Back to American politics, where an update on the Neuroscience Party brings us the unfortunate news that my candidacy for public office has gone nowhere. The Superhappy Evolution and Neuroscience Party has failed to qualify as an official party. Sadly, it is no longer even listed as attempting to qualify in the state of California. However, they are attempting to qualify in Santa Cruz county. No word yet on Nevada.
In case you missed it the first time, our manifesto1 includes the platform of no work at all! Yay!
We want every woman to live like a princess with robotic servants and we want everyone to live like wealthy billionaires, wealthy members of royalty, and wealthy slavemasters with robotic servants and robotic slaves that will do all of the work for them.
FACE IT, it would be fun to live like a wealthy person with robotic servants or slaves doing all the work for you!
And flying cars! Flying backpacks! And Ph.D. (especially in a specialty of artificial intelligence robotics), M.D., and/or law degrees for 100% of the population!
Footnote1 The Neurocritic is lobbying to abolish the planks of racial separatism (7) and heterosexual superiority (8).
The Wikipedia page also tells us that the Marijuana Party of Canada has eight candidates, but the Work Less Party has only one (too much work, perhaps, to have others run under their mandate?).
PALIN: ...Now, what I've done as a governor and as a mayor is (inaudible) I've had that track record of reform. And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks with John McCain, also, with his track record of reform, where we're known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done.
PALIN: ...I think that's why we need to send the maverick from the Senate and put him in the White House, and I'm happy to join him there.
PALIN: ...That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.
PALIN: ...As for disagreeing with John McCain and how our administration would work, what do you expect? A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything.
PALIN: People aren't looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years.
PALIN: ...Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. Look at Lieberman, and Giuliani, and Romney, and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of -- of policy and of partisanship, all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to leave1-- lead in these next four years, because these are tumultuous times.
Late Show: The Sarah Palin Debate Recap
BIDEN: I'll be very brief. Can I respond to that?
Look, the maverick -- let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.
He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.
He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.
He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.
He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.
Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the -- heat the house this winter?
He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.
So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.
Out-of-control boys facing spells in detention or anti-social behaviour orders can now blame it all on their hormones.
The "stress hormone" cortisol – or low levels of it – may be responsible for male aggressive antisocial behaviour, according to new research. The work suggests that the hormone may restrain aggression in stressful situations.
Researchers found that levels of cortisol fell when delinquent boys played a stressful video game, the opposite of what was seen in control volunteers playing the same game.
A new paper by Fairchild et al. (2008) examined the cortisol levels in 70 adolescent boys with conduct disorder (CD) and 95 boys without CD. Within the CD group, 42 received an early-onset (EO-CD) diagnosis and 28 received an adolescence-onset (AO-CD) diagnosis. The authors did this because:
It has been suggested that individuals with EO-CD show neuropsychological impairments. In contrast, AO-CD is considered to arise primarily because of social modeling of deviant peers. We investigated whether this hypothetical distinction between CD subtypes would extend to differences in patterns of cortisol secretion or cardiovascular activity under basal conditions or during stress.
The basal samples were collected at 4 different times during the day over the course of 3 days. Psychosocial stress was induced by subjecting the boys to the frustrating experience of playing a game against a hostile opponent, and by providing them with ample negative feedback. Basically, the procedure
...involves inducing frustration and provocation between the participant and a prerecorded video opponent.
The competition began between 1 and 2 pm with a task involving confrontation, the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), in which the opponent always failed to cooperate and sent antagonistic messages. Frustration was induced by having the participant perform a difficult, computer-based manual precision task (MPT) under time pressure while the video opponent and experimenter watched. By design, all participants failed to achieve their target score and received negative evaluations of their performance from the opponent. Following these tasks, participants completed further challenging cognitive tasks aimed at increasing performance uncertainty. Finally, they watched their opponent play the MPT and could remotely disrupt the opponent's performance. At the end of the session (between 3 and 4 pm), participants were told they had won the competition.
What were the results? Briefly, the basal levels of cortisol in the CD group were slightly elevated at the evening time point, when the diurnal rhythm of cortisol is typically at a low point. In contrast, the boys with CD showed a drop in cortisol levels during the stressful game, as opposed to the elevated cortisol levels exhibited by the boys without CD (shown below).
