From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29169229/
Bird brain? Animal smarts surprise experts
The term 'bird brain' should be replaced by 'brainy birds,' say researchers
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 9:04 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2009
CHICAGO - Monkeys perform mental math, pigeons can select the picture that doesn't belong. Humans may not be the only animals that plan for the future, say researchers reporting on the latest studies of animal mental ability.
"I suggest we humans should keep our egos in check," Edward A. Wasserman of the University of Iowa said Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Wasserman, a professor of experimental psychology, said that, like people, pigeons and baboons were able to tell which pictures showed similar items, like triangles or dots, and which showed different items.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
This is the definition of a concept, he said, "and the animals passed it with flying colors."
He spoke at a symposium on "Animal Smarts," where researchers discussed the latest findings in the mental abilities of animals.
In the last 20 years there has been a major revolution in the understanding of animals, added Nicola S. Clayton, a professor of comparative cognition at the University of Cambridge in England.
Animals not only use tools, there is evidence that some of them save tools for future use, she said.
"Planning ahead was once thought to be unique to humans," Clayton said. "We now know that's not true."
For example, she said, crows have been seen stashing food away for the next day and even finding ways to protect it from being stolen.
The term "birdbrain," is obsolete, she said, and should be replaced by "brainy birds."
Speaking of crow intelligence, Alex Kacelnik, a professor of behavioral ecology at the University of Oxford in England, noted the "master tool user of the avian world," the New Caledonian crow.
These birds have been shown to not just use tools, but to make their own by twisting and bending pieces of wire to fish food from places they couldn't reach otherwise.
"What we are describing about the abilities of different species is that human abilities are expressed, sometimes, in other species," Kacelnik said.
Jessica Cantlon of Duke University noted that "number sense" seems among the shared evolution of many primates.
Cantlon and Elizabeth Brannon have studied how human adults and babies, lemurs and monkeys think about numbers without using language.
After seeing the same number of objects repeatedly in different-looking groups, infants notice when the number of objects is changed, they found. So, too, do macaques.
Indeed, college students and macaques seem equally able to roughly sum up sets of objects without actually counting them.
That abiliity can be useful to the macaques in determining whether there is enough food to remain in an area or to get a sense of how large their group is compared to competing groups.
They are currently working to see if monkeys can recognize the concept of zero.
Some people may be uneasy as new studies find increasing similarities between animal and human mental abilities, Wasserman said.
The aim is to learn how much thinking ability is general throughout the animal kingdom, he said, "the evidence that we collect constantly surprises us."
lördag 25 april 2009
Human behaviour: Science: Responses to Racism Don’t Meet Expectations
Science: Responses to Racism Don’t Meet Expectations
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0108sp_racism.shtml
Even though racial prejudice is strongly condemned around the world, blatant acts of racism still occur frequently, and this inconsistency could suggest that, as humans, we do not always reflect how we feel with our behavior. Now, a recent social experiment by Kerry Kawakami from the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto and her colleagues seems to confirm this idea.
In the form of a novel field experiment, these researchers compared peoples' predictions of how they thought they would feel after witnessing a racist situation to how they actually responded to racism in real-life situations.
Their findings, reported in the latest issue of Science, imply that we are not as good at gauging our own emotions as we like to believe.
In their experiment, Kawakami and her colleagues asked a large group of non-black individuals (the forecasters) how they would feel if they witnessed prejudice against a black individual. Then, they tested a separate group of non-black people (the witnesses) to see how they actually react after witnessing racism towards a black person.
The mock victim of this racism was aware of the objectives of the experiment, but the results still demonstrate that few of the witnesses to racism actually reacted as the forecasters predicted they would.
After the forecasters made their predictions about how they would react to an anti-black slur, the separate group of witnesses were led into a room and introduced, one by one, to a black and a white "confederate," both posing as fellow participants in the study. After a brief moment with each witness, the black confederate would excuse himself from the room to retrieve his cell phone, and gently brush into the white confederate on his way out of the room.
For a control group of witnesses, this incident would pass without comment. But for two other groups of witnesses, the white confederate would make a racist comment about the black confederate. In front of one group of witnesses, the comment was "moderately racist," and in front of the other group, the comment was "extremely racist."
