July 25, 2011
Category: State of the Blog
If you didn't catch the message, this blog has moved!
You can find The Thoughtful Animal over at the new Scientific American Blogging Network!
Please remember to add or change the link to my blog in your blogrolls. The new URL is:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/
If you use an RSS reader, such as Google Reader, the new feed is: http://rss.sciam.com/thoughtful-animal/feed/
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 10:00 AM • • 0 TrackBacks
July 5, 2011
Category: State of the Blog
In March 2010, I was invited to leave behind the relative obscurity of my wordpress blog for the warm community (and increased visibility) of ScienceBlogs. What a tremendous honor and opportunity that was!
But there comes a time in the life of every blogger when one must say goodbye to one's current home, and move across town. Today is that day. Several months ago, when my friend and mentor Bora Zivkovic officially invited me to join the new Scientific American Blog Network, I simply could not refuse the offer.
So, starting today, you can find The Thoughtful Animal over at the new Scientific American Blogging Network!
Please remember to add or change the link to my blog in your blogrolls. The new URL is:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/
If you use an RSS reader, such as Google Reader, the new feed is: http://rss.sciam.com/thoughtful-animal/feed (though it might be a day or so before this is operational)
As always, you can also follow me on twitter and Google+
So head on over, check out my intro post, and say hello.
And do be sure to check out the entire network as well! See you on the other side.
Update: Here is a link to the official press release.
Image: A white-bearded wildebeest running across edge of shallow Lake Makat, Ngorongoro Crater. Flickr/davidbygott.
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 9:05 AM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 4, 2011
Category: State of the Blog
This weekend saw a trip to the boardwalk and beach in Santa Monica. There are often sailboats out on weekends, and I was hoping to get some good shots with my new telephoto zoom lens.
Unfortunately, it was very, very hazy. The light was bad, everything was very washed out, and it was hard to get any real color. Luckily, I've gotten better and better (and had some good advice from friends) on doing some digital post-processing. The key, it seems, is to play to the strengths of the photo. Too hazy? Perfect for black and white.
Here is the before shot, as it was taken.
And here is the after shot, following some serious processing. I really like it - I think it evokes a feeling of New England, or of Herman Melville.
See the rest of the photoset on Flickr.
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 5:05 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 2, 2011
Category: Academia • Science Communication • State of the Blog
I'm on Google+.
After a couple days of playing with it, I haven't quite identified what it is for, or at least how I'm going to use it differently from twitter or facebook, but so far I am generally impressed - it's easy, intuitive, and fast. It also allows you a level of selective privacy that - while possible to achieve - is very clunky on Facebook. It only took me 10 minutes on the web interface and another 10 minutes after downloading the Android app to figure out how it all worked. And Google+ is already far better integrated into the mobile user experience than Facebook is (though this is to be expected for a phone that runs Android).
The Huddle feature alone is worth the price of admission - which basically allows for group SMS. The Hangout feature is interesting as well - it is an amped up version of video-chatting, which uses your webcam and microphone to allow you to chat with up to 10 people at once. This is still limited by your own bandwidth - using my DSL connection at home, it was a bit choppy, but using a cable connection at a friend's place, the feed was relatively smooth. I think there's a lot of room for growth with Hangout, so while it isn't particularly useful to me at the moment, I think it certainly could be. Leveraged properly, the tools available in Google+ could be extremely useful to bloggers. For example, by increasing the number of users from 10, but allowing the "host" to set certain users as "audience" or "participant," Google Hangout could become something more like ustream; imagine bloggers being able to host live video podcasts, where viewers could participate via chat. With the proper tools to record the video, splice it together, and upload it to Youtube, Google Hangout could also allow people to create something similar to what bloggingheads does.
For the researcher, it is easy to imagine the convenience of being able to videoconference with collaborators, for example, while simultaneously editing a Google doc. Or private conversations conducted within a particular "circle" including only labmates or collaborators. If a member of a lab is out in the field, he or she could "call in" to a lab meeting using Hangout and share his or her latest findings, or to check in with the PI. I once gave a guest lecture to a class halfway across the country using Skype - while it was okay, there were still some technological limitations. If Google+ had been available at the time, those problems would have been trivial.
Beyond creative ways to use the tools, I remain unclear in terms of how exactly I'm going to use it on a day-to-day basis. To curate content (I do this with Google Reader already)? To engage with the wider sciblogosphere (I do this with twitter)? To keep up with old high school and college friends (I do this with facebook)? To be witty in more than 140 characters? With time, perhaps its use will become a bit clearer - after all, the product is only two days old. Given that Google+ is still in "field testing" operation, it will be interesting to see what they roll out in the coming days, weeks, and months.
For more:
Sheril Kirshenbaum's review
Razib Khan's review
Enrique Gutierrez's review (recommended)
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 12:28 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 28, 2011
Category: ResearchBlogging Editor's Selections
Here are my Research Blogging Editor's Selections for this week.
- To start us off this week, Neuroskeptic discusses a new study that attempted to use a computer to translate therapists' notes into psychiatric diagnoses. Could it be that certain language used by therapists or their clients could predict the severity or duration of a mental illness? The study has problems, but it's an interesting idea to consider, more generally. Machine-Readable Psychiatry.
- It is well known, according to Daniel Ocampo Daza of the Ego Sum Daniel blog, that "smokers tend to have a lower body-mass than non-smokers, and that smokers who quit have a tendency to gain weight." Until recently, the mechanism behind the relationship of body-mass and nicotine addiction was unknown, but some new studies shed some light. Nicotine, Appetite, and the Brain.
- Here's the next in our continuing coverage of new proposals for DSM-5. Dirk Hanson at Addiction Inbox discusses the proposal for the inclusion of a "problem gambling" diagnosis.
