high school, and the drug merry-go-round to which she was subjected fried her brain, leaving her perpetually psychotic and mute. Of course, Jasmine is an exception, and most children and adults on drugs have much more positive outcomes, but the reader is left to wonder, “what would have happened if she never got on drugs the first place?”

Whitaker provides examples of how drugs used to treat one condition (e.g. Ritalin for ADHD) lead to some children developing manic symptoms, which led them to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which led them to receive drug “cocktails” including powerful and harmful antipsychotics. They end up on a long-term trajectory of serious physical and mental problems, an outcome which probably would have been much more benign if they hadn’t been prescribed any drugs in the first place.

My own experience with psychiatric drugs was generally a positive one. I didn’t start on drugs until I was 27. I had many years of dysfunctional behavior, of cognitive and emotional problems. Virtually any intellectual activity at all (e.g. reading or writing) would trigger horrible “states” that would last for days. These “states” would include severe obsessions, difficulty concentrating, emotional suppression, and tics. Although I had a job, I was working well below my ability, and had little social life. It was under these conditions that I decided to try Anafranil, a drug used to treat OCD, and it did help improve my functioning for a while. I tried combining Anafranil with many other drugs that were less helpful, although I usually never took more than two at a time. Being very sensitive to side effects, I stuck to low or moderate dosages. After ten years of Anafranil, I felt that it was no longer needed, and convinced my psychiatrist to allow me to stop taking it. I followed up with 3 years of low doses of Xanax, then got off medication completely. I’ve been basically medication-free for 3 years. I think the late onset of starting with drugs, the small number and doses of drugs, and the eventual getting off drugs made me one of the few long-term medication success stories.

Whitaker is not anti-drug, and acknowledges that “there is a place for the drugs in psychiatry’s toolbox” (p. 333). But he wants psychiatrists to “think about the medications in a scientifically honest way and to speak honestly about them to the public” (p. 333). Certainly the vast majority of drug prescriptions are unnecessary and possibly harmful. After reading this book, (although Whitaker doesn’t suggest this) I think that a strong case can be made to outlaw prescribing psychiatric drugs for children. If they cause more harm than good in the long run, then it is children who have the most to lose by taking these drugs. Exceptions can be made for children already on drugs, and for the few children who are completely out of control, and whose behavior cannot be managed by any other means. Psychiatrists would howl about any such legislation, but let them (and their drug company masters) put forward studies that show children benefit long-term from drugs. If Whitaker is right, and there are no such studies, then let’s ban the prescribing of drugs for children.

I found this book to be one of the most powerful and thought-provoking books I’ve read in years. I recommend it to anyone concerned with the mental illness epidemic that plagues our country.

Is Astrology Scientifically Verifiable? A Review of “Astrology: Science or Superstition” by Eysenck and Nias

2010-06-17T14:13:00.005-04:00

Hans Eysenck and David Nias take on the contentious issue of whether or not astrological ideas can be scientifically verified in their book Astrology: Science or Superstition. This book, published in 1982, goes over a lot of research, both of traditional astrology and of a newer quasi-astrology called “cosmobiology.” While the book is almost 30 years old, I decided to read it because I admire and enjoy reading the works of Hans Eysenck.

Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) is my favorite 20th century psychologist. While not as well known or influential as Freud or Skinner, I think that Eysenck was on the right track in his research and theories. During the mid-twentieth century, when unproved psychoanalytical theories were predominant, Eysenck was a fervent critic. Eysenck did groundbreaking work in personality theory, backed by extensive empirical research. He’s most famous for his theory breaking personality down into three fundamental categories: extraversion, introversion, and psychoticism. He was a pioneer in the study of the biological basis of personality, intelligence, and mental health. Not one to shy from controversy, his view that racial differences in IQ are (partially) genetically determined got him punched in the face during a talk.

Most scientists avoid studying astrology, considering research in the field to be a waste of time and resources, kind of like studying psychic phenomena or human magnetoreception. But what if there is something to it, something that we don’t understand very well at present, but may lead to a new understanding of human behavior? It must be remembered that not long ago, the idea that some psychiatric disorders have a genetic component would have been laughed off as ridiculous. The same with the idea that taking pills would treat symptoms of depression or schizophrenia. What about splitting the atom, landing a man on the moon, or video conferencing with someone halfway around the world? Things that are common knowledge or obvious now weren’t always so.

Eysenck and Nias begin their book by discussing how mainstream scientists are irrationally hostile to anything connected to astrology. They then describe astrology, and delve into the research on the subject. They don’t find much research support for traditional astrology, e.g. whether birth charts and sun signs have any connection to personality, occupation, or personal destiny. Any studies that seemed to show a positive result either had methodological or statistical problems, or failed in replication. While many astrologers are sincere and mean well, any advice they give people isn’t based on research or science.

The authors then turn to what they call “cosmobiology”, or the scientific study of how extra-terrestrial factors influence living organisms. Much of the research in this field consists of initial studies that have not been replicated, and thus can’t be considered to be proven. I’ll omit these studies and focus on the few findings that have been replicated and that Eysenck and Nias consider to be solid. One is that eminent people are born more often between the winter solstice and spring equinox. (“Eminent people” are those who have accomplished enough to be listed in one or more encyclopedias). One study showed 36 eminent people born per day during the peak in February, compared to 27 people per day at the trough in June. There’s a similar trend for schizophrenia. A 1998 study confirmed this excess of winter births for schizophrenia, and also for bipolar and unipolar depression. Eysenck’s book on creativity explains that psychosis and creativity are biologically linked, and the seasonal of birth data support his hypothesis.

One possible explanation for the season of birth data is that the parents of eminent or mentally ill children have a greater tendency for conceiving a child in the spring than the average parent. Why this is the case isn’t clear. Another explanation for the greater prevalence of mentally ill winter births is that babies born during the winter are more susceptible to infections, and these infections cause their mental illness. There’s been no definitive link, however, between any known kind of infection and schizophrenia or mood disorder. This viral hypothesis doesn’t explain why eminent people should be born more often in the winter.

Eysenck and Nias take up the question of whether the sunspot cycle correlates with biological or historical cycles, but don’t find any solid evidence in favor of this. In his later book on creativity, however, Eysenck mentions Ertel’s research. Ertel found a correlation between the sunspot cycle and creative achievement in the arts and sciences. There’s more worldwide creative achievement in the nadir of the solar cycle as compared to the peak. There were also worldwide bursts of creativity during periods in which there were few or no sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum (1620 – 1710). To my knowledge, Ertel’s research has not been replicated, so this isn’t solid evidence by Eysenck’s and Nias’ standards. Eysenck, however, thought it significant enough in his creativity book to devote 7 pages in explaining it.

The most solid evidence Eysenck and Nias come up with, to which they devote an entire chapter, is the research done by Michel Gauquelin (1928 – 1991), i.e. the Mars Effect. Gauquelin researched the connection between planetary position at time of birth and eminence. From the perspective of the rotating earth, planets rise and set, as do the sun and the moon. Gauquelin divided each planets’ path into 12 sectors, similar to, but not identical with, astrological houses. Gauquelin studied birth records of eminent doctors, artists, scientists, and athletes. He found that eminent scientists tend to be born more often just after the rise (i.e. when the planet first appears on the horizon) or upper culmination (i.e. the highest point) of Saturn, while eminent artists are less likely to be born during these times. He found that eminent doctors are more likely to be born with Mars or Saturn in the sectors following the rise or upper culmination. He found that for eminent military leaders and for “iron willed” athletes, Mars was more likely to be in the sector following the rise or upper culmination (remember that Mars is the ancient god of war).

Eysenck and Nias consider the Mars Effect to be successfully replicated. Since the book is 30 years old, I checked out more recent sources. A 2005 article describes the history of the controversy. To summarize, the jury is still out whether or not this effect is a statistical artifact or not. The previously mentioned Ertel became involved in the controversy, claiming that the Mars Effect did exist in the replications, if one focuses only on eminent people. For example, only highly successful athletes show this effect, not average ones.

Notice how eminence is an important factor in the Mars Effect, as it is in Ertel’s sunspot cycle research, and as it is in the season of birth research. Perhaps eminent people have some type of capability that others don’t have. This capability may be related to the magnetic sense, as the geomagnetic field is known to be influenced by sunspots and other extraterrestrial factors.

I can see a similarity between the controversy about the Mars Effect, and the controversy about Robin Baker’s human magnetoreception research. In both cases, one side argues that the replications were successful, and the other side argues that they weren’t. The key questions are methodological and statistical in nature. Mainstream science is not convinced, and the research project becomes abandoned.

My own opinion about the Mars Effect, echoing that of many scientists, is “so what?” Even if the Mars Effect exists, it can’t be used to predict anything. It’s an interesting correlation, showing that birth times may be connected to extraterrestrial events, but doesn’t really tell much about human psychology or human behavior. Eysenck would probably argue that it’s difficult in general to make predictions in the social sciences. There are so many influences and factors involved in human behavior, that correlational research is often the only method that can be used. The size of the correlations in the Mars Effect is as high as in other mainstream social science research. So why dismiss the Mars Effect, solely on the grounds that we don’t understand how it can work?

Eysenck and Nias make the analogy to Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton didn’t understand how gravity worked, but was able to construct a successful theory of gravitation. We don’t understand how cosmobiology works, but why can’t we take it seriously, do the necessary research, and come up with a theory? In their concluding chapter, the authors make the connection between cosmobiology and geomagnetism. It’s likely that any extraterrestrial effects are mediated by the geomagnetic field. Research in animal and human magnetoreception is directly relevant to cosmobiology.

I would like to see more research in cosmobiology, but would like to see us move away from the correlational in favor of the experimental. Robin Baker did experimental research on human magnetoreception, but the effect sizes were so small and difficult to reproduce that he was unable to convince other scientists. My human magnetoreception hypothesis points the way to another research paradigm that may have more successful results. I (and some others) have a limited functionality GPS. While this GPS doesn’t provide a great deal of navigational information, the limited information it does provide can be used as the basis for experimental tests. I have the ability to distinguish between being north or south of magnetic home. This ability can be tested in a double-blind manner, by driving me around in a bus with a sunroof and covered or blocked windows. If my sleeping behavior is experimentally controlled as I describe in my research paper, I will be near-perfect in my ability to distinguish between being north or south of home. The effect won’t be masked by statistical noise, as it was in Baker’s experiments and in the various correlational research studies mentioned in this book.