Moments later, the black confederate would return to the room, and the experiment would proceed. The witnesses completed a brief questionnaire to determine their mood at the time, and were then asked to choose either the white or the black confederate to work with for the next portion of the study.
Whereas most of the forecasters had predicted feeling repulsed by the racist comment and stated that they would shun the racist offender, only a small percentage of the witnesses did what was predicted of them and chose the black confederate to work with.
In light of these findings, the researchers suggest that racism may persist in part because people who believe they would take action in the face of a racist act may actually respond with indifference when the situation arises. They acknowledge that these findings can be interpreted in many ways, and they even offer alternative explanations of their results.
For example, the non-black forecasters might have recognized the social sensitivity of the issue and responded in ways they believed to be acceptable, rather than admitting their true feelings.
However, the authors say that forecasters were assured of their anonymity, and that these findings might provide important information on actual responses to racism that could help to create personal awareness and inform interventions.
Brandon Bryn
8 January 2009
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0108sp_racism.shtml
Even though racial prejudice is strongly condemned around the world, blatant acts of racism still occur frequently, and this inconsistency could suggest that, as humans, we do not always reflect how we feel with our behavior. Now, a recent social experiment by Kerry Kawakami from the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto and her colleagues seems to confirm this idea.
In the form of a novel field experiment, these researchers compared peoples' predictions of how they thought they would feel after witnessing a racist situation to how they actually responded to racism in real-life situations.
Their findings, reported in the latest issue of Science, imply that we are not as good at gauging our own emotions as we like to believe.
In their experiment, Kawakami and her colleagues asked a large group of non-black individuals (the forecasters) how they would feel if they witnessed prejudice against a black individual. Then, they tested a separate group of non-black people (the witnesses) to see how they actually react after witnessing racism towards a black person.
The mock victim of this racism was aware of the objectives of the experiment, but the results still demonstrate that few of the witnesses to racism actually reacted as the forecasters predicted they would.
After the forecasters made their predictions about how they would react to an anti-black slur, the separate group of witnesses were led into a room and introduced, one by one, to a black and a white "confederate," both posing as fellow participants in the study. After a brief moment with each witness, the black confederate would excuse himself from the room to retrieve his cell phone, and gently brush into the white confederate on his way out of the room.
For a control group of witnesses, this incident would pass without comment. But for two other groups of witnesses, the white confederate would make a racist comment about the black confederate. In front of one group of witnesses, the comment was "moderately racist," and in front of the other group, the comment was "extremely racist."
Moments later, the black confederate would return to the room, and the experiment would proceed. The witnesses completed a brief questionnaire to determine their mood at the time, and were then asked to choose either the white or the black confederate to work with for the next portion of the study.
Whereas most of the forecasters had predicted feeling repulsed by the racist comment and stated that they would shun the racist offender, only a small percentage of the witnesses did what was predicted of them and chose the black confederate to work with.
In light of these findings, the researchers suggest that racism may persist in part because people who believe they would take action in the face of a racist act may actually respond with indifference when the situation arises. They acknowledge that these findings can be interpreted in many ways, and they even offer alternative explanations of their results.
For example, the non-black forecasters might have recognized the social sensitivity of the issue and responded in ways they believed to be acceptable, rather than admitting their true feelings.
However, the authors say that forecasters were assured of their anonymity, and that these findings might provide important information on actual responses to racism that could help to create personal awareness and inform interventions.
Brandon Bryn
8 January 2009
Questions about ‘aversive’ training By Tim Hyland
Questions about ‘aversive’ training By Tim Hyland
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030509.html
Cesar Millan is one of the superstars of the canine world.
As the host of the National Geographic Channel show, “Dog Whisperer,” Millan has rocketed to fame based on his ability to reform and save misbehaving, over-aggressive dogs. It’s something he accomplishes through “firm” discipline—a “firm correction, a firm grab on the neck, which is what dogs do to each other,” as he says on his web site.
Millan’s show attests to his success, and he’s earned millions of loyal followers.