Figure 2 (Fairchild et al., 2008). Mean (+SEM) salivary cortisol levels at seven time points during psychosocial stress. Under stressful conditions, the elevation in cortisol levels between baseline (-5 min) and +35 min in control subjects was markedly reduced in participants from both CD subgroups. The dashed arrow shows onset of the psychosocial stressor, and all times are shown relative to stressor onset. The dashed line and open diamond symbols show data from 12 control subjects that were not exposed to stress for comparison purposes.
Similar results were observed for heart rate:
Figure 4 (Fairchild et al., 2008). Mean (+SEM) heart rate, expressed in beats per minute (BPM), across the 10 tasks that formed the psychosocial stressor. Heart rate levels did not differ significantly at baseline [although a trend at p=.08], but cardiovascular responses to stress were markedly attenuated in both CD subgroups relative to control subjects.
So what does it all mean? As the authors explain:
Our findings of blunted cortisol and cardiovascular responses to stress in AO-CD and EO-CD participants relative to control subjects contradicts the developmental taxonomic theory, which implies that such neurobiological differences should be unique to EO-CD. Physiologic hyporeactivity during stress could reflect a latent trait that increases vulnerability to CD, whereas age of CD onset may be moderated by psychosocial factors (e.g., differences in parental supervision, exposure to antisocial models). Alternatively, it may be unnecessary to invoke a latent trait in either subgroup: rather, both CD subgroups may have experienced increased social adversity during development (e.g., maltreatment), or, because of heightened risk-taking behaviors, they may place themselves in stressful situations more frequently than other adolescents (leading to habituation to stressors).
So those bad boys need a cortisol adjustment...or else a more relaxing and supportive environment.
ADDENDUM: For a lengthy and thorough thrashing of this article (and of The Neurocritic's light treatment thereof), see Bad Boys or Bad Science by Daniel Lende of Neuroanthropology. Although my sarcastic COPS reference was an admittedly lazy critique of the press coverage and only an oblique criticism of the diagnosis of conduct disorder, I believe Lende goes overboard in saying the authors are complete biological determinists, because they did acknowledge the alternative [i.e., see the Fairchild et al. quote above, "...rather, both CD subgroups may have experienced increased social adversity during development (e.g., maltreatment)..."].
Reference
G FAIRCHILD, S VANGOOZEN, S STOLLERY, J BROWN, J GARDINER, J HERBERT, I GOODYER (2008). Cortisol Diurnal Rhythm and Stress Reactivity in Male Adolescents with Early-Onset or Adolescence-Onset Conduct Disorder Biological Psychiatry, 64 (7), 599-606 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.022
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported lower basal cortisol levels and reduced cortisol responses to stress in children and adolescents with conduct disorder (CD). It is not known whether these findings are specific to early-onset CD. This study investigated basal and stress-induced cortisol secretion in male participants with early-onset and adolescence-onset forms of CD. METHODS: Forty-two participants with early-onset CD, 28 with adolescence-onset CD, and 95 control subjects participated in the study. They collected saliva across the day to assess their cortisol awakening response and diurnal rhythm. Subsequently, salivary cortisol was measured before, during, and after a psychosocial stress procedure designed to elicit frustration. Cardiovascular activity and subjective mood states were also assessed during stress exposure. RESULTS: There were no group differences in morning cortisol levels or the size of the cortisol awakening response. Basal cortisol levels in the evening and at 11 am during the laboratory visit were higher in both CD subgroups relative to control subjects. In contrast, cortisol and cardiovascular responses to psychosocial stress were reduced in both CD subgroups compared with control subjects. All groups reported similar increases in negative mood states during stress. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that group differences in cortisol secretion are most pronounced during stress exposure, when participants with CD show cortisol hyporeactivity compared with control subjects. There was no evidence for reduced basal cortisol secretion in participants with CD, but rather increased secretion at specific time points. The results do not support developmentally sensitive differences in cortisol secretion between CD subtypes.
A: John McCain and I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our economy. It is, somebody was saying this morning, a toxic waste there on the side of the United States of America, where where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just too impacting, we had to step in there. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I am so proud of his desire to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be wired in a way of being so committed to Georgia.
This site is a parody. The answers are computer generated based on probabilities calculated from Sarah Palin's actual speech. We think it is hilarious.
The Markov chain generated answers are surprisingly close to her actual answers. Don't believe me? See this [or watch her interviews with Katie Couric].