In conclusion, I recommend this book as an accessible, well-written discussion of astrological research.

Major enhancement to Harry Magnet website

2010-05-31T21:13:00.001-04:00

I've made my first major enhancement to my Harry Magnet website. I've replaced my nontechnical summary with an article entitled The Magnetic Sense and Psychiatric Disorders: Two Great Biological Mysteries of Our Time. This article has a number of pictures and embedded videos to help clarify my points. I've also updated my Are You Sensitive page to include some pictures and better descriptions. The rest of the site has a new, more exciting look. (Note that I have not updated my Research Paper.)

Are Some Anxiety Disorders Connected to Magnetoreception? A Review of “Phobias: Fighting the Fear” by Helen Saul

2010-05-13T14:09:00.006-04:00

I came across the book Phobias: Fighting the Fear after doing a Google search on “human magnetoreception.” This 306 page book is an excellent summary of the status of scientific knowledge of anxiety disorders at the beginning of the 21st century. Helen Saul (the author) is a scientific journalist, and writes for a general audience. The book is comprehensive in scope, as revealed by the chapter titles: “History,” “Evolution,” “Genetics,” “Neurophysiology,” “Behavior,” Cognition,” “Personality and Temperament,” “Gender and Hormones,” “Light and Electromagnetism,” and “A Physical Problem.” Those who want to check her sources can consult the “Further Reading” section at the end of the book.

One thing I gleaned from this book is the wide diversity of anxiety disorders. It’s likely that syndromes that are combined together into a single disorder (e.g. panic disorder) have different etiologies. Since we can only diagnose anxiety disorders based on symptoms, we are certainly combining different disorders into one “package.” It is similar to headaches. A headache is a symptom, but it can be caused by many different things (migraines, tension, stroke, brain tumor, etc.) Similarly for panic disorder and other anxiety disorders.

The main reason I read this book was for the information included in the “Light and Electromagnetism” chapter. Saul begins the chapter with a section called “Mary’s Story.” Mary Dwarka is an agoraphobic housewife who developed an original hypothesis about her disorder. (Agoraphobia is a fear of public places and open spaces, sometimes associated with panic attacks.) Dwarka believes that agoraphobia is basically a travel disorder, a disruption of our navigational ability. People suffering from this disorder get disoriented when trying to use modern transport systems. “It could be due to the magnetic fields set up by subway or electric train systems, the artificial lighting on almost all public transport, or even just the sheer speed and distances covered. Whatever the underlying reason, it is the disorientation, rather than anxiety, that triggers the panic reaction” (p. 228). Agoraphobics are also upset by the lack of an escape route. If you’re on a train, you can’t get off until it stops at the next station. If you’re traveling in a car on a highway, you have to wait until the next exit to get out. Our Stone Age ancestors wouldn’t have been so confined as they wandered through the forests and jungles. Dwarka attributes the fact that women are 2 to 3 times more likely than men to have agoraphobia to fluctuating hormones. Her symptoms, as those of some other women, went into remission during her pregnancy.

Saul then summarizes Robin Baker’s human magnetoreception research. Baker, working in the 1970's and 1980's, was a pioneer in the study of human magnetoreception. It must be remembered that Baker studied normal subjects, and wasn’t specifically interested in the application of magnetoreception to psychiatric disorders. Saul mentions his research as support for Mary Dwarka’s hypothesis.

Saul next turns to the effects of light on anxiety disorders. She mentions the research of Arnold Wilkins, who studied the effects of fluorescent lights on several medical conditions, including epilepsy. Some people are very sensitive to fluorescent lighting, TV’s, and strobe lights. This sensitivity can take the form of seizures.

Agoraphobics are sensitive to sunlight. The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote of sunlight sensitivity 2400 years ago. A third of agoraphobics wear sunglasses or prefer to go out in the dark. Many are particularly sensitive to fluorescent lighting. Wilkins found that strip lights, glare, bright sunshine, and sunlight broken by trees or railings are troublesome for agoraphobics.

Saul mentions some alternative magnetic treatments like Empulse and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Both of them seem to help some people with anxiety disorders, but evidence is not conclusive. It must be remembered that they produce artificial magnetic fields that are many times more powerful than the geomagnetic field. They are as unnatural as drugs.

My human magnetoreception hypothesis combines the two threads in the “Light and Electromagnetism” chapter. Like Mary Dwarka, I believe that some psychiatric disorders are connected to navigation and magnetic fields. Some cases of agoraphobia + depression may be magnetoreceptive in origin. Agoraphobia is a positive symptom, and is a signal that you are south of magnetic home. Depression is a negative symptom, and is a signal that you are north of magnetic home. Dwarka is correct in saying that some agoraphobics become disoriented from modern transport symptoms. The speed and distance traveled, along with the artificial lighting, are disorienting. For people who are sensitive to the geomagnetic field, modern travel exposes them to far greater magnetic field differences than our Stone Age ancestors experienced. Evolution has not adapted humans to handle these differences.

I am sensitive to bright sunlight, as are many agoraphobics. I attribute this sensitivity to the fact that the sunlight activates my limited functionality GPS. This internal GPS tells me if I’m north or south of magnetic home.

One problem with the book is that it is entirely text. Saul is an excellent writer, and I didn’t have a problem following it, but I have a background in psychology. Saul would have made the book accessible to a wider audience if she had included some pictures, charts, and tables.

I winced when I read the sentence: “I. P. Pavlov . . . was an early learning theorist in the 1940s whose dogs famously heard a bell before receiving food” (p. 139). Pavlov died in 1936.

I recommend this book as a readable introduction to the science and treatment of anxiety disorders. I commend Saul for her willingness to talk about subjects like light and electromagnetism, subjects that mainstream scientists avoid like the plague.

Are We Overmedicating Our Kids? A Review of "We’ve Got Issues" by Judith Warner

2010-03-26T16:32:00.001-04:00

Judith Warner answers the controversial question of whether or not children are being overdiagnosed and overmedicated in her new book We’ve Got Issues: Children and Parents in the Age of Medication. One interesting thing about the author that motivated me to read this was that she changed her mind on this question during the course of writing the book. At first, she held the view that kids were being overmedicated by their affluent, competitive, perfectionistic parents. She changed this view 180 degrees in the course of researching the book. The book argues that mentally ill kids are in fact undertreated and undermedicated. Most parents are very reluctant to drug their children, and do so only as a last resort. Many children with mental health issues (about 70%) are not being treated, partly due to parental neglect or opposition, but mostly due to lack of quality, affordable mental health providers and resources in many communities.

Warner first tackles the question of whether or not there is in fact an epidemic of pediatric mental illness. There’s no question that in recent decades there has been a massive increase in both diagnosis and medication treatment. Since the early 1990’s, the number of children receiving diagnoses of mental health disorders has tripled. From 1991 to 2006, there was a 3,500 percent increase in autistic children participating in special-education programs. Prevalence of depressed children has increased from near zero in the early 1970’s to between 2 and 15 percent today. Before the mid-1990’s, there weren’t any children diagnosed with bipolar; today prevalence is up to one percent. Prevalence of ADHD went from 1.5 to 2 percent in the mid-1970’s to about 8 percent today.

With the increased diagnosis, comes increased medication usage. Prior to the 1990’s, kids usually weren’t prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics. Now 1 to 2 percent of kids are prescribed antidepressants. Atypical antipsychotic drugs, which can cause serious metabolic changes and weight gain, were used by over half a million children in 2003. Ritalin and other stimulant use has skyrocketed along with the increased number of children diagnosed with ADHD.

Warner argues that much of the increase is due to changing diagnostic patterns; what she calls “increased visibility.” Many children who suffered from mental illness in the period from 1945 until 1980 were, depending on the symptoms, punished for misbehavior or conduct disorder, kicked out of school, institutionalized, or labeled as retarded. They weren’t diagnosed with psychiatric disorders because there were no effective treatments (this was a time when psychoanalytic techniques were dominant). Quoting Edward Shorter, “Physicians prefer to diagnose conditions they can treat rather than those they can’t” (p. 46).

Warner tackles the contentious issue of the fortyfold increase in juvenile bipolar disorder diagnosis between 1994 and 2003. She presents evidence skeptical that many of these children in fact have bipolar: the connection between the doctors promoting the diagnosis and the pharmaceutical industry; the fact that mood disorders occur predominantly in women, but juvenile bipolar is largely diagnosed in boys; and that the symptoms of extreme irritability that the supposedly bipolar children have is not a valid predictor of adult bipolar disorder. On the other hand, children diagnosed with bipolar disorder do have serious problems, and probably need some type of medication.

Warner also presents research that indicates that there has been in fact an increase in mental illness prevalence separate from changing diagnostic standards. For example, one study found that successive generations of Americans born after World War II seemed to have a greater incidence and earlier onset of depression. Anxiety seems to be increasing, also, as the number of teens between the ages of 14 and 16 who agreed with the statement that “Life is a strain for me much of the time” quadrupled between the early 1950’s and 1989.

The truth is that there’s no way to know if actual prevalence of pediatric mental illness has increased. According to Warner, “The research that could provide solid answers—epidemiological studies conducted in a parallel manner over time, asking the same questions, looking for the same disorders, using consistent language and definitions—for the most part doesn’t exist” (pp. 56-57).

My view is that she’s right, we can’t be sure of this. But it does seem that something in the environment is making kids more depressed, anxious, and autistic than before. Warner focuses on the post-World War II period, in which parents of young children today grew up. But what about if you go further back in history? It must be remembered that psychiatry, clinical psychology, and other mental health professions didn’t exist before 1900, nor did any mental health treatments. If there were so many mentally ill children (and adults) back then, wouldn’t someone have noticed it? There was no safety net; people had to pull their own weight or starve. If there were as many children and adults with disorders back then, and no way to treat them, wouldn’t society have come to a standstill?

Another way to look at things is the flip side of mental illness: creativity. Many mentally ill people are also creative. Many creative achievers of the past had mental illness. While there is no consistent way we’ve diagnosed mental illness over time, creative achievement is, by definition, public and visible. Michelangelo, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein and others achieved things that make them household names today; there are no contemporary equivalents. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the rate of creative achievement in the arts and sciences declined precipitously in the 20th century, to near-zero today. People who would have achieved in the past are not achieving. There are many explanations for this, but one is that they are acquiring severe, debilitating mental illness that prevents them from achieving. Another explanation, that they are taking emotion and motivation-blunting drugs, is something that I’ll discuss below.