But according to a new study from Penn’s School of Veterinary Science, Millan’s approach may not be quite so effective as he makes it out to be. In fact, the study suggests “firm” discipline—and so-called “aversive” discipline techniques, in which dogs are corrected using aggressive measures—may actually backfire, making dogs more likely to lash out at other dogs, people and even their owners.
According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.
“It’s really the first study of its kind—it’s a kind of pilot study,” says Meghan Herron, a Penn Vet resident and the lead author of the study. “But it’s just the start of the science that needs to happen.”
Herron says the idea for the study came from her experience at Penn Vet, where aggressive behavior is far and away the No. 1 reason why people seek the help of behavioral veterinarians.
To attempt to understand the roots of this aggression, Herron and her colleagues—Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, both from the Department of Clinical Studies—wrote up a 30-question survey for dog owners who visited the hospital. The survey asked the owners what kind of techniques they used to control their dogs’ aggression and what kind of results they had seen. The owners were also asked where they had learned about the training techniques they used.
In total, 140 surveys were collected. The researchers found that the most commonly used methods of training included such aggressive techniques as hitting the dog (43 percent), growling at the dog (41 percent) and physically forcing the dog onto its back (31 percent). This, despite the fact that these techniques showed the tendency to produce the direct opposite response owners sought. A quarter of the dogs trained with aversive techniques showed aggressive behavior in response.
Herron says these techniques can fail because, rather than helping owners exert “dominance” over their pets, they instead make dogs fearful. That fear, then, manifests itself in aggression.
Even still, the aversive methods persist, simply because they’ve been around so long. The popularity of “Dog Whisperer” doesn’t help matters.
“It’s a very popular [school of thought],” she says. “If you look in the old textbooks, they basically say if your dog is aggressive you need to assert your dominance. This idea has been around for a long time.”
That’s why Herron says it will likely take years of work to begin to convince owners of the potential flaws in aversive training. That work will most likely take the form of studies like hers, as others in her field work to produce evidence supporting an idea that she and her colleagues already believe in: That positive training is more effective than negative training.
“In the behavioral field, they’re cheering [about this paper],” she says. “But we’ve been on this page for years. It’s the public … and the vets that we want to reach.”
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030509.html
Cesar Millan is one of the superstars of the canine world.
As the host of the National Geographic Channel show, “Dog Whisperer,” Millan has rocketed to fame based on his ability to reform and save misbehaving, over-aggressive dogs. It’s something he accomplishes through “firm” discipline—a “firm correction, a firm grab on the neck, which is what dogs do to each other,” as he says on his web site.
Millan’s show attests to his success, and he’s earned millions of loyal followers.
But according to a new study from Penn’s School of Veterinary Science, Millan’s approach may not be quite so effective as he makes it out to be. In fact, the study suggests “firm” discipline—and so-called “aversive” discipline techniques, in which dogs are corrected using aggressive measures—may actually backfire, making dogs more likely to lash out at other dogs, people and even their owners.
According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.
“It’s really the first study of its kind—it’s a kind of pilot study,” says Meghan Herron, a Penn Vet resident and the lead author of the study. “But it’s just the start of the science that needs to happen.”
Herron says the idea for the study came from her experience at Penn Vet, where aggressive behavior is far and away the No. 1 reason why people seek the help of behavioral veterinarians.
To attempt to understand the roots of this aggression, Herron and her colleagues—Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, both from the Department of Clinical Studies—wrote up a 30-question survey for dog owners who visited the hospital. The survey asked the owners what kind of techniques they used to control their dogs’ aggression and what kind of results they had seen. The owners were also asked where they had learned about the training techniques they used.
In total, 140 surveys were collected. The researchers found that the most commonly used methods of training included such aggressive techniques as hitting the dog (43 percent), growling at the dog (41 percent) and physically forcing the dog onto its back (31 percent). This, despite the fact that these techniques showed the tendency to produce the direct opposite response owners sought. A quarter of the dogs trained with aversive techniques showed aggressive behavior in response.
Herron says these techniques can fail because, rather than helping owners exert “dominance” over their pets, they instead make dogs fearful. That fear, then, manifests itself in aggression.
