While the consumption of alcohol, particularly on a daily basis, has not been linked to any cognitive performance benefits, there exists a compelling amount of data on the correlations between alcohol use and a handful of positive variables. These correlations surprisingly begin far before a person’s first drink, as suggested by a Finnish study which observed 3,000 twins and found that the sibling who could speak, read, and express language first was often the first sibling to drink alcohol and to drink more throughout life. Improved speaking, reading, and writing performance is also correlated with higher alcohol consumption for middle school, high school, and college students.

The link between intelligence and alcohol consumption could be explained by higher stimulation-seeking tendencies. Under this theory, children that desire additional stimulation seek it through speaking, reading, and writing, and that same stimulation-seeking tendency leads adolescences to drink more and to start at an earlier age.

Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has delved deeper into this topic and has concluded that intelligence is only second to gender in the most influential variables in determining not only alcohol consumption, but also all illicit drug consumption as well. Each person’s usage of drugs begins with trying them for the first time. It is certainly plausible that intelligence increases self-confidence and the courage to try new things, which leads to adolescents beginning to drink at a younger age.

Another factor that may influence the correlation between intelligence and alcohol consumption is the social culture of college, which encourages binge alcohol drinking. Factors such as social and peer influence are difficult to quantify but may significantly emphasize the correlation between intelligence and alcohol consumption.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115802/intelligence-and-drinking-studies-say-theres-correlation

I recall learning in our class on vaccines that while vaccines are not 100% safe, nothing is, and the health risk of vaccines is so small that it is considered safe and ethical to administer. The reality is that there are so many risks in life that they are impossible to avoid altogether. If we accept the risk of serious injury from a car crash every time we get into a car, however, it is relatively safe to accept all recommended vaccinations to protect ourselves from serious disease. However, a recent movement against vaccinations has been brought upon by rare reports of children who developed autism after becoming vaccinated. These instances have yet to be confirmed by science, but have nonetheless caused an immense overreaction about the safety of vaccines. An outbreak of whooping cough in California in 2010 killed 10 people because many children were given religious exemptions to the vaccine.  Today, Pakistan is experiencing a polio epidemic because vaccinations have been resisted due to the Taliban’s fear of espionage by health workers. Over 100 polio cases have been reported in the last few weeks, and over 240,000 children have still not been vaccinated.

It is unfortunate that politics is preventing medicine from doing its job. All of humanity should be working together to fight disease, and vaccines have been proven as the best method to do that. Diseases such as measles, polio, and whooping cough were once serious risks to not only our health but to the survival of the human race. Vaccines once eradicated these diseases, but they can come back and cause a serious health crisis again if vaccinations continue to be forgone. With old disease resurfacing and new diseases on the horizon, now is not the time to abandon our most effective defense because of a few news reports about vaccinations causing autism.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312

I recall learning in our class on vaccines that while vaccines are not 100% safe, nothing is, and the health risk of vaccines is so small that it is considered safe and ethical to administer. The reality is that there are so many risks in life that they are impossible to avoid altogether. If we accept the risk of serious injury from a car crash every time we get into a car, however, it is relatively safe to accept all recommended vaccinations to protect ourselves from serious disease. However, a recent movement against vaccinations has been brought upon by rare reports of children who developed autism after becoming vaccinated. These instances have yet to be confirmed by science, but have nonetheless caused an immense overreaction about the safety of vaccines. An outbreak of whooping cough in California in 2010 killed 10 people because many children were given religious exemptions to the vaccine.  Today, Pakistan is experiencing a polio epidemic because vaccinations have been resisted due to the Taliban’s fear of espionage by health workers. Over 100 polio cases have been reported in the last few weeks, and over 240,000 children have still not been vaccinated.

It is unfortunate that politics is preventing medicine from doing its job. All of humanity should be working together to fight disease, and vaccines have been proven as the best method to do that. Diseases such as measles, polio, and whooping cough were once serious risks to not only our health but to the survival of the human race. Vaccines once eradicated these diseases, but they can come back and cause a serious health crisis again if vaccinations continue to be forgone. With old disease resurfacing and new diseases on the horizon, now is not the time to abandon our most effective defense because of a few news reports about vaccinations causing autism.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312

Anyone who uses Facebook is well aware of the amount of charitable groups on the site attempting to solicit donations from their friends. Most of us have liked various pages over the years to publicly offer support for good causes. But how many of the charitable Facebook groups have you actually benefitted other than your publicly announced support on social media? Scholars at the University of Chicago recently published an article titled, “The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action,” which found that liking a cause on Facebook reduces the chances that we will donate to it.

The data in the article combined with basic psychology has found that publically endorsing a cause makes us feel like we’ve already contributed, and therefore makes us less likely to financially contribute. People who confidentially sign a petition, however, become more likely to donate. A confidential endorsement is a commitment to contribute, not just an act to look good. Various studies have provided data which show that people do more good if they know other people will notice. It is an unfortunate reality that people are psychologically prone to donate to look good rather than to do good. Luckily, charitable foundations have recognized this and have made public and social events a central part of their fundraising.