Warner next makes her central argument, bolstered by a variety of anecdotes and quotes from parents, doctors, and researchers. She argues that most parents don’t want to medicate their children, that they usually try a variety of useless alternative treatments before reluctantly agreeing to medication, and that they are usually pleased by the results. While medications don’t work miracles, and some of them produce side effects, they result in improvement. Children who were unable to cope or function in school can now function at a tolerable level. We should stop blaming parents and doctors for overmedicating children, and instead focus on the large percentage of children who, for various reasons, are denied effective treatment for their mental illness.

I found it interesting that Warner didn’t include any examples of cases in which medications did more harm than good. She didn’t include any examples of parents who were eager to use medication on their children. While she says that she couldn’t find such examples, a reviewer indicated that this is an example of her selection bias. There’s no evidence in the book that she took a random sample of medicated children and then tracked down and interviewed the parents. She’s a popular writer, not a researcher, so she can be excused for this unscientific methodology, but the reader must be wary of any generalizations that she draws.

It isn’t hard to find examples of unhappy results from pediatric use of medications. Stephany, the author of the blog Soulful Sepulcher, writes poignantly about her daughter, currently institutionalized, who is such an example. I would have preferred to seen a more balanced presentation from Warner.

Of course, the fact that some children don’t excel with medication isn’t an argument that medication is ineffective. No treatment is successful 100% of the time. All drugs have side effects, and sometimes the side effects are worse than the treatment effect. Another reviewer is critical of the scientific evidence that Warner presents in favor of medication use. Warner says that there are treatments for kids that “actually work” (p. 211), that allow children to “improve and live their lives to the fullest” (p.210). Warner is basing these Pollyannish assessments on short-term measures of success, especially in school. The reviewer is skeptical about how much we know about the long-term effects of drugs on children’s developing brains.

My view is that we can’t be sure of the long-term efficacy of drugs unless we do longitudinal studies, comparing control versus experimental (drug) groups, that extend up to about age 50. The reason for such a long time frame is that by the age of 50, we should know whether or not someone has been successful in his or her career. What if children on drugs do well in school, but not so well in their adult life? Since most of the drugs (except Ritalin) haven’t been used in children for more than 20 years, we’re being premature about declaring a success.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t prescribe these drugs in children, although I do think that they should be a last resort, after every type of therapy has been tried. We also need to distinguish between the more serious types of disorders and less serious ones. For less serious childhood disorders, the ones in which children can function in some contexts (e.g. home) but not in school, I think we need to think about changing the school environment. The typical public school classroom is OK for an average student, but ones with special needs and/or abilities don’t thrive there. There are some special education classes, but to get a child into them a parent has to have significant time to deal with public school bureaucracies, or money to get into a private school program. Warner mentions this in her book; these services are effectively denied to the lower middle and working classes. We need to try to expand these services, and also think about coming up with less expensive alternatives that focus on vocational or artistic training.

As I mentioned earlier, psychotropic drugs are one of the causes of the lack of creative achievement in arts and sciences today. The legal, prescribed ones blunt emotions and motivation. The illegal ones can cause destructive addictions. Even if a child does better in school while taking drugs, will he contribute more to society than he would have otherwise? In another blog post, I mention that our society has a narrow (academic) definition of talent, that lacks context and empathy. Both context and empathy are necessary for good decision making, and in recent decades America’s political and economic leadership has made some poor decisions. Probably some of these deficits are due to the effects of drugs on people. These effects are hard to quantify, and won’t show up in a typical study, but they are incredibly important for society.

For the more serious types of disorders, in which the child can’t function anywhere, medications are an unfortunate necessity. Warner admits in her book, echoing many parents, that medication is not going to make these kids successful. It may make them less disabled than they would have otherwise been. The most important thing for us to do is to find out genetic and environmental causes of serious psychiatric disorders, to prevent them from happening in the future.

On the environmental side, we’ve covered just about every base imaginable, including diet, chemicals, vaccines, infections, etc. One thing we haven’t looked at is the effect of artificial magnetic fields. The reason for this is that scientists don’t think that humans have the ability to perceive magnetic fields. I present evidence in my research paper contradicting this. I found that I’m sensitive to artificial magnetic fields when sleeping, but not when I’m awake. If I’m sensitive now, as an adult, I was probably much more sensitive as a child. My hypothesis is that some children with serious psychiatric disorders are sensitive to artificial magnetic fields, especially when sleeping. My hypothesis would explain the increased prevalence in recent decades of serious pediatric psychiatric disorders. When I was growing up in the late 1960’s through mid 1980’s, the only artificial magnetic fields I had to worry about when sleeping were the innerspring mattress, steel bed frame, steel building structure, and a fan that I used in the summer to keep cool. Today, we have wireless Internet, home security, cordless phones, cell phones, baby monitors, computers, widescreen TV’s, iPods, central air, etc. Many of these devices and appliances emit strong magnetic fields, and are kept on while sleeping. It would be easy to test my hypothesis. Start turning things off, change to a non-magnetic bed, and see if the disturbed child becomes a little less disturbed. See if he can sleep better, which will make him function better the next day.

In conclusion, I found Warner’s book to be well written, with a lot of useful information for those interested in pediatric mental health. Its major flaw was a lack of balance in presenting evidence in favor of medication use in children.

A Beautiful Mind

2010-03-05T14:55:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading A Beautiful Mind, the 1998 biography of mathematician John Nash by Sylvia Nasar. It’s an interesting account of a highly intelligent and creative man who suffered from schizophrenia. I’ll discuss information I gleaned from the book in this post. I’m assuming the biography is accurate, although I haven’t done any independent checking.

Like many people, I first heard of Nash by watching the movie starring Russell Crowe. The movie is true to the basic outline of the biography, but omits or fudges many relevant details. For example, the movie didn’t mention Nash’s travels to Europe or his divorce. From the movie, one would think that Nash’s disorder began at graduate school at Princeton, since that is when he first “sees” his imaginary roommate. This imaginary roommate isn’t mentioned in the book.

Although eccentric and strange, Nash didn’t suffer his first breakdown until age 30, which is relatively late for schizophrenia. If Nash had developed this disorder when he was 20, no one would have heard of him, and there would be no biography to read. It’s important to emphasize this point. For every famous person like Nash, there are thousands of talented people who, due to mental illness, never get a chance to exercise their talents.

What precipitated Nash’s initial breakdown? It could have been his marriage that occurred two years before, along with his wife’s pregnancy. Stress is known to precipitate psychiatric symptoms, and major life changes like getting married and having a child are significant sources of stress. It could have been a European honeymoon trip that Nash and his wife went on about 6 months prior to his breakdown. There’s no way to know for sure.

After his breakdown and initial hospitalization, Nash gave up his tenured position at MIT and headed to Europe, where he would spend the next 9 months, attempting to renounce his U.S. citizenship and become a “world citizen.” This behavior exemplifies that the severe mental illnesses are primarily disorders of instability. Who in his right mind would give up a tenured faculty position at MIT? Most normal people crave stability, and there’s nothing more stable than a tenured position. Mentally ill people crave the opposite; for them the stability of a tenured position is both frightening and undesirable. Nash’s travels are further indications of instability.

After Nash returned to the U.S., he had temporary episodes of sanity alternating with psychotic episodes. With some brief exceptions, he wasn’t able to resume his career until he had a remission in his fifties. This remission occurred after having lived a relatively quiet and stable life at Princeton for over ten years. Nash won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1994.

Nasar’s biography convinces me that schizophrenia is closer to bipolar disorder than Alzheimer’s Disease. Schizophrenia is an episodic disease, characterized by alternating sanity and insanity, of rational thought and delusions. At least in Nash’s case, it doesn’t appear to be degenerative.

There’s no evidence from the biography supporting my hypothesis that schizophrenia is connected to the Earth’s magnetic field. Before he developed schizophrenia, Nash traveled within the U.S., including working for a time at Rand in Santa Monica, California. If Nash were sensitive to the geomagnetic field, he should have developed a breakdown while living in California. The fact that his first breakdown occurred soon after a trip to Europe doesn’t imply that the different geomagnetic in Europe precipitated his schizophrenia.

Whether or not schizophrenia is connected to the geomagnetic field, there’s no question that it is a severely disabling disorder, probably the most disabling psychiatric disorder. That Nash was able to accomplish what he did despite the disorder, and the fact that he was able to achieve remission, is amazing.

Harry Magnet offering free consulting

2010-03-01T11:22:00.001-05:00

For a limited time I'm offering free consulting. Check out the details by clicking here.

How an Unstable Meritocracy Has Failed America

2010-02-21T12:54:00.000-05:00

David Brooks’ interesting NY Times Op-Ed column points out that while American society has become more fair and open, the level of trust and respect of our institutions has plummeted. The male WASP, blue-blood establishment of the past has given way to a new establishment in which religion, family, race, and gender are no longer as important. People get into the top schools largely based on intelligence and academic achievement, and after they graduate they move into positions of power in government, business, and academia. This can be seen as a triumph of meritocracy, a system in which people are promoted and reach leadership positions based on ability. Isn’t that a good thing, something that generations of Americans have longed for, something that harks back to the anti-aristocratic heritage of the American Revolution?

Brooks points out that this meritocratic establishment is lacking in several respects. One is that it’s based on a narrow (academic) definition of talent. This definition lacks context and empathy, two important factors for good decision making. In recent years, members of the political and economic elite have made some poor decisions that have severely harmed American long-term interests.

Another problem with the current meritocracy (a point which was made by the authors of The Bell Curve) is that members of it live almost entirely separate lives from everyone else. They go to their elite schools, work in a rarefied environment, live in gated communities, and marry and socialize with other elites. They could care less about ordinary people.

Another problem is that solidarity among elites is weaker. The socially connected, inbred WASP elite may have competed with each other, but didn’t fight an all-out war, as elites do today. Is it in the best interests of the country that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree with each other on anything?

A related problem is that our society is too transparent. No one knew at the time that JFK was having various love affairs, because certain topics were considered off-limits to reporters. Was it in the best interest of the country that Bill Clinton was impeached for sexual indiscretions?