Even still, the aversive methods persist, simply because they’ve been around so long. The popularity of “Dog Whisperer” doesn’t help matters.
“It’s a very popular [school of thought],” she says. “If you look in the old textbooks, they basically say if your dog is aggressive you need to assert your dominance. This idea has been around for a long time.”
That’s why Herron says it will likely take years of work to begin to convince owners of the potential flaws in aversive training. That work will most likely take the form of studies like hers, as others in her field work to produce evidence supporting an idea that she and her colleagues already believe in: That positive training is more effective than negative training.
“In the behavioral field, they’re cheering [about this paper],” she says. “But we’ve been on this page for years. It’s the public … and the vets that we want to reach.”
torsdag 23 april 2009
Irene Pepperberg interview (cognintion in parrots)
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/pigeon_spotting.htm
Irene Pepperberg interview (cognintion in parrots)
Irene Pepperberg interview (cognintion in parrots)
tisdag 21 april 2009
How to lead a less stressful life by following the example of baboon troop in East Africa
Yesterday I watched a really good documentary on TV. Incidentally it supported my personal views on how we humans should reorganise our society both politically and in practice. We have a lot to learn from these baboons!
It is ironic that a baboon troop can rise above "how it's always been done" and flourish and that we humans, as a species, are taking so long to learn. We flaunt our "big brains" and "rising above animals" for what? To perpetuate a way of living that is making most of the world inhabitants miserable (looking for proof? switch on the news).
Results like these are, if anything, black and white proof that there are both good and bad ways to organise a social group.
The documentary was aired on Swedish TV yesterday on "Veteskapens Värld" watch it here:
http://svtplay.se/t/102814/vetenskapens_varld
Blurb:
"Den orättvisa stressen
Livet i en babianflock är inte alltid så hälsosamt för den som står längst ner i rang. Det vet neurobiologen Robert Sapolsky som har studerat babianer på nära håll. Men stress slår också till extra hårt hos människor som befinner sig långt ner i hierarkin. En långtidsstudie på 28 000 människors hälsoutveckling i Storbritannien visar att social status spelar en avgörande roll för hur vi mår. Stressen sätter sig i blodet, i hjärnan, den borrar sig in i kroppens celler och gör oss sjuka. Programledare är Mia-Marie Hammarlin. Gäst efter filmen är Monica Åberg Yngwe, doktor i folkhälsovetenskap.
Programinformation
Se de bästa vetenskapsdokumentärerna som finns på den internationella marknaden."
---
Killer Stress website:
http://killerstress.stanford.edu/
On the site is a great clip that pretty much sums up one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Where his original thought that "low rank = more stress" is not as simple as it appears to be. The answer turns out to be more complex than this. Low-ranking individuals that have a lot of friends and spend a lot of time grooming each other can be in good health and have low stress at the same time as a high-ranking individual can have high-stress if this individual is highly aggressive and very reactive.
---
Article from:
http://www.pbs.org/remotelyconnected/2008/09/stress_portrait_of_a_killer.html
"Killer Stress"
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
BY AMANDA HIRSCH
About the author
Author's site
My name is Amanda, and I am a workaholic.
-- a recovering workaholic, that is.
I used to live and breathe work; when I wasn't physically at the office, I was there in my mind -- wondering if the email I sent struck the right tone, strategizing how to get through the next day's to-do list. The smallest annoyance could send me into a fury. (I hear I was a lot of fun to live with.)
I'm better now, but I share this autobiographical insight so you know that when PBS invited me to review "Stress: Portrait of a Killer," I had more than a little bit of personal interest in the topic.
The program is a co-production of National Geographic and Stanford University starring Dr. Robert Sapolsky and a host of other researchers studying the science of stress, illustrating how our social status affects our stress level. This is true for all primates, it turns out, not just humans; to wit: in a baboon troop, dominant males are far less likely to exhibit stress than their subordinate troop-mates, as evidenced by the increased presence of stress hormones in subordinates' blood. A study of government workers in Great Britain shows similar results: the lower your rank in the civil service, the more likely you are to exhibit high levels of stress, and its attendant health issues -- even though all workers have access to the exact same level of medical care.