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/capstone/Slacktivism.pdf

Growing up with two golden retrievers has instilled in me a love for dogs. I find the psychology behind how people choose which dog breed they want fascinating. I’ve always believed that the breed of someone’s dog says a lot about that person, but have nothing but my own observations as proof. According to Lance Workman, a psychologist in the United Kingdom, “We go for dogs that are a bit like us, just as we go for a romantic partner who is a bit like us.” Workman conducted the study with the Kennel Club, assessing an online questionnaire for 1,000 dog owners measuring the “Big Five” personality traits of openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Dog breeds were split into seven categories: gun dogs, hound dogs, pastoral breeds, terriers, toy breeds, utility breeds, and working breeds. The data revealed strong connections between dog breed and the owner’s personality. Pastoral breeds were associated with extroversion. Gun dogs, the category in which golden retrievers were placed, are correlated with agreeable and sympathetic owners. Toy dogs, such as Chihuahuas, were found to be owned by open and imaginative people, characteristics that Workman describes as “airheads, basically.”

This study admittedly has not yet been subjected to peer review, and much research is still to be done because any conclusions can be made about dog breeds and their owner’s personalities. However, I found this study as a good example of the difference between correlation and causation. Livescience.com’s article on this study focuses on the correlations in its data, but I believe that the real issue is the impact of certain personality traits on dog breed selection. I hypothesize that the correlation of data in this study is caused by personality traits’ inclinations to certain dog breeds.

http://www.livescience.com/19791-dog-breeds-personality.html

While I typically maintain a healthy diet, about once a week I crave some McDonald’s cheeseburgers, and I find this craving impossible to resist. One drawback to my occasional McDonald’s experience is a feeling of shortness of breath after my meal is finished. I’ve heard and read a lot about how the company makes its’ burgers, and while unsettling, this information has not stopped me from indulging every once in awhile. I understand the health risks associated with consuming too much fat, cholesterol, and sodium, but does consuming these directly cause shortness of breath? Or do I just think I have shortness of breath because I’m eating McDonald’s? Some combination of mild concern and curiosity inspired me to do some research.

As it turns out, experiencing shortness of breath is not uncommon when overeating. When we consume food, our body requires more oxygen to digest it. Rapid and short breathing is not necessarily an alarming reaction, but a biological mechanism for our bodies to obtain adequate oxygen to effectively digest. I also found that excessively fatty foods are harder to digest and heavy meals that fill the stomach can put weight on the diaphragm and make it harder to expand. Everything I order on the McDonald’s menu could certainly be considered excessively fatty, and I tend to order and eat a lot because it is cheap. In conclusion, shortness of breath is a naturally occurring process in the body, and is not a sign of any immediate health risks. However, heart failure and heart attacks have occurred due to overeating or eating excessively fatty foods. My research will not change my habit of occasionally eating at McDonald’s, but shortness of breath is a good reminder that I must maintain my exercise habits and continue to consume McDonald’s in moderation.

http://www.livinghealthy360.com/index.php/shortness-of-breath-after-taking-a-meal-81922/

I am unfortunately a part of the seemingly large percentage of people who believe they have a bad memory. I am confident in my short-term memory, but sometimes struggle to remember what I did a week or even a day before. In an effort to improve my memory, I recently conducted an Internet search. My search led me to Lumosity, an online brain performance-training program that can be personalized to emphasize individual strengths or weaknesses. Lumosity’s Head of Communications Erica Perng has been quoted as saying, “Lumosity is based on the science of neuroplasticity, the idea that the brain can change and reorganize itself given the right kinds of challenges.” Lumosity provides those challenges with computer games that test memory, reasoning, concentration, and awareness.

Lumosity is just one of the leading companies in the evolving industry that is commonly referred to as “brain training”. But does brain training really work? The scientific data on brain training is contradictory. I set out to examine a few of the studies that have been conducted on the topic to determine whether playing brain-strengthening computer games really work, and how their effectiveness compares to other activities. Neuroscientist Dr. Adrian Owen observed 11,000 adults performing a six-week computer brain training program and concluded that the subjects improved at the games through familiarity rather than an improvement in intelligence. Many user reviews on Lumosity report improvement in the brain games over time, but as of now there is insignificant evidence that improvement in computer games causes improvement in brain performance.

While there is not enough evidence to make any certain conclusions about brain training, I believe that computer-based games do improve brain function, but they do not improve brain function as much as other activities such as social interaction. Biologist Jalees Rehman recently published a new study concluding that adult cognitive skills can be improved more effectively by exposure to new situations and learning new skills than through watching documentaries or completing puzzles. While this study only observed 221 adults, it was well conducted and is consistent with my belief that social interaction and learning new skills are more effective at improving one’s brain than by completing computer-based brain games.

Bibliography

http://www.lumosity.com/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/21/brain-training-online-neuroscience-elizabeth-day

http://www.scilogs.com/next_regeneration/learning-digital-photography-improves-cognitive-function-older/

Motivated by a sales class I’m currently taking, I wanted to do some more research on what science has to say on the mental processes behind buying something or donating money. I discovered an article entitled “The Neuroscience of Why We Give: Positive Emotions Predict Donations”, which found a positive correlation between evoking certain emotions and increased donations. In particular, the article claimed donors are more likely to break out the checkbook when positive emotional responses were activated. An example of a strategy that charities use to evoke a positive emotional response is called the “identifiable victim effect”, in which people are more likely to donate if shown a picture of the person their contribution would benefit. Take a look at this picture and its easy to decide which you’d be more likely to donate to.

The practice of evoking emotional responses is a valuable strategy for all salesmen. I’ve recently been thinking a lot about how understanding people can get you farther in your career than understanding any technical skill. This article has enlightened me to the idea that learning more about the science behind how our minds work can help me in my career.