The most important problem with meritocracy is that it is unstable and based on short-term thinking. The WASP elite could trace their lineage back generations, and this family-centric perspective encouraged long-term thinking. The 1960’s revolution and its aftermath swept away the WASP elite, but didn’t put any stable social structures in its place. The U.S. has been a very unstable country since this revolution. This instability occurs at every level of society, from the family breakdown, drug abuse, and crime in the inner cities, to the reckless gambling of Wall Street elites that led to the current Great Recession. Schools and infrastructure have declined as our political leaders put special interests over the interests of the country as a whole.

Brooks doesn’t offer any solutions to this problem. While we can’t go back to the 1950’s, I think that we need to start rolling back some of the reforms that have led us to our present dire situation. We need to regain our appreciation for social stability and social structures, for family connections, and for long-term thinking. Creative public policy ideas that involve such an appreciation need to be formulated and implemented.

New educational video

2010-02-07T16:27:00.000-05:00

Watch this new educational video, entitled "Magnetoreception and Psychiatric Disorders: Two Great Biological Mysteries of Our Time. Part One—The Psychological Magnetic Map." (Video transcript available here)

Antidepressants Are No Better Than Placebo

2010-02-01T10:01:00.000-05:00

Newsweek’s cover story reinforces what researchers concluded in a recent article in JAMA—that for the vast majority of patients, antidepressants are no better than placebo. In fact, antidepressants are worse than placebo, because they have side effects. Only for patients with more severe forms of depression do these pills have any significant benefit.

Considering that 2008 antidepressant sales in the U.S. were $9.6 billion, it seems that if one wants to control spiraling health care costs, substituting sugar pills for antidepressants would be effective. If anything, we’re going in the opposite direction. Antidepressant users doubled in the 10 years from 1996 to 2005. Aggressive marketing by Big Pharma to both doctors and customers has expanded antidepressant use, even while the evidence of their effectiveness has been seriously questioned. As the Newsweek article states, “antidepressants are basically expensive Tic Tacs.”

Antidepressants are also used to control OCD. I feel that my OCD/tic disorder was helped by Anafranil, an older antidepressant. While this benefit could be due to the placebo effect, I doubt it. I think that from a biological perspective OCD is more similar to severe depression than to anxiety disorders, with which it is classified by the current DSM. Both OCD and severe depression are helped by antidepressants.

The distinction between antidepressant effectiveness in severe and light/moderate depression reinforces my view that a more individualized/case-by-case approach is needed for psychiatric disorders. As Dr. Klitzman says in a separate Newsweek article, paraphrasing Tolstoy, “every unhappy individual is unhappy in his or her own way.” It’s possible that light/moderate depression is a reaction to negative life events, while serious depression, OCD, and bipolar disorder are something completely different.

My human magnetoreception hypothesis connects these serious disorders with the Earth’s magnetic field. Since magnetoreception is dependent on childhood experience, i.e. where and when someone grew up, each of these magnetoreceptive people needs to be tested and evaluated individually. While the same drug may work in many people, the location of their magnetic home will vary based on their childhood experience. Also, their sleeping behavior and environment is likely different, so recommendations on changing this behavior and environment need to be tailored to the individual circumstances. This is similar to psychotherapy, in that therapy needs to be cognizant of the individual’s background, interests, intelligence, and personality.

In conclusion, we need to stop prescribing antidepressants to people for whom they have no benefit over placebo. For those with more serious disorders like severe depression, OCD, and bipolar disorder, antidepressants and other medications are useful. In the future, if my human magnetoreception hypothesis is confirmed, there will likely be more effective treatments that combine behavioral changes and futuristic devices.

The Difference Between Magnetoreception and Bioelectromagnetics

2010-01-15T11:32:00.002-05:00

Earlier this month, I did a search in Pubmed on the term “magnetoreception”. An article came up which described an experiment on humans. The abstract ended with the following sentence: “Magnetoreception may be more common than presently thought.” The implication is that humans may have magnetoreceptive abilities.

The experiment involved studying how exposure to low-intensity, low-frequency magnetic fields can alter pain sensitivity in humans. Subjects were exposed to acute thermal pain while lying in an fMRI machine. Experimental subjects received the magnetic field exposure (which involved different magnetic fields than the fMRI machine normally produced), while control subjects didn’t receive this. The fMRI machine imaged both experimental and control subjects’ brain activity. Significant differences in activity were found in various brain regions in the experimental versus control group.

I would classify this experiment as an example of a bioelectromagnetic phenomenon, but not as a magnetoreceptive phenomenon. Bioelectromagnetics is the study of how electromagnetic fields interact with living beings; magnetoreception (aka magnetoception) is the study of how animals utilize magnetic fields for orientation. There has been much more research on bioelectromagnetics than on magnetoreception. One familiar bioelectromagnetic research area is the possible increased cancer risk from cell phone radiation.

Magnetoreception involves the perception of magnetic fields for orientation, i.e. to alter behavior. Some animals (e.g. migratory birds) navigate partially based on information in the geomagnetic field. Magnetoreception is basically a “sixth sense,” similar to vision or hearing, in which sensory information is processed by the brain to produce a perception. In this case, the perception is some sense of where the animal is, where it needs to go, and how to get there (i.e. an internal GPS, possibly combined with an internal compass).

To my knowledge, there has been only one research project involved in understanding whether or not humans have magnetoreception. This was undertaken by Robin Baker at the University of Manchester in the 1970’s and 1980’s (summarized in his book Human Navigation and Magnetoreception). Baker did a variety of studies designed to ascertain whether or not humans have magnetoreceptive navigational abilities. I talk about his research in my scientific paper. It’s difficult to summarize his results; a fair assessment is that he was unable to convince the scientific community in the existence of human magnetoreception.

For two years, I studied what I believe to be my own magnetoreceptive abilities. Unlike Robin Baker, who studied a weak orientational ability (involving internal GPS and compass ability) in normal subjects, I focused only on a limited-functionality GPS ability that was directly connected with my psychiatric symptoms. My research revealed that my symptoms (negative versus positive) indicate whether I’m north or south of (magnetic) home. I claim no compass ability at all. I can’t tell whether I’m facing or moving north, south, east, or west. All I can do is feel whether I’m north or south of magnetic home. To get to magnetic home, I need to utilize external navigational aids (e.g. maps, roads, technical GPS, etc.).

The most important aspect of my research is not that it will provide an awesome new navigational tool for humans. The modern technical GPS is great as a navigational tool, and my internal GPS is no match for it. The significant part of my research is that it provides an explanation for the environmental cause of psychiatric disorders. Right now, this environmental cause is unknown, and as a consequence we’re unable to effectively treat mental illness, or to prevent new cases from happening. Drugs treat symptoms, and can help many people function better, but they are no cure. To find a cure (or way to prevent psychiatric disorders from happening), we must understand the environmental cause. My hypothesis is that psychiatric symptoms are navigational tools, the human equivalent of the animal instinctual response to being north or south of home. This hypothesis can be tested (I describe some experiments in my scientific paper), and if confirmed, can hopefully lead to a future in which schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are as rare as smallpox and polio are today.

What $640 / month rent gets you in Tokyo

2010-01-03T12:42:00.001-05:00

Times are tough in Japan right now. Their export-oriented economy has been hit hard by the Great Recession. "Hotels" like the one pictured above, originally intended for salarymen who stayed out too late and missed the last train, now rent out a third of the units long term. Read more about life in a 6.5 x 5 ft cubicle here.

Avatar and the Noble Savage

2009-12-28T17:25:00.009-05:00

I saw the movie Avatar last weekend and wanted to comment on its “noble savage” theme. The movie is set on Pandora, a moon over 4 light years from Earth. The movie is about the conflict between human colonists on Pandora and the native inhabitants, known as “Na’vi.” The protagonist is a paraplegic human named Jake Sully, whose mission is to gain intelligence on the Na’vi. Jake infiltrates the Na’vi by utilizing an “avatar,” a Na’vi body with a human consciousness. The Na’vi are “tree people,” whose home rests on a large deposit of a valuable mineral. The humans want the Na’vi to relocate; the Na’vi resist. Jake, as a combination human and Na’vi, is caught in the middle of the conflict.

The movie portrays the Na’vi in a sympathetic light compared to the humans. The Na’vi, similar in many ways to Native Americans and other primitive tribes, are seen as “noble savages,” whose idyllic way of life is threatened by greedy, mechanized humans. They are one with nature, able to communicate with animal and plant life on Pandora. Writer/director James Cameron (whose previous credits include the Terminator series and Titanic) isn’t trying for a balanced viewpoint here—everything about the Na’vi is good, while everything about the humans (with the possible exception of scientific research) is bad. This black-and-white viewpoint is similar to Star Wars, except that the conflict in Star Wars was more abstract.

Are actual savages as noble as the ones portrayed in the film? Is there something worthwhile about their way of life that was lost in the era of European/American expansion and colonization? While modern life has many advantages and material comforts, it seems to be missing something spiritually. This spiritual malaise is connected with severe psychological problems in artistic and other sensitive people. As I say in my Triumph of Dullness post, certain central aspects of modern life have caused major problems in sensitive people. These things include artificial magnetic fields in the bedroom, the transportation revolution, and artificial time. Primitive man didn’t have to worry about those things.

I want to focus on one aspect of primitive people that is also emphasized in Avatar, their sense of place. Tribal people have a sense of connectedness to their immediate environment, their home, in a way that modern people can’t understand. The Na’vi have a spiritual connection with their home tree, and abandoning their home is not an option.

Our modern world, replete with casual relationships between humans and their environment, has encouraged a stream of migration and relocation that has gone on for centuries. We took away the Native Americans’ land and pushed them onto reservations. People have emigrated from their homelands to American and other places, and have further relocated within their adopted countries. Many jobs require relocation. We do what we have to do in order to improve our material well being. But does all this migration have a price?

In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy says “there’s no place like home,” and longs to get back to Kansas, her home. This indicates that even among modern people there’s some connection to, and longing for, home. No matter how often we have to move, we still long for a place to call home, for a stable location where one can always return to. My human magnetoreception hypothesis provides another argument for remaining at home. People who are sensitive to the geomagnetic field feel best when at (magnetic) home. North of home they feel negative symptoms, and south of home they feel positive symptoms. If they move too far from home, they’ll have severe symptoms, and have difficulty functioning without the aid of drugs.