Stress, we learn, is closely related to feelings of control. We see the senior civil servant who controls her own workload tending to her lush garden, remarking that she's never had any real health problems; contrast this with the lower-level worker who's out sick half the time, and talks about feeling so overwhelmed by his workload that it's like skidding in a car on ice.
The film contrasts these social and psychological sources of stress with the biological origin of stress as a survival response. Think of the zebra, stressed in the wild when the cougar comes a' hunting; its heart races, and its body shuts down all but the most essential processes, flooding the zebra's system with the stress hormones that help it propel itself to safety. Unfortunately, we humans have the same physical reaction in situations where our sense of control - not our survival - is at stake.
The results are dire. As the body goes into emergency mode, it shuts down all non-essential processes, including things like growing and healing. It's one thing to shut these processes down while you run from a cougar, and quite another to shut them down for days or weeks at a time. Accordingly, research study after research study links high levels of stress with severe health problems, from blocked arteries to ulcers, not to mention diminished mental capacity - it turns out stress kills brain cells. As one of the researchers, Dr. Carol Shively, concludes, stress isn't an abstract concept -- it's a critical health issue demanding serious attention.
.
So, how do we fix it? I like Dr. Shively's advice best: the answer, she says, is to change our values as a society. We need to stop prizing ambition over all else, and celebrating the over-achievers who can walk and chew gum and type on their Blackberries all at the same time. But is such a fundamental change in our values and behavior possible?
One troop of baboons, we learn, was able to pull it off - to change the fundamental nature of their society and reduce stress all around. When the troop's alpha males all died - victims, tragically, of tuberculosis, which they got from tainted meat in the dumpster of a nearby nature lodge - the remaining males did something amazing: they were nice. More to the point, they weren't aggressive toward subordinates; suddenly, being a subordinate didn't feel worse than being dominant. The troop as a whole became more harmonious; as rank became less related to quality of life, the baboons who were lower on the totem pole were able, simply put, to chill out.
As Dr. Sapolsky summarized: the cause of stress isn't just your rank, it's what your rank means in your society.
The program's lessons resonate for me. For example: even though I was a manager at my former job, which sounds pretty alpha, I was a middle manager, with a lot of responsibility and no real authority. What's more, the politics of my organization drained me. Now, as a freelancer, I expend far less energy assessing or defending my rank (my dog is happily subordinate). I control my own schedule, and fill my days with activities of my choosing - balancing time spent on work with time spent writing for pleasure, practicing yoga, performing with my improv troupe, volunteering, and more.
Clearly, there's no one-size-fits-all prescription for a low-stress life. For some people, freelancing would be more stressful than working in an office. The take-away, then, is to look at your own life, and figure out how to reduce your own sources of stress - and, how to reduce the stress you may cause other people (in other words: how to be a nicer baboon).
What do you think? Can you see parallels between the research in the program and your own life? Share your thoughts using the comments feature below
----
Description of documentary below taken from:
http://www.pbs.org/stress/
A National Geographic Special
Stress: Portrait of a Killer premieres Wednesday, September 24, 2008. Check Local Listings to see when it is airing on your local PBS station.
Robert Sapolsky and an olive baboon share a quiet moment on the Talek River, July 2007 (Credit: John Heminway)
The stress response: in the beginning it saved our lives, making us run from predators and enabling us to take down prey. Today, human beings are turning on the same life-saving physical reaction to cope with 30-year mortgages, $4 a gallon gasoline, final exams, difficult bosses and even traffic jams — we can't seem to turn it off. So, we're constantly marinating in corrosive hormones triggered by the stress response.
Now, scientists are showing just how measurable — and dangerous — prolonged exposure to stress can be. Stanford University neurobiologist, MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, and renowned author Robert Sapolsky reveals new answers to why and how chronic stress is threatening our lives in Stress: Portrait of a Killer, a National Geographic Special. The hour-long co-production of National Geographic Television and Stanford University was produced exclusively for public television.
