Weekly Top Five Articles
Eugenics is Back, TikTok and Eating Disorders, Decadence, Obesity & Teasing in Kids, and more...
Here’s what stood out to me this week. . .
(1) “Can We Trust Social Science Research?: Issues of bias, credibility, politics, reliability and reproducibility,” by Steven Mintz, Insider Higher Ed (June 17, 2024)
Is social science research truly reliable? Economist Noah Smith raises this question, pointing to the fragility of accepted "facts" in the field. Steven Mintz explores concerns about the credibility of findings related to societal health and economic issues. For example, reported rises in maternal mortality were debunked as a data collection artifact, and claims of declining geographical mobility were contradicted by tax records indicating increased interstate migration. Similarly, the perceived spike in teenage mental health issues may be more about changes in measurement techniques than an actual increase in problems.
Mintz argues that these issues stem from distorted incentives, groupthink, and flaws in peer review, not outright dishonesty. This undermines the reproducibility of research, as seen in the "power pose" studies and the theory of ego depletion, both of which faced significant scrutiny and mixed replication results.
High-impact claims like the rise in "deaths of despair" (suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths) and Robert Putnam’s thesis in Bowling Alone (declining social capital) face criticism for ambiguous definitions and failure to account for new forms of social interaction. Putnam’s description seems inaccurate when examined more closely. The complexity of human behavior, reliance on self-reported data, and political biases further challenge the reliability of social science findings.
Here’s the bottom line: social scientist are fame-seeking and it’s undermining the credibility of their disciplines. Social scientists also ideologically driven: “Social science research may also be more prone to political bias due to the nature of research topics, which often intersect with current political issues and public debates,” writes Mintz.
Mintz highlights several cognitive biases—such as anchoring, confirmation, and publication biases—that distort research.
Cognitive Biases
Mintz highlights several cognitive biases that distort social science research, including:
Anchoring Bias: Overreliance on initial information.
Confirmation Bias: Favoring information that confirms preconceptions.
Publication Bias: Preference for positive findings over null results.
To enhance credibility, he suggests strategies like blind studies, diverse research teams, open science practices, pre-registration, and replication studies. Critical thinking, including understanding context, clear definitions, evaluating data quality, and distinguishing correlation from causation, is essential.
Ultimately, Mintz urges social scientists to prioritize factual accuracy and unbiased research over advocacy. By acknowledging and addressing biases and striving for objectivity, social science research can improve its credibility and reliability, advancing knowledge with a commitment to truth.
(2) “The Quiet Return of Eugenics” by Louise Perry, The Spectator (June 15, 2024)
This is truly alarming. Very scary!
Perry explores the emerging and controversial practice of genetic enhancement, or what she terms the "quiet return of eugenics." She begins by listing her own genetic flaws and expressing a desire not to pass them on to her children. With advancements in preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders (PGT-P), parents can now select embryos based on a comprehensive genetic profile, making it possible to choose traits ranging from health risks to psychological and physical characteristics.
This technology, though revolutionary, raises profound ethical questions. Unlike previous prenatal tests limited to specific conditions like Down's Syndrome, polygenic screening offers a detailed picture of potential future health and abilities. This capability effectively eliminates the randomness of genetic inheritance, allowing parents, especially wealthy ones, to select the "best" children according to their preferences.
Perry points out that while terms like "genetic enhancement" may sound benign, the practice is essentially a new form of eugenics, reminiscent of the discredited movements of the early 20th century. The first eugenics movement was marred by scientific inaccuracies and horrific moral failings, including forced sterilizations and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. However, the fundamental principle that genetics influence both physical and psychological traits remains scientifically valid.
Modern eugenics, Perry argues, will be more scientifically sophisticated and privatized, driven by individual choices rather than state mandates. The new eugenics will likely be embraced by affluent parents eager to give their children every possible advantage, mirroring the popularity of the first eugenics movement among the progressive upper-middle classes of Britain and America.