While we can sympathize with those who are forced out of their homes, it’s also important to look at the other side. Whatever the motivation, whether it be the desire for more living space, or building roads, train tracks, structures, or any other kind of development, growth sometimes requires that some people move out to make way for "progress." If centuries ago we had accepted the currently fashionable idea that Native Americans had a right to their homeland, there would have been no United States. We would never have been able to expand our country, to farm the land, to build railroads and cities, i.e. to build a nation. While there are some people who would rather that the U.S. never have existed, I’m not one of them. While James Cameron can extol the virtues of primitive people, much of the technology he uses in his movie rests on inventions made in the U.S. These inventions would never have come into existence if Americans in the seventeenth through nineteenth century had believed, along with Cameron, that savages were noble, and that the Indians had a right to their land.

In conclusion, let’s give the savages their due, but let’s also give civilized man credit for building a post-industrial world that, while imperfect, has led to advanced technology that many of us would be loath to part from.

Thoughts on the DSM-V

2009-12-17T14:08:00.000-05:00

I’ve been reading about the debate over the upcoming DSM-V, the new version of psychiatry’s reference manual, and wanted to express my own opinions. I think that a utilitarian criterion should be used to evaluate not only the DSM, but psychiatry as a whole, including the prescribing (and overprescribing) of medications. By this I mean: does this diagnostic manual or treatment properly diagnose and treat people with psychiatric disorders? Does it falsely diagnose and improperly treat people by diagnosing them with disorders that they don’t have?

I’ll make an assertion that people with full-blown (out-of-control) schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and OCD are better off medicated. To be medicated, they must first be diagnosed, so an instrument that aids in correct diagnosis is useful. The first two editions of the DSM came out when psychiatry was still heavily influenced by psychoanalytic theory. As a consequence, they had vague, unreliable categories (e.g. neurotic vs. psychotic), and contained spurious speculation on etiology. Since psychoanalytic treatment never helped patients with serious disorders, these early editions of the DSM were pretty much useless.

Robert Spitzer led the development effort of the major revision of the DSM, known as the DSM-III, which came out in 1980. (Interestingly, Spitzer is a critic of the upcoming DSM-V.) The DSM-III largely abandoned the psychoanalytic orientation of its predecessors. It abandoned any attempt to classify by etiology. It created the symptom-based, multiaxial categorical system which, with some changes and extensions, was incorporated into the DSM-IV in 1994. The DSM-III helped psychiatrists make more reliable and valid diagnoses than past editions. It must be remembered, however, that without any knowledge of etiology, and without any valid diagnostic tests, there would always be less reliability and validity than with physical disorders.

The symptom-based model of the DSM-III and DSM-IV sets up fairly steep criteria by which to diagnose someone. For example, click here for the DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode. Of course, if you go to a PCP and tell him that you’re depressed, in less than a minute he’ll write you a prescription for an antidepressant, but the DSM states what criteria this PCP should be using. It also states the criteria by which patients need to be evaluated to be diagnosed in research studies. This is important because in order for drugs to be approved, they must first go through clinical trials on patients diagnosed with the disorder that these drugs are supposed to be treating. The fact that once they’re approved, they can be prescribed off-label for other disorders is a separate issue that I won’t take up here.

Enough about the history. Let’s ask the question: with the current DSM-IV, are people who should be diagnosed and medicated actually diagnosed and medicated? I think the answer is yes. If Jim has bipolar disorder, and has some means (insurance or self-pay) to see a doctor and to purchase drugs, he’ll be diagnosed, and get the drugs he needs. It’s possible that Jim doesn’t want to see a doctor or take drugs, but that’s a separate issue. No diagnostic manual can “treat” that problem (assuming that it is a problem).

The scary thing about some of the proposed revisions to the DSM-V is that they will expand the number of diagnosable disorders. This will in turn expand the use of drugs to people who don’t need them. I don’t think that this is a good thing. There are already too many people taking drugs who don’t fit the diagnostic criteria of the disorder for which the drugs were originally approved. An example of this is the unconscionable use of drugs approved for adults in children, sometimes very young children.

What psychiatry desperately needs is a more scientific basis. It needs better diagnostic tests, and a better understanding of etiology. These will in turn lead to better treatments. In the 15 years since the DSM-IV came out, while there has been some great research going on, there hasn’t been a major breakthrough. So the DSM-V is not going to help things, and will probably hurt things. Hopefully by the time the DSM-VI is published, there will be some breakthroughs. We can only hope.

Ben Bernanke—A Creative Leader

2009-12-17T11:40:00.001-05:00

In my Triumph of Dullness blog post I say that there aren’t any contemporary creative geniuses in the arts and sciences. Creativity can be exercised in other fields, however, most notably in business or political leadership, and technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are two names that come to mind as geniuses in technology management. Those of us who are old enough to remember life without the PC or Mac realize how much our lives have been transformed by these devices. When I was in high school in the early 1980’s, the early versions of PC’s and Mac’s were available. There was no Internet, however, and we still did our term papers on typewriters. I couldn’t imagine using a typewriter now.

It’s much rarer to find intelligently creative political leadership. FDR was a good example of a creative leader, who guided his country through two of the biggest crises of the last century: the Great Depression and World War II. There was no guidebook to follow, no historical precedent, so FDR had to improvise. While you can disagree with specific policies or programs, by the time he died in 1945 the U.S. had defeated Hitler in just 3 ½ years, and was on its way to defeating Japan. World War II also ended the Great Depression.

After reading Time Magazine’s Person of the Year article, I have to conclude that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a creative leader. In the fall of 2008, the world financial system ground to a halt. The housing bubble had burst, and a Depression 2.0 was a real possibility. Instead of responding in predictable ways, such as only lowering interest rates, this scholar of the Great Depression did some creative things. These had never been done before on the scale that Bernanke did them:

Coordinating rate cuts and other interventions with central bankers around the world
Buying up commercial paper, mortgage-based securities, and other debts.
Bailing out troubled banks and other financial firms.

One can disagree with specific actions, such as some of the bailouts, but that’s the case for any leader or policy maker. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that we were threatened with an economic depression. If Bernanke hadn’t acted, we could have 25% unemployment now, instead of 10%. It’s easy to blame people for disasters that actually happened; it’s harder to praise them for disasters that didn’t happen. A good example of this is that we haven’t had any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Our national security agencies deserve credit for this, but they’re rarely praised. For the same reason, Bernanke deserves recognition for the disaster that didn’t happen.

Updated "Are You Sensitive?" Page

2009-12-16T10:05:00.000-05:00

I updated my Are You Sensitive? page on my website to clarify some of the points, and provide better explanations.

Feedback I'd Really Like to Have

2009-12-11T16:05:00.010-05:00

I’m starting to get feedback now, and I appreciate it. While I’m happy to get any feedback at all, let me explain what I’d really like to get. I want people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and OCD/tics to tell me if they relate to anything I’m saying on my website. I ask some questions on my Are You Sensitive? page. Read through these questions, and think about your answers. If you'd like to share your answers, go ahead and comment on this blog posting.

Additional information that would be helpful to know:

--Whether or not you’re currently on medications.

--What disorder you’ve been diagnosed with, where you grew up, where you live now, and your approximate age.

Since I understand that people are reluctant to reveal personal information, especially about their mental health, I’m changing a setting on my blog to allow anonymous comments. Please don’t provide any identifying information in your comments (e.g. name, phone #, address, email, etc).

Since people are busy, I don’t expect you to answer all these questions, or spend a lot of time writing out your comments. Make your comment whatever length you’d like.

Feel free to also comment on your experiences with the information on my Steps You Can Take and Further Research pages.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Gone with the Wind

2009-12-08T17:57:00.001-05:00

I just watched the 70th anniversary DVD edition of Gone with the Wind. Earlier this year, I had read the novel for the first time. I loved both the novel and the film. Since the story is probably familiar to most of my readers, I won’t try to summarize or review it. I want to use it as an example of a standard by which I evaluate contemporary culture. In my Triumph of Dullness blog post, I said that we don’t have any contemporary geniuses. We have people writing novels, and people making movies, but these novels and movies aren’t in the same universe as Gone with the Wind. A great historical novel requires a combination of engaging story, interesting characters, plot, vivid historical details, and clear style. There may be some contemporary novels that have some of these elements, but none have all the elements that Gone with the Wind had. Many contemporary novels try to substitute sex, violence, foul language, and other gimmicks to make up for their lack of literary quality. A great epic movie requires a great story, great acting, cinematography, music, direction, and all the other elements that made Gone with the Wind so fantastic. Contemporary movies have access to better technology, which makes for gee-whiz special effects, but these effects cannot hide the movies’ lack of quality storytelling, direction, and cinematography.

Ironically, Gone with the Wind was about how a once-great civilization (antebellum South) was destroyed in just four years of war. The creative fecundity that characterized what was otherwise an awful time (the 1930’s) helped engender the novel and movie Gone with the Wind. Creative achievement of this high order is, like the antebellum South, gone with the wind.

In my Triumph of Dullness blog post, I mention how there’s a lack of ambition among potential creative geniuses. There’s also a lack of mentoring, role models, inspiration, and any other social aspect of creative accomplishment. I want to focus on these social aspects, because it’s directly relevant to the publication of Gone with the Wind. Margaret Mitchell, the book’s author, was a Southern journalist who wrote a rough draft of the novel between 1925 and 1930. She had no desire to seek publication, however, and stashed away the manuscript in her apartment.

In 1935, Mitchell met MacMillan editor Harold Latham, who was in Atlanta to scout for promising writers. Her duty was to show him around the area. She gave him her manuscript, which he read on the train back. He recognized the book’s potential, and arranged for her to get an advance, in order to finish the novel. The rest is history.

Contemporary fiction writers can recognize just how much has changed since then. Major publishers don’t send editors around the country looking for new talent. They don’t give out advances to first-time authors with unfinished manuscripts. They, in fact, do everything possible to discourage wannabe authors. They make them finish the novel before even trying to get a publisher. They then force writers to get an agent, a difficult and arduous process that most people don’t want to go through. Even after getting an agent, there’s no guarantee that the agent can sell the book to a publisher.

Publishers will say that economic conditions have changed, that they can’t afford to publish books by unknown authors, most of which fail commercially. It’s true that traditional publishers are losing money and that they can’t conduct business the way they used to. My point is not to blame publishers but to comment on how things have changed in the last 70 years. It’s doubtful that Margaret Mitchell had the ambition to do the things that writers need to do today to get published. There are probably many talented contemporary writers who have started a novel, perhaps a very good novel, who would have been published in an earlier era, but are never going to be published today.