In this revelatory film, discoveries occur in an extraordinary range of places, from baboon troops on the plains of East Africa to the office cubes of government bureaucrats in London to neuroscience labs at the nation's leading research universities. Groundbreaking research reveals surprising facts about the impact of stress on our bodies: how it can shrink our brains, add fat to our bellies and even unravel our chromosomes. Understanding how stress works can help us figure out ways to combat it and mitigate negative impacts on our health.
Coveted female Saffi and dominant male York enjoy the shade of the banks of the Talek River. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)
For over three decades, Robert Sapolsky has been working to advance our understanding of stress — in particular how our social standing (our place in various hierarchies) can make us more or less susceptible to the damaging effects of stress. Throughout the film, he weaves the grim realities of the impact of chronic stress with his wry observations about 21st century life.
"The reality is I am unbelievably stressed and Type A and poorly coping," says Sapolsky. "Why else would I study this stuff 80 hours a week? No doubt everything I advise is going to lose all its credibility if I keel over dead from a heart attack in my early 50s. I'm not good at dealing with stress. But one thing that works to my advantage is I love my work. I love every aspect of it."
Robert Sapolsky prepares to draw the blood of an anesthetized baboon as Masai villagers look on. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)
The film is based partly on Sapolsky's best-selling book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: Stress, Disease and Coping. In addition to his professorship at Stanford, Sapolsky is a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. He is also the author of Monkeyluv, A Primate's Memoir and The Trouble with Testosterone, a Los Angeles Times Book Award finalist.
Scientists from the University of North Carolina, the University of London, Rockefeller University and the University of California, San Francisco share their compelling insights into how stress impacts the body, giving stress a new relevance and urgency to our increasingly complex lives.
For more information about stress and Robert Sapolsky — including clips from the documentary, a video Q+A, links to podcasts, books and more experts on stress — visit the film's Web site at http://killerstress.stanford.edu/.
Find out how much you know about killer stress. Take the National Geographic Stress Quiz.
See how professionals balance stress with success at a LinkedIn "Answers" forum begun by Robert Sapolsky.
Stress: Portrait of a Killer was co-produced by Stanford University and National Geographic Television. The partnership is the first of its kind in the country and features a major research university joining forces with a distinguished production and educational institution to create original and compelling programming in the areas of science and technology for television audiences.
The senior executive producer of Stress: Portrait of a Killer was John Bredar. It was written and directed by John Heminway. The executive producer from Stanford University was Randy Bean.
Funded and Produced by:
© 2008 NGHT, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Text by Randy Bean and Ellen Stanley. Photos courtesy of John Heminway and Randy Bean.
It is ironic that a baboon troop can rise above "how it's always been done" and flourish and that we humans, as a species, are taking so long to learn. We flaunt our "big brains" and "rising above animals" for what? To perpetuate a way of living that is making most of the world inhabitants miserable (looking for proof? switch on the news).
Results like these are, if anything, black and white proof that there are both good and bad ways to organise a social group.
The documentary was aired on Swedish TV yesterday on "Veteskapens Värld" watch it here:
http://svtplay.se/t/102814/vetenskapens_varld
Blurb:
"Den orättvisa stressen
Livet i en babianflock är inte alltid så hälsosamt för den som står längst ner i rang. Det vet neurobiologen Robert Sapolsky som har studerat babianer på nära håll. Men stress slår också till extra hårt hos människor som befinner sig långt ner i hierarkin. En långtidsstudie på 28 000 människors hälsoutveckling i Storbritannien visar att social status spelar en avgörande roll för hur vi mår. Stressen sätter sig i blodet, i hjärnan, den borrar sig in i kroppens celler och gör oss sjuka. Programledare är Mia-Marie Hammarlin. Gäst efter filmen är Monica Åberg Yngwe, doktor i folkhälsovetenskap.
Programinformation
Se de bästa vetenskapsdokumentärerna som finns på den internationella marknaden."
---
Killer Stress website:
http://killerstress.stanford.edu/
On the site is a great clip that pretty much sums up one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Where his original thought that "low rank = more stress" is not as simple as it appears to be. The answer turns out to be more complex than this. Low-ranking individuals that have a lot of friends and spend a lot of time grooming each other can be in good health and have low stress at the same time as a high-ranking individual can have high-stress if this individual is highly aggressive and very reactive.
