Friday 30 November 2001

Pic of the day: Psychology Today, the only psych magazine for sale around here. Yes, I've bought one again. *sigh*

Pop psych stupidity

One of my Internet acquaintances used a signature line stating that "the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity". I might add, not necessarily in that order. I am not sure how much hydrogen is tied up in the latest issue of Psychology Today, but as usual there is a fair bit of stupidity.

In principle, I like Psychology Today. It is refreshing to see matters of the soul discussed in a way that can be understood by common people. But this makes it all the more frustrating when these common people are being misled.

Let me first (once again) take issue with the advertisements. I suppose you need advertisements to keep the cost down; and in a magazine printed in full color and on reasonably good paper, certain businesses are more likely than others to step in. Yet I feel it is an insult to your customers when a large part of the magazine is filled with big, beautiful ads for breast enlargement, virility enhancing herbs and sex education videos for adults. At first sight, it might seem a coincidence that one of the largest non-sexual advertisers in the magazine is Clorox ("Cleans and disinfects")... But the more I think about it, the more sense it makes, in a disgusting yet hilarious sense. Ahem. I sincerely hope that this does not make sense to my younger readers (if any), but I suspect from about 13 years upward it does.

***

While on this note, it is time to rage once again against the United Church of Healthy Orgasms. Help, I'm dying from lack of sex! Someone give me some before it is too late! According to the latest statistics, men who have two or more orgasms a week tend to live significantly longer than those who have one or none. (Cardiff University, Wales.) So, have the esteemed establishment of higher learning corrected for the fact that many of those people are already seriously ill and that's why they don't get off so easily? I'm sure I have mentioned this a couple times before, but rumors have it that chemotherapy can really put a damper on a guy's appetites. Among many other things.

The British Journal of Cancer published a study showing that men who have more than six orgasms a month are significantly less likely to develop breast cancer. Eh. Again it would be of some interest to know whether these guys coincidentally also had breasts. If we're talking about a severe hormonal imbalance, it's really not much help for innocent bystanders to try to prevent it by bunny-like procreative / recreative activity.

A recent study of 2500 men at the University of Bristol and Queens University of Belfast found that men who had at least three or more orgasms a week are 50% less likely to die from heart failure or coronary heart disease. This is a good old one; the Swedes use to publish one such a year, it sometimes seems to me. Once again, there is a deafening silence about any other risk factors that might be shared by the two groups. For instance, severe obesity is known as one of the most powerful risk factors in coronary heart disease. At the same time, it is not exactly the best way to pick up ladies. As a matter of fact, even if you are already married, chances are that your wife is a lot less likely to take an initiative if you remind her strongly of a beached walrus. No offense, but instincts tend to push people to mate within their species, and once you approach the status of featureless blob you are likely to see less action. I find it telling that no such health benefit is listed for women. Could it be because women always can get some, no matter how badly out of shape they are?

A study of 3500 aging people at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital found that those who looked the youngest also had the most vigorous sex life. Well, duh. Like, duh again. Imagine how the rest of them looked and you can probably understand that quite well. You don't usually have intercourse with someone you're not sure will survive it. (Or so I would sincerely hope.)

As I have said before, the only study worth its salt is one in which a group of volunteers is separated randomly into two groups, one of which has sex till they puke, and the rest don't even masturbate. Keep it up for a few months at the very least, or preferably until some significant health benefit is found in one of the groups. So far I have not heard of any such test. It is probably just so much easier to join the marching band.

***

If sex is beyond rational thought, I guess it should not surprise me that religion is too. Including, I'm sorry to say, atheism. Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, is reviewing the book Why God won't go away: science and the biology of belief. The book is controversial enough already, as it claims to have found a certain area of the brain where the activity is altered during mental rapport with the transcendent. I'd like to point out that the mystic experience is not limited to the religious, and that not nearly all honest believers experience it. Be that as it may, Shermer is surprised that believers embrace the book: "They don't seem to realize that if we do find God in the crevices of the brain, He will, indeed, go away."

Now for a couple decades at least, scientists have mapped the mystery of sight, from the photons hit the retina till the images reach our consciousness. In the process, much has been found out about not only how images are created, but also optical illusions that are common to virtually all seeing people. But the images have not gone away. And certainly the conclusion so far is that the vast majority of images correspond in some way to actual objects around us. We may trace the image of a chair as it assembles in the visual cortex, but this does not make the chair go away. Why then should this happen to God? Unless one is already convinced beyond reasoning that God (or gods in general) must be an illusion. There is, however, the distinct possibility that one is blind instead.

Another question entirely is whether the mystic experience in itself can validate the complex theologies that have grown through millennia, or whether these are just parasites that grow on religion in the same way parasitic vines grow on great tree trunks. I guess the way I formulate the problem is already giving away my initial approach to the question, but I still think it does warrant some further study. And preferably a bit more serious than what we usually find in Psychology today.