There are other social aspects of creative achievement that are relevant. Gone with the Wind (the book and movie) inspired thousands of writers, directors, actors, and other creative people to write books and create movies. The lack of any contemporary Gone with the Winds has resulted in the lack of inspiration for potential writers, directors, and actors to achieve anything.

There’s a painting that visually represents this transmission from genius to lesser creative people:

I like this painting, entitled “Genius Calling Forth the Fine Arts to Adorn Manufactures and Commerce,” by Anglo-American painter Benjamin West (1738-1820). The painting shows the winged male genius inspiring his female devotees. These devotees are engaged in various creative pursuits, the most prominent being the painter. In reality, a genius doesn’t have to directly interact with people he influences. For example, Mozart strongly influenced Beethoven, although they were together only for a short time, if at all.

What we need are one or two Margaret Mitchells who can inspire thousands of others to begin a rebirth of a glorious literary tradition that is, today, gone with the wind.

200 Hits Per Day--But Virtually No Feedback

2009-12-04T11:58:00.000-05:00

My harrymagnet.com site went live on October 25, 2009. From November 8 until yesterday (Dec 3), I’ve averaged 209 hits / day, over a 26 day period. This is measured by Awstats, a program that processes server logs, and that strips out hits from robots. I’ve been doing Google Advertising, and many of the hits are coming from this advertising (both from searches and content sites), but 44% of the hits (in November) came from direct address/bookmark/link in email. The hits are coming from all over the world, although the vast majority are from the U.S. The top 10 countries in hit count in November are as follows:

United States    1900
India                  436
Great Britain    352
Canada                344
Australia    284
Romania    216
Philippines       160
China          98
South Africa    77
Russian Federation 75

I’ve only gotten one piece of feedback, a message in a bipolar discussion forum. As to why I haven’t gotten more feedback, I have no idea. Any guess would be speculative, so I won’t even try.

I didn’t know what the response would be when I went live with the harrymagnet.com website. I expected that if I got a lot of hits, that I would get some feedback. Another real possibility was that I would get few hits, and no feedback. The combination of 200 hits per day and virtually no feedback was probably the least likely possibility in my mind.

In my Triumph of Dullness blog post, I say how it’s difficult to start from scratch. There is very little encouragement in our society for truly creative ideas. There are no movements, no role models, no mentors, and no heroes. It is extremely difficult to generate interest in a crazy idea like human magnetoreception, especially when I’m unknown and have no credentials. It would have been hard in more creative past eras, but I would have had a better chance of finding a mentor or advocate. The fact that my website has been generating hits is encouraging, since it implies that some people are interested in finding out more about my ideas.

I think that if my website continues to generate 200 or more hits per day, then it’s likely that at some point, people will start talking about it. The more hits, the more people who are introduced to my ideas, the better chance that a few people will mention it in blogs, forums, Facebook, or other online media. Some feedback may be negative, and some positive, but both types of feedback will be a means to generate badly needed online “buzz.”

The Triumph of Dullness

2009-11-20T12:42:00.005-05:00

Read the following poem, written in the early eighteenth century by English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744):

In vain, in vain,—the all-composing hour
Resistless falls: the Muse obeys the Pow'r.
She comes! she comes! the sable Throne behold
Of Night Primeval, and of Chaos old!
Before her, Fancy's gilded clouds decay,
And all its varying Rain-bows die away.
Wit shoots in vain its momentary fires,
The meteor drops, and in a flash expires.
As one by one, at dread Medea's strain,
The sick'ning stars fade off th' ethereal plain;
As Argus' eyes by Hermes' wand oppressed,
Closed one by one to everlasting rest;
Thus at her felt approach, and secret might,
Art after Art goes out, and all is night.
See sulking Truth to her old cavern fled,
Mountains of Casuistry heaped o'er her head!
Philosophy, that leaned on Heav'n before,
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more.
Physic of Metaphysic begs defense,
And Metaphysic calls for aid on Sense!
See Mystery to Mathematics fly!
In vain! they gaze, turn giddy, rave, and die.
Religion blushing veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires.
Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human Spark is left, nor Glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread Empire, CHAOS! is restor'd;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And Universal Darkness buries all.

This poem, entitled "The Triumph of Dulness [sic]," and the larger work to which it belongs, The Dunciad, have been referred to as a "mock apocalypse." They describe the end of the world in a humorous way. The Dunciad is a complex work, containing many layers of biblical, Greco-Roman, and eighteenth century British political and cultural allusions.

To help the contemporary reader understand the "Triumph of Dulness" poem, I'll explain some of the allusions. The "sable throne" symbolizes night and chaos. Medea was a sorceress in Seneca's Latin tragedy, who summoned monsters outlined in heavenly constellations as she prepared to murder her children. Why did she murder her children? She did it in revenge of their father's infidelity. Medea finally escaped into the heavens in a chariot drawn by dragons, after which her husband concluded that there were no gods.

Argus had eyes over all his body, which slept in rotation to keep a constant watch. He was set by jealous Hera to keep watch on Io (Zeus' mistress) to prevent her husband Zeus' infidelity. Hermes was able to put out all Argus' eyes at once, allowing Zeus to fool around unwatched. Hermes' putting out all Argus' eyes is symbolic of the lack of perception and vision in society.

Casuistry (deceptive argument) is heaped over the head of Truth, forced Truth to flee to an old cavern. Philosophy has abandoned heaven (God—the first cause) and shrinks to its second cause (mechanical necessity, or causation). By doing this, philosophy disappears. "Physic" (natural sciences) and "Metaphysic" (philosophy) are dependent on each other, leading each to circular reasoning. "See Mystery to Mathematics fly" refers to the vain attempts to "prove" the mysteries of religion by mathematical reasoning. They (truth, religion, philosophy, natural science, and math) die. Religion blushes, veils her sacred fires, and morality goes down the drain (implying that morality is grounded upon religion). The final lines refer to an apocalyptic ending of the world, brought down by chaos and anarchy.

Let's interpret "The Triumph of Dulness" in the context of our present age. Has dullness triumphed in our time? In Pope's words, "Art after Art goes out, and all is night", and "Wit shoots in vain its momentary fires". Also, "Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!" There is neither art nor wit in contemporary culture. If you go to a movie, turn on the TV, go to an art gallery, concert hall, or playhouse to watch and/or hear anything new, stupidity, incompetence, and mediocrity reign. Creative achievement, the "human spark," the "glimpse divine," exemplified in history by Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Shakespeare, Dickens, and Beethoven, is nowhere to be found. This makes for a dull society.

For the last fifty years, there has been very little major individual creative achievement. It's true that every year there are new products and inventions, new scientific discoveries, and new technologies (e.g. cloning, medical advances, new computer technologies, new software, new books, new music, etc.). The problem is that these advances have been made by relatively minor, unknown people or groups of people. None of these people compare to the giants of the Western art and science tradition. If they did compare, then they would be as famous or more famous than these giants.

Is it a public relations problem? It's true that the media mainly reports bad things. Maybe someone is a genius, but the media only wants to report on the latest murder-suicide. The media is a problem, but it's unlikely that a genius would go unnoticed in today's age of individual glorification and celebrity. Actors, sports stars, popular musicians, and politicians certainly go noticed. Einstein today would likely be more famous and in the media spotlight than he was in his time.

Why this dearth of creative genius? Consider this quote: "Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings." C. Archie Danielson's pithy metaphor compares intelligence to a bird's ability to fly. Intelligence, like wings on a bird, can cause the individual to soar. Intelligence can also help uplift society by means of the products of intelligence.

Bird without wings cannot fly. The potential for flight is present in the bird's genetics, but without wings it cannot actualize this potential. Intelligence without ambition has the genetic potential to do constructive things, but the person cannot do it. The bright person sits on his or her ass and watches TV or plays video games.

A better quote would be: "Creativity without ambition is like a bird without wings." Creativity is not the same as intelligence. Creativity is coming up with new, original ideas, works of art, or inventions. From the point of view of society, creativity is much more important than what intelligence alone can do. Creative geniuses are intelligent, but have something more than intelligence (i.e. high IQ scores alone cannot predict creative achievement—or else everyone in Mensa would be a creative genius). Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for genius.

There is certainly a lack of ambition among potential creative geniuses. These birds are not growing the wings that they need to fly. Why don't they have ambition? There are environmental factors in modern society that have robbed virtually every potential genius of any ambition. One of these factors may be the lack of structure, standards, and morality in contemporary society, a descent to Hobbes “state of nature.” This condition, known as “hyperindividualism,” i.e. every man out for himself, undercuts the prestige and altruism motivations that induced creative people to achieve in the past. Both prestige and altruism are important motivators because creative work in the arts and sciences is usually not financially rewarding. Another related factor is that our information-age economy gives bright people so many more opportunities for high-paying careers than it did in the past. Most of these careers (e.g. business, law, medicine, and technology) don’t provide the opportunity for creative achievement in the arts and sciences.

Another environmental factor is widespread availability of psychotropic drugs (both legal and illegal) that rob people of their creative ambition (and other things). Marijuana is an illegal example of an anti-motivational drug; antipsychotic drugs are a legal example. The stimulant drugs like amphetamine and cocaine, which target the neurotransmitter dopamine, are especially destructive for motivation. Antidepressant, mood stabilizing, and antipsychotic drugs have helped keep people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia out of the hospital, but their anti-motivational and emotional blunting side effects have prevented these people from achieving anything. With a few exceptions, prior to the 20th century potentially creative people had only alcohol as a means to escape from reality.

Another reason is that it's hard to start from scratch. Other geniuses were part of artistic and scientific movements that were prominent in their time. Michelangelo was a product of the High Renaissance; Newton was a product of the scientific revolution. Today, there are no movements; there's nil. Modernism and Postmodernism are dead. They've contributed nothing. There isn't anything more to rebel against—all literary, artistic, and moral standards are gone. There are no role models, no heroes, and no mentors that can inspire creative people to achieve. This shows the supreme importance of culture and environment to creative achievement. There wasn't much creative achievement in the Dark Ages, even though there were certainly some people who had the potential. It's hard to believe that with today's wealth, living standards, and technology that we're not doing much better than the Dark Ages.