---
Article from:
http://www.pbs.org/remotelyconnected/2008/09/stress_portrait_of_a_killer.html
"Killer Stress"
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
BY AMANDA HIRSCH
About the author
Author's site
My name is Amanda, and I am a workaholic.
-- a recovering workaholic, that is.
I used to live and breathe work; when I wasn't physically at the office, I was there in my mind -- wondering if the email I sent struck the right tone, strategizing how to get through the next day's to-do list. The smallest annoyance could send me into a fury. (I hear I was a lot of fun to live with.)
I'm better now, but I share this autobiographical insight so you know that when PBS invited me to review "Stress: Portrait of a Killer," I had more than a little bit of personal interest in the topic.
The program is a co-production of National Geographic and Stanford University starring Dr. Robert Sapolsky and a host of other researchers studying the science of stress, illustrating how our social status affects our stress level. This is true for all primates, it turns out, not just humans; to wit: in a baboon troop, dominant males are far less likely to exhibit stress than their subordinate troop-mates, as evidenced by the increased presence of stress hormones in subordinates' blood. A study of government workers in Great Britain shows similar results: the lower your rank in the civil service, the more likely you are to exhibit high levels of stress, and its attendant health issues -- even though all workers have access to the exact same level of medical care.
Stress, we learn, is closely related to feelings of control. We see the senior civil servant who controls her own workload tending to her lush garden, remarking that she's never had any real health problems; contrast this with the lower-level worker who's out sick half the time, and talks about feeling so overwhelmed by his workload that it's like skidding in a car on ice.
The film contrasts these social and psychological sources of stress with the biological origin of stress as a survival response. Think of the zebra, stressed in the wild when the cougar comes a' hunting; its heart races, and its body shuts down all but the most essential processes, flooding the zebra's system with the stress hormones that help it propel itself to safety. Unfortunately, we humans have the same physical reaction in situations where our sense of control - not our survival - is at stake.
The results are dire. As the body goes into emergency mode, it shuts down all non-essential processes, including things like growing and healing. It's one thing to shut these processes down while you run from a cougar, and quite another to shut them down for days or weeks at a time. Accordingly, research study after research study links high levels of stress with severe health problems, from blocked arteries to ulcers, not to mention diminished mental capacity - it turns out stress kills brain cells. As one of the researchers, Dr. Carol Shively, concludes, stress isn't an abstract concept -- it's a critical health issue demanding serious attention.
.
So, how do we fix it? I like Dr. Shively's advice best: the answer, she says, is to change our values as a society. We need to stop prizing ambition over all else, and celebrating the over-achievers who can walk and chew gum and type on their Blackberries all at the same time. But is such a fundamental change in our values and behavior possible?
One troop of baboons, we learn, was able to pull it off - to change the fundamental nature of their society and reduce stress all around. When the troop's alpha males all died - victims, tragically, of tuberculosis, which they got from tainted meat in the dumpster of a nearby nature lodge - the remaining males did something amazing: they were nice. More to the point, they weren't aggressive toward subordinates; suddenly, being a subordinate didn't feel worse than being dominant. The troop as a whole became more harmonious; as rank became less related to quality of life, the baboons who were lower on the totem pole were able, simply put, to chill out.
As Dr. Sapolsky summarized: the cause of stress isn't just your rank, it's what your rank means in your society.
The program's lessons resonate for me. For example: even though I was a manager at my former job, which sounds pretty alpha, I was a middle manager, with a lot of responsibility and no real authority. What's more, the politics of my organization drained me. Now, as a freelancer, I expend far less energy assessing or defending my rank (my dog is happily subordinate). I control my own schedule, and fill my days with activities of my choosing - balancing time spent on work with time spent writing for pleasure, practicing yoga, performing with my improv troupe, volunteering, and more.