Perry highlights the ethical dilemmas posed by polygenic screening, such as the potential for increased genetic inequality and the creation of genetically distinct social classes. She also notes the contradiction between the public rejection of eugenics and the private acceptance of practices that are, in essence, eugenicist, such as selective abortion and gamete donor screening.
In conclusion, Perry acknowledges the deep unease many feel about the "unnaturalness" of genetic enhancement but argues that our reliance on modern medicine has already made our lives highly unnatural. Given the historical and ongoing efforts of parents to secure the best for their children, she predicts that genetic enhancement will become an irresistible tool for those who can afford it, despite the profound ethical challenges it presents.
(3) “All aquiver: The Decadent movement taught that you should live your life with the greatest intensity – a dangerous and thrilling challenge,” by Kate Hext, Aeon Magazine (June 10, 2024)
Hext examines the Decadent movement, which taught that life should be lived with the greatest intensity. The movement, exemplified by Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, emphasized a relentless pursuit of sensual and thrilling experiences. Wilde's character Dorian Gray embodies this pursuit, indulging in various pleasures until they become sordid and nihilistic. This extreme lifestyle ultimately leaves Dorian isolated and unfulfilled, serving as a cautionary tale of Decadence's potential destructiveness.
The Decadent movement originated in mid-19th-century Paris, where writers like Charles Baudelaire and Joris-Karl Huysmans explored the perverse pleasure found in decay and indulgence. As Decadence spread to Britain, it responded to profound existential questions raised by scientific and religious developments. Figures like Walter Pater proposed that life’s fleeting moments should be valued for their own sake, leading to a vibrant, if dangerous, new consciousness centered on sensory experiences.
Decadence’s emphasis on style and pleasure often clashed with Victorian moralism. Artists like Aubrey Beardsley used provocative imagery to challenge societal norms, while Wilde’s witty epigrams seduced audiences into reevaluating their values. The movement’s focus on sensation over reason and its rejection of conventional virtues posed the risk of excessive indulgence and moral ambiguity.
The aesthetic and philosophical provocations of Decadence continue to influence art and culture. Its stylish rebellion against Victorian constraints offered alternative ways of being, especially for those marginalized by rigid social norms. Decadence became a symbol of modernity, encouraging a hedonistic approach to life that remains seductive and controversial.
In conclusion, Hext suggests that Decadence’s true value lies in its ability to disrupt conventional thinking and challenge the ideals we hold dear. While the pursuit of pleasure can lead to self-destruction, it also offers the potential for profound personal and artistic liberation. This dual nature of Decadence, both thrilling and dangerous, makes it a compelling subject for ongoing exploration.
(4) “Link between teasing, low social status, and childhood obesity highlighted in new study," by Vladimir Hedrih, PsyPost (June 20, 2024)
A recent study published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology reveals that overweight children, especially those with low social status, experience more distress from teasing, which can lead to emotional eating. Led by Bobby K. Cheon and his team, the study explored the relationships between social status, teasing, body weight, and eating when not hungry among school-age children.
Children’s social status, which affects their self-esteem and peer relationships, is influenced by social skills, behavior, and physical characteristics. High social status often brings positive experiences, while low social status can result in exclusion and bullying. The study found that overweight children with low social status are particularly susceptible to teasing, which can trigger disordered eating behaviors.
The research involved 115 children aged 8 to 17 from an ongoing longitudinal study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Participants assessed their social status, distress from teasing, and eating behaviors. The results showed no significant differences in social or socioeconomic status between children distressed by teasing and those who were not. However, children experiencing more teasing distress had higher body mass index (BMI) and were more likely to eat when not hungry, especially those with low social status.
The study highlighted that low subjective social status, combined with teasing distress, was associated with higher BMI, fat mass index (FMI), and emotional eating. The authors concluded that teasing distress exacerbates the negative impact of low social status on body composition and eating behaviors.
The research underscores the complex interplay between teasing and social status in influencing childhood obesity and eating behaviors.
The study, "Lower subjective social status is associated with increased adiposity and self-reported eating in the absence of hunger due to negative affect among children reporting teasing distress," was authored by Bobby K. Cheon and colleagues.