To get a better understanding of why there is no creative genius, it's important to recognize when the problem began. Although it's been glaringly evident since at least the 1960's, the problem began a century before that, according to Charles Murray. In his book entitled Human Accomplishment, Murray dates the problem from sometime in the 19th century. His reasoning is that although there was a great deal of accomplishment in the late 19th and early 20th century, there should have been more, based on the fact that more people were educated and had more opportunities to create than ever before. If we accept his premise, then the explanations mentioned above don't apply, because they refer to environmental factors that came into existence after 1900.

Another perspective is from Eugen Weber, in one of the programs from his PBS series The Western Tradition. This program, entitled “Fin de Siècle,” used the best of times / worst of times theme to portray life and culture at the turn of the 20th century. On the one hand, it was the best of times for almost everyone. Inventions such as the bicycle, the automobile, the airplane, electric power, the railroad, and the steamboat had transformed or would soon transform the lives of everyone, including the common people. Public education had for the first time provided literacy for the majority of people in the developed world. Economic progress had allowed more leisure time for working people than ever before, and the consumer economy and transportation revolution gave these people more things to do with their leisure time than ever before.

On the other hand, for the sensitive, creative types, it was the worst of times. As a symbol of this, Weber showed Munch’s painting “The Scream.”

Something in the environment was driving creative people to near-madness, leading them to abandon all traditional notions of beauty, logic, coherence, and harmony, which we know today as the avant-garde/modernist movement. The fact that the basic themes of modernism still dominate the arts today, a century later, indicates that the root causes haven’t changed. Artists and other sensitive people are still screaming.

My human magnetoreception hypothesis explains why creative people had such a difficult time with modern life. Let’s assume that potentially creative people are also potentially mentally ill people. The link between creativity and madness is generally accepted by researchers who study creativity. Read Eysenck’s Genius or Simonton’s Origins of Genius for corroboration. There are three aspects of modernity that have hammered people with the genetic predisposition for either creativity or mental illness.

Mentally ill people are highly sensitive to artificial magnetic fields when sleeping. The industrial, electromagnetic/electronic, and computer revolutions have exposed us to all kinds of artificial magnetic fields in our bedrooms. The innerspring mattress, which first became widely used in the 1930’s, is a psychologically destructive invention that exposes sleepers to artificial magnetic fields (from the steel springs). Other harmful magnetic fields are from steel headboards and bed frames, steel building structure, and various electrical and electronic appliances. In recent decades, with the introduction of wireless networks and devices, we’ve become more and more exposed to these fields. Mentally ill people have become psychologically damaged by the sleep disruption caused by artificial magnetic fields.
Mentally ill people are highly sensitive to the geomagnetic field differences between different places on the Earth. The transportation revolution that began in the nineteenth century with the invention and widespread use of the steamboat and the railroad, and accelerated in the twentieth century with the invention of the automobile and airplane, has exposed people to vastly different geomagnetic field properties than that in which they grew up. Our bodies didn’t evolve with the ability to adapt to these differences. Mentally ill people have become psychologically damaged by moving from one city or country to another.
Mentally ill people are highly sensitive to differences in circadian rhythm, the internal daily rhythm that is influenced by sleep/wake time. The industrial revolution began the move toward artificial time and away from the natural/sun clock that people had always used in centuries past. The rise of shift work and the introduction of daylight savings time in the twentieth century further moved us away from natural time. Mentally ill people have become psychologically damaged by their circadian rhythms being out-of-sync with the solar day.

All three factors began to influence mentally ill people in the nineteenth century, then accelerated in the twentieth century. Put another way, our technology is destroying our civilization by psychologically damaging a group of people who in previous eras might have become creative geniuses, but now are not achieving anything.

A civilization cannot thrive without creative achievement. There are always problems that require creative solutions. For example, contemporary America is drowning in debt, the war on drugs has been lost, we’re threatened by terrorism, our schools are failing us, prisons are the only high-growth industry, we need a vaccine for AIDS, and we need to come up with alternatives to oil and the internal combustion engine. Combine these problems with the current Great Recession, and it’s obvious that our society is in deep trouble. While there are some good ideas floating around, nothing gets implemented. We need creative geniuses to not only come up with solutions, but figure out how to get these solutions put into practice. Dullness pervades all our political/artistic/scientific life and intellectual discourse. At least during the Great Depression, people could go to Fred Astaire / Ginger Rogers movies as a healthy temporary escape. Today, all we have to offer are reality TV shows and rap music. Until we address the connection between our own technology and creativity / mental illness, i.e. until we begin researching human magnetoreception, dullness will be triumphant.

A Memoir of How I Developed the Concept of Psychiatric Symptoms as Navigational Tools

2009-11-16T16:52:00.000-05:00

Arguably the single most important finding of my human magnetoreception research project is the concept of psychiatric symptoms as navigational tools. Negative symptoms (i.e. depressed mood) tell me that (magnetic) home is south of my current location, and positive symptoms (i.e. tics) tell me that (magnetic) home is north. In my site and research paper, I don’t give many anecdotes related to my development of this idea. I intend to fill in this gap in this post.

One of the strangest things about psychiatric disorders is that although they are considered to be diseases, they don’t share many of the characteristics of diseases. For one thing, there’s no obvious pathophysiology, i.e. physiological changes associated with the disease. This is not the case for some other well-known brain diseases. Multiple Sclerosis is characterized by plaques in the white matter of the brain. Parkinson’s Disease is characterized by loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. Both of these diseases are degenerative—i.e. the patient gets worse over time. Psychiatric disorders, on the other hand, are not degenerative. Take as an example John Nash, the subject of the book and movie “A Beautiful Mind.” His schizophrenia gradually improved over time, so that by his mid-fifties he could function reasonably well.

While psychiatric disorders are not typical diseases, I don’t agree with Szasz’s infamous 1961 book that mental illness is a myth. As someone who suffered from mental illness for over 20 years, and having seen how mental illness has wrecked lives and destroyed relationships in my own family, I know how dysfunctional it is. It’s just not in the same category as other diseases.

My concept of psychiatric symptoms as navigational tools helps explain this puzzle of mental illness. Psychiatric symptoms are the human equivalent of the animal instinctual response to being north or south of home. Long ago during human evolution, our ancestors probably utilized these symptoms for navigation. Since our primitive ancestors never ventured far from their birthplace, didn’t live very long, and had no exposure to artificial magnetic fields, their symptoms were never too intense. They were strong enough to guide them north or south toward home, but not strong enough to incapacitate them.

At some point, the knowledge of psychiatric symptoms as navigational tools was lost. This probably occurred well before the advent of civilization and written language. Some cultures and tribes considered these symptoms to be the result of evil spirits or demons. Others, like the ancient Greeks, took a more naturalistic approach. Today, the dominant theory is that psychiatric disorders are a result of a chemical imbalance. This imbalance is brought on by a combination of genes and environment. Both the genes causing mental illness and the environment trigger or triggers are unknown (as of 2009).

I accept the premise that genes are part of the cause of mental illness. My human magnetoreception hypothesis explains the environmental trigger. People with psychiatric disorders are unwitting navigators, whose symptoms are guiding them to their (magnetic) home. Since knowledge of the navigational function of psychiatric symptoms has been lost, the navigators (and everyone else) attribute their symptoms to some type of biochemical disease process.

How did I arrive at the startling conclusion that the symptoms of my psychiatric disorder were navigational tools? Before embarking on my geomagnetism research project in late 2007, I had studied psychology, and had gotten a second bachelor’s degree in this subject (my first was in physics). From my study of psychology, I knew about positive and negative symptoms, primarily as they applied to schizophrenia. I thought that I had negative symptoms, in the sense of a chronic mild depression (i.e. dysthymia) and lack of motivation. I also had positive symptoms, in the sense of tics, hypomania, and anxiety. But I had no idea that these symptoms were navigational tools until late 2007, when I began to drive around Utah and surrounding states, paying attention to how I felt differently in different places.

Since many of my readers may not be familiar with the geography of the Western U.S., I’m including a map with some key places I visited coded with letters. Here’s what happened at each of these places.

A) Salt Lake City, Utah (SLC). This was my home during this initial stage of my research project. I used how I felt here as a reference point, to compare to how I felt in the other places.

B) Rock Springs, Wyoming. This was the first place I drove to in search of a geomagnetic explanation of why I felt differently in different places. I drove here on September 20, 2007, because I knew that it was higher in total intensity and inclination than SLC, and I expected that being higher in these two magnetic factors would make me feel better. I stayed in a motel here, and felt in prepeak. I felt more focused and motivated than I did in SLC. At the time, I didn’t know that there was a peak, and that it was only one meter north-south distance. On hindsight, if I had known about the effects of circadian rhythm on peak location, I would have gone to bed an hour later, which would have pushed the peak far south of Rock Springs. I was phase advanced at the time, but didn’t know it.

C) My next trip was to Idaho Falls, Idaho, on September 26, 2007. I wanted to go north to see if even higher total intensity and inclination would make me feel better than I did in Rock Springs. What I found, however, was that in Idaho Falls I felt depressed, unmotivated, and unfocused. These are what I would later call “negative symptoms,” or symptoms of being in the Negative Zone, the area north of magnetic home.

D) Based on the negative symptoms I felt in Idaho Falls, I decided that I needed to drive south, to attempt to feel the way I did in Rock Springs. By using the magnetic model calculator, I found that Twin Falls, Idaho had similar total intensity and inclination to Rock Springs. I drove down to Twin Falls on September 27, but didn’t feel as well as I did as in Rock Springs. I stayed overnight a few nights in Twin Falls, driving to some of the small towns north and northeast of this city. I felt in prepeak in Rupert (about 75 km east/northeast of Twin Falls), but negative symptoms in Minidoka (about 23 km northeast of Rupert). On September 28, I distinguished between a “Northern Effect” and “Southern Effect,” which I would later change to “Negative Zone” and “Positive Zone.” I speculated on the implications of this for bipolar disorder. I also observed that the feelings go away temporarily while I’m driving (something I would later realize was applicable to sleeping near a cardinal bed angle {N-S or E-W}. The feelings don’t go away when driving if I sleep near a 45 degree bed angle).

The next day (September 29) I found the peak near Twin Falls. By making frequent stops while driving, I realized that the prepeak feelings occurred in a narrow north-south distance range, 2 to 3 kilometers.