Clearly, there's no one-size-fits-all prescription for a low-stress life. For some people, freelancing would be more stressful than working in an office. The take-away, then, is to look at your own life, and figure out how to reduce your own sources of stress - and, how to reduce the stress you may cause other people (in other words: how to be a nicer baboon).
What do you think? Can you see parallels between the research in the program and your own life? Share your thoughts using the comments feature below
----
Description of documentary below taken from:
http://www.pbs.org/stress/
A National Geographic Special
Stress: Portrait of a Killer premieres Wednesday, September 24, 2008. Check Local Listings to see when it is airing on your local PBS station.
Robert Sapolsky and an olive baboon share a quiet moment on the Talek River, July 2007 (Credit: John Heminway)
The stress response: in the beginning it saved our lives, making us run from predators and enabling us to take down prey. Today, human beings are turning on the same life-saving physical reaction to cope with 30-year mortgages, $4 a gallon gasoline, final exams, difficult bosses and even traffic jams — we can't seem to turn it off. So, we're constantly marinating in corrosive hormones triggered by the stress response.
Now, scientists are showing just how measurable — and dangerous — prolonged exposure to stress can be. Stanford University neurobiologist, MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, and renowned author Robert Sapolsky reveals new answers to why and how chronic stress is threatening our lives in Stress: Portrait of a Killer, a National Geographic Special. The hour-long co-production of National Geographic Television and Stanford University was produced exclusively for public television.
In this revelatory film, discoveries occur in an extraordinary range of places, from baboon troops on the plains of East Africa to the office cubes of government bureaucrats in London to neuroscience labs at the nation's leading research universities. Groundbreaking research reveals surprising facts about the impact of stress on our bodies: how it can shrink our brains, add fat to our bellies and even unravel our chromosomes. Understanding how stress works can help us figure out ways to combat it and mitigate negative impacts on our health.
Coveted female Saffi and dominant male York enjoy the shade of the banks of the Talek River. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)
For over three decades, Robert Sapolsky has been working to advance our understanding of stress — in particular how our social standing (our place in various hierarchies) can make us more or less susceptible to the damaging effects of stress. Throughout the film, he weaves the grim realities of the impact of chronic stress with his wry observations about 21st century life.
"The reality is I am unbelievably stressed and Type A and poorly coping," says Sapolsky. "Why else would I study this stuff 80 hours a week? No doubt everything I advise is going to lose all its credibility if I keel over dead from a heart attack in my early 50s. I'm not good at dealing with stress. But one thing that works to my advantage is I love my work. I love every aspect of it."
Robert Sapolsky prepares to draw the blood of an anesthetized baboon as Masai villagers look on. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)
The film is based partly on Sapolsky's best-selling book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: Stress, Disease and Coping. In addition to his professorship at Stanford, Sapolsky is a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. He is also the author of Monkeyluv, A Primate's Memoir and The Trouble with Testosterone, a Los Angeles Times Book Award finalist.
Scientists from the University of North Carolina, the University of London, Rockefeller University and the University of California, San Francisco share their compelling insights into how stress impacts the body, giving stress a new relevance and urgency to our increasingly complex lives.
For more information about stress and Robert Sapolsky — including clips from the documentary, a video Q+A, links to podcasts, books and more experts on stress — visit the film's Web site at http://killerstress.stanford.edu/.
Find out how much you know about killer stress. Take the National Geographic Stress Quiz.
See how professionals balance stress with success at a LinkedIn "Answers" forum begun by Robert Sapolsky.
Stress: Portrait of a Killer was co-produced by Stanford University and National Geographic Television. The partnership is the first of its kind in the country and features a major research university joining forces with a distinguished production and educational institution to create original and compelling programming in the areas of science and technology for television audiences.
The senior executive producer of Stress: Portrait of a Killer was John Bredar. It was written and directed by John Heminway. The executive producer from Stanford University was Randy Bean.
Funded and Produced by:
© 2008 NGHT, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Text by Randy Bean and Ellen Stanley. Photos courtesy of John Heminway and Randy Bean.
torsdag 16 april 2009
Article: If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm
ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2009) — In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.
The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.
“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”
The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed.
Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.
The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2009) — In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.
The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.
“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”
The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed.
Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.
The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)