(5) Can TikTok exacerbate eating disorders? by Eric W. Dolan, PsyPost, June 18, 2024
Parents, please don’t let you kids ( get TikTok, especially if you have daughters. Please!
Recent research published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders suggests a troubling link between TikTok usage and the exacerbation of eating disorder symptoms. The study, led by Laura Dondzilo, Rachel F. Rodgers, and Fanny Alexandra Dietel, found that users who actively engage with content related to appearance and eating are more likely to exhibit symptoms of eating disorders. This association is thought to be driven by TikTok’s content recommendation algorithms, which promote similar content based on user engagement.
Previous studies have linked photo-based social media platforms to eating disorders, attributing these symptoms to exposure to idealized body images and subsequent self-comparison. However, this study focuses on the dynamic nature of platforms like TikTok, which uses machine-learning algorithms to personalize content.
The researchers recruited 230 participants from the University of Western Australia, primarily women, who had been using TikTok for at least four weeks. They completed questionnaires assessing their eating disorder symptoms, social media appearance comparisons, and TikTok activity. Participants also analyzed their last 20 recommended TikTok videos for themes related to appearance and eating.
The study found that higher engagement with appearance and eating-related content led to more recommendations of similar content. This was associated with increased social media appearance comparisons, which correlated with more severe eating disorder symptoms. Notably, general screen time or engagement with non-appearance/eating content did not show the same effects, highlighting the specific impact of appearance-related content.
The study titled “Association between engagement with appearance and eating related TikTok content and eating disorder symptoms via recommended content and appearance comparisons” underscores the need for heightened awareness and protective measures against the potential harms of social media on mental health.
Parents, please!!!
Honorable Mentions: Food Edition
Folks, skip the snack aisles in the grocery store!
Ultra-processed foods tied to increased stroke risk and cognitive impairment , by Eric W. Dolan, PsyPost (June 18, 2024)
Recent research published in Neurology indicates that consuming ultra-processed foods significantly increases the risk of cognitive impairment and stroke. These foods, characterized by extensive industrial processing and ingredients like artificial additives and preservatives, include items such as soft drinks, chips, cookies, instant noodles, and processed meats.
The study, led by W. Taylor Kimberly from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, utilized data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) project. This project involved Black and White adults aged 45 and older in the U.S. Participants reported their dietary habits using a Food Frequency Questionnaire, which categorized their food intake by processing levels. Cognitive impairment was assessed through memory and fluency tests, while stroke incidents were confirmed via medical records.
Findings revealed a clear link between high consumption of ultra-processed foods and increased risks of stroke and cognitive impairment. Specifically, a 10% increase in ultra-processed food intake correlated with a 10% rise in stroke risk and a 16% rise in cognitive impairment risk. These risks remained significant even after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, and overall dietary patterns.
Interestingly, adherence to healthier diets, like the Mediterranean, DASH, and MIND diets, was associated with reduced risks of these conditions. However, even among those following healthy diets, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods still posed significant risks.
The study suggests that the adverse effects of ultra-processed foods on brain health are independent of general dietary quality, emphasizing the importance of food processing methods.
The study, “Associations Between Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Adverse Brain Health Outcomes,” underscores the importance of dietary choices on brain health and calls for public health policies to address the consumption of ultra-processed foods.
One more…
Junk Food Fuels Anxiety, Neuroscience News, June 17, 2024
Summary: A high-fat diet can disrupt gut bacteria, alter behavior, and influence brain chemicals in ways that increase anxiety. The study found that rats fed a high-fat diet showed less diversity in gut bacteria and higher expression of genes associated with stress and anxiety. This suggests that unhealthy eating habits may not only lead to weight gain but also negatively impact mental health.
Key Facts:
A high-fat diet can disrupt the gut microbiome, leading to an imbalance in gut bacteria.
An altered gut microbiome can influence brain chemicals, potentially increasing anxiety-like behaviors.
Healthy fats, like those found in fish, olive oil, and nuts, are beneficial for the brain and may counteract the negative effects of a high-fat diet.
Source: University of Colorado