E) Wanting to find the peak closer to Salt Lake City (A), I drew a line between Rock Springs (B) and Twin Falls (D), and predicted that the peak should be near Bear Lake. This high elevation, relatively undeveloped resort lake near the Utah/Idaho border had inspired me in September 2006 to write a mystery short story set there (published under my real name). See the pictures below.

In early October, 2007, Bear Lake inspired me to further develop my concept of the psychological magnetic map. It was near the Bear Lake Marina that I first walked the peak. I walked too fast, however, missing the most intense part of the peak (see video). At the time I estimated that the peak was between 30 and 60 meters north-south distance (later revised down to one meter). By walking east and west of the peak, and holding a compass, I realized that the peak extended approximately along a line of magnetic east-west.

By stopping in Laketown and Round Valley, two towns just south of the lake, and then stopping in Logan, which is a further distance southwest of the lake, I began to conceptualize the distinction between the Happy Zone and the Positive Zone. Just south of the peak is the Happy Zone, in which I’m largely free of symptoms, but if I go further south I run into the Positive Zone, in which I feel positive symptoms (i.e. tics and involuntary body movements).

I returned to Bear Lake on October 11, eight days after my previous visit. I found that the peak had moved south 0.9 km in the eight days. This was before I controlled for bed angle, and was likely due to a combination of Bed Angle Drift (BAD) and secular change. Much of my later research involved doing quantitative analysis of the various factors that were associated with peak movement north or south.

The above description covers the initial stages of my research project, in which I identified that my symptoms were navigational tools, leading me to magnetic home. I also found that there was a peak, a short distance of intense feeling that was a north-south transition between different symptom clusters. In future posts I’ll discuss some other anecdotes associated with this project.

New Facebook group

2009-11-15T10:14:00.000-05:00

I've created a new Facebook group. I'm getting a lot of hits on my website but very little feedback. I'm hoping that people will utilize the group to share their concerns, questions, and experiences vis-a-vis human magnetoreception. For example, has anyone tried the suggestions on the site to find out if they're sensitive to the magnetic field? Are the instructions clear? Do you feel silly looking up at the early afternoon sky? Are you unsure how to read a magnetic compass, or want advice as to what compass to use? Is your spouse balking at the idea of rotating your bed? All these things are legitimate concerns to bring to the group.

Harry Magnet mentioned in a bipolar forum

2009-11-09T08:51:00.000-05:00

Harry Magnet was mentioned in a bipolar forum. Harry replied to the post.

Cognitive-behavioral strategies to manage my OCD

2009-11-02T09:22:00.001-05:00

This post is directed toward those with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). I developed OCD during my last year of high school, and it became a serious disorder during college (combined with tics). At the time, I didn't try to get treatment, and I had no idea that I even had OCD. In my mid-twenties, I began seeing a psychiatrist, and started on a drug called Anafranil, which helped a lot. I was on Anafranil for 10 years, with 2 of those years combined with Zoloft. I combined the medication with my own cognitive-behavioral strategy. I found that existing psychological treatments (e.g. exposure therapy) didn't work very well for me. After 10 years of Anafranil along with my own strategies, I no longer needed medication. My OCD remained sub-clinical, i.e. although I still had an obsessive-compulsive personality, it no longer impacted my functioning. This was 3 years before I started investigating the link between my OCD/tics and the Earth's magnetic field (which I present in my harrymagnet.com website).

My symptoms were mainly obsessions about philosophical issues. I also had checking and cleaning compulsions. The compulsions weren't as bad as the obsessions. During my early and mid-twenties, virtually any reading or writing could trigger obsessions and tics, which would last for days. I believe that the obsessions derived from my extreme interpretation of the Ayn Rand/Objectivist philosophy. I'll expand upon this connection at another time.

My strategies to deal with the OCD involved refraining from mental suppression and mental forcing. Mental suppression is the willful cutting off of thoughts, images, and feelings as they arise from the stream of consciousness. Mental forcing is the willful forcing of thoughts, images, and feelings that would otherwise have not come from the stream of consciousness. Both of these behaviors are self-stimulatory, addictive, and destabilizing. Daniel Wegner's book White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts is a good source on the futility of trying to suppress thoughts.

To avoid these behaviors, you need to distinguish between mental forcing/suppression, which are internal behaviors, and triggers, which are external behaviors and stimuli. I believe that people with OCD should avoid triggers. Triggers are basically anything that can set off an obsessive/compulsive state. They involve an interaction with the person and his environment (as opposed to a strictly internal thing like mental suppression). As I stated earlier, before I started with medication almost any reading or writing served as triggers for me. Triggers include being in an unclean or disordered environment, and any kind of change or stress. Medication helped reduce the number of triggers, and also the severity and duration of the dysfunctional state that ensued. That's why I support the use of medication to control OCD.

Exposure therapy says that OCD is an anxiety disorder (based on the DSM categorization), and just as exposing anxious people to things they fear helps them (e.g. exposing people with claustrophobia to a confined space), exposing people with OCD will help them overcome their obsessions and compulsions.

There are several problems with the theory behind exposure therapy for OCD. One problem is that OCD isn't really an anxiety disorder. It's usually treated by antidepressants. If it was a true anxiety disorder, it would be treated by anti-anxiety meds like Xanax or Valium. The other problem is that obsessions and compulsions are addictive, self-stimulatory behaviors. One doesn't treat addictive behaviors by exposing the addict to things that can trigger the addiction. For example, one doesn't treat alcoholism by exposing the alcoholic to wine or liquor.

I don't know why some people and therapists claim that exposure therapy is effective for OCD. Perhaps some people with true anxiety are misdiagnosed with OCD. Perhaps others are helped in the short term by exposure therapy, only to have different obsessions and compulsions replace the ones that they were exposed to. Others likely relapse.

I hope the above strategies help some people with OCD. Feedback is welcome.

The Peak Experience--Shared vs. Alone

2009-10-29T09:39:00.000-04:00

A central element of my research project is the "peak" experience. This is the intense reaction I get when I cross from the Negative Zone to the Happy Zone, or vice versa. You can see a video of it here. Most of the time I drove alone to the peak. My girlfriend at the time helped me create the video. She was behind the camera at the time I crossed the peak. She says that she didn't feel anything when I crossed the peak.

Last July, when vacationing in Utah, I brought two of my friends along with me to the peak. They are both experienced in energy/psychic phenomena. When I went through the peak, they experienced intense reactions, too. One friend could visualize the peak traversing the area we were in. One time, I walked the peak with my arms around each friend. They were shaking almost as much as I was.

I think that their reaction was secondary to my peak reaction, but nevertheless it was intense for them. I'm curious to know if anyone else experiences the peak, either alone or with others.

Crazy Ideas

2009-10-27T13:19:00.000-04:00

I want to talk about crazy ideas. Most crazy ideas are not influential nor socially useful. A good example is the perpetual motion machine. No one has heard of the vast majority of crazy ideas, for good reason.

Some crazy ideas are influential, some are socially useful, and some are both. I want to talk about 2 crazy ideas that came into existence about the same time, at the beginning of the 20th century: Freud's psychoanalytic theory and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Freud's theory was influential, but socially useless. He came up with the theory at a time when psychology was in its infancy. He could get away with creating an unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory that captivated and influenced many mental health professionals, including psychiatrists. After a century of practice, there's no evidence supporting his ideas. An enormous amount of time and money has been wasted on psychoanalytic therapy. Experimental psychology has advanced enough now that he wouldn't be able to get away with perpetuating such an unscientific theory today.

Einstein's theory was both influential and socially useful. It laid the groundwork for modern physics, which is behind much of the technological advances in the 20th century. Einstein couldn't get away with a speculative and unverifiable theory like Freud's. The reason for this is that physics had several centuries of development prior to Einstein, and was much further advanced than psychology.

My human magnetoreception hypothesis, in which I claim that my OCD and tics are connected to the Earth's magnetic field, is definitely high in craziness, probably higher than Freud's and Einstein's theories. Whether it will be influential or socially useful remains to be seen. It's not quite as crazy as the idea that my symptoms are caused by the Martians, but it's close. Since I'm writing this in 2009, and there's been over a century of research in psychology, I can't get away with what Freud did. So if no one is able to verify my theory, it won't become influential. In my paper, I list specific experiments that can be done to verify my theory. Even though my data is based on subjective experience, it is still empirical, and can be verified in a double-blind manner. Compare this to Freud's theory, which is pure speculation. Compare it to the Martian idea, which obviously cannot be verified.

The key problem with my hypothesis is that human magnetoreception isn't accepted by scientists. But we know that animal magnetoreception exists, and we know that humans are animals. So there's no reason a priori to reject human magnetoreception. I'm hoping that the necessary research will be done to verify or reject my hypothesis.

Why I went public now

2009-10-26T09:08:00.000-04:00

Some people may wonder why I went public with a lot of my personal information, including a detailed description of my disorder. The video isn't exactly flattering. This wasn't my original intention. I wanted to find a scientist to work with me and verify if I really have magnetoreceptive ability. The problem is, I'm not aware of any scientist who is actually studying human magnetoreception. Robin Baker studied it in the 1970's and 1980's. Since then, he's moved on to other things. I was able to contact him via his agent, and although he declined to help me, he gave me some valuable advice. He said I need to find other people with similar magnetoreceptive ability. This is necessary for generalizability.

I tried some other scientists who I thought might be interested, but only got one to read my paper. He did not give me any feedback. I decided that it was useless to keep querying scientists about this.

My main marketing goal initially will be to reach out to selected clinical populations: bipolar, OCD/Tourette, and schizophrenia. The reason for this is that I think that these people have magnetoreceptive abilities like mine, but just don't know it. Unlike scientists, who have no incentive to research some half-crazy thing like human magnetoreception, these patients have enormous motivation to learn more about this. Like me, anyone suffering from these disorders wants to feel better. If there is a Happy Zone, as I'm convinced there is, who wouldn't want to find it? While not the Garden of Eden or Nirvana, the Happy Zone is certainly a desirable place to be in.

I think that if enough people claim to have similar abilities, and the techniques I describe in my website and research paper turn out to have beneficial psychological effects, a few scientists may become interested. It will take some time, and there's still the question of funding, but I think eventually research will get started.

Website is up!

2009-10-25T15:49:00.001-04:00

The harrymagnet.com website is up and running! Check it out.