That's it for this week... Check back next week for more great psychology and neuroscience blogging!
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 11:05 AM • • 0 TrackBacks
June 27, 2011
Category: Human-Animal Relationship
The LA Zoo wasn't always in as nice a facility as it is now. The "old" LA zoo was built in 1912 and was in use until 1965, when it moved to its current location just a couple miles away in a different area of Griffith Park. It's open to check out, and is adjacent to a picnic area. There are fenced off areas, but all the fences have giant people-sized holes in them. We thought of it more as: "enter at your own risk."
Read on »
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 9:00 AM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 23, 2011
Category: Ant • Comparative Psychology • Core Knowledge • Insects • Navigation • Sensation and Perception
A version of this post was originally published on my Wordpress blog on March 15, 2010. Click the archives image to see the original post.
Most animals, at some point in their day-to-day lives, face the same problem. After they've gone out in search of food, they need to find their way home. But some of the places where these critters live lack any real visual landmarks - like the open ocean or wide expanses of desert. Instead of relying on vision, some animals have developed the ability to use olfactory (scent-related) cues to aid in navigation. Seabirds can detect subtle changes in the smell of plankton in the air over hundreds of kilometers, and pigeons seem to use olfactory cues for finding their way home. It is known that some insects follow their noses (so to speak) to find food or a suitable mate. But Kathrin Steck, Marcus Knaden, and Bill S. Hansson of the Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology wondered if the desert ants of Tunisia might use olfactory cues for homing.
It turns out that despite the visually featureless landscape, the salt pans of Tunisia actually have scent-related features. Variations in soil composition, breaks in the salt, and dead plants, all contribute different odors to the landscape. Do ants use the olfactory information in finding their way back to the entrance of their nests?
The researchers isolated four odor-producing compounds from various objects found in the vicinity of the ants nest. The first order of business was to verify that the odors were not particularly repulsive or attractive to the ants. The ants were then trained to forage for food in an 8 meter long trough, with the end of the trough that had been baited with food always downwind from the nest's entrance. The experimenters applied one of the odors to the floor at the nest entrance, and re-applied the odor every 20 minutes, to ensure that the scent remained stable over time.
Would the ants learn to associate the specific odor with their nests? They tested them in troughs that contained (1) the same odor, (2) a different odor, (3) a mixture of four odors including the trained one, and (4) no odor at all.
Indeed, the ants learned to associate the specific odor they had been trained on with the nest entrance. They did the best under condition 1. And, they were able to pick out the trained odor from among the collection of four odors in the third condition. They were slightly less successful under condition 3 than condition 1, but way more successful than under conditions 2 or 4. In this figure, the trained odor condition is on the top, then the four odors condition, then the control condition is on the bottom. Each one is statistically significantly different from the others. The closer to the zero-point, the closer to home the ants wound up.
Pretty cool. But we're not done yet. Oh no. First we put ants on stilts. Then we cut off their legs to create stumps. We blindfolded them and trapped them under boxes. But we have not yet antennectomized the ants. Until now.
What's an antennectomy, you ask? I'll tell you. Ants have two antennae. If you cut one (or both) of them off, you have performed an antennectomy. What are antennae used for? Smelling, of course.
So, think of it as a nose job for an ant.
Its a good thing ants don't care much about their appearance. So much harder to perform a nose job if you've got two independent organs. "Doc, my one antenna is LONGER and THICKER than the other, and it's HUMILIATING!"
Read on »
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 9:30 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 21, 2011
Category: ResearchBlogging Editor's Selections
Here are my Research Blogging Editor's Selections for this week.
- Social hierarchies are pretty complicated to navigate...so why have them at all? Read about The Status Paradox at Psych Your Mind.
- ADHD well known, but how might an ADHD diagnosis interact with being an athlete? What should practitioners of sports medicine know about it? Bill Yates discusses this at his Brain Posts blog: ADHD and the Athlete.
- Do fish feel pain? It's not a trivial question, especially if you are aware of what is on the dinner table. At the Fish Addict blog, grad student David discusses a new report on pain and nociception in fish.
That's it for this week... Check back next week for more great psychology and neuroscience blogging!
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 11:05 AM • • 0 TrackBacks
June 16, 2011
Category: Agents • Comparative Psychology • Dog • Domestication • Human-Animal Relationship • Wolf
You've probably had a conversation that goes something like this:
Person A: "My dog is sooooo amazing!"
You: "I mean, dogs are awesome and all, but what's so amazing about this particular dog?"
Person A: "He just understands me. It's like he knows what I'm thinking and what I need."
You: "Do you think he's just maybe responding contingently do your overt displays of emotion?"
Person A: "Listen, man, I'm telling you: my dog can read my mind!"
No matter on which side of this sort of argument you tend to fall, the question of whether or not domestic dogs can read human minds is an interesting and important one. More specifically, do dogs have a theory of mind? Can they take the perspective of a human?
Dogs show a wide range of "human-like" social behaviors. They respond appropriately to human body language and to verbal commands, and are capable of facilitating joint attention with humans. It some cases, their social skills, at least in terms of communication with humans, surpasses those even of chimpanzees.
Also, impressively, domestic dogs tend to perform particularly well in theory of mind experiments. The problem is that the experimental participants in these studies could potentially be responding to other sorts of contextual social or environmental cues when succeeding at theory of mind tasks, rather than relying on theory of mind skills per se. Ever the empiricists, some also argue that associative learning, rather then an innate theory of mind module, could account for dogs' apparent theory of mind skills. If either of these sorts of arguments were indeed the case, then theory of mind would not strictly be necessary to explain these sorts of complex behaviors.
The best sorts of experimental designs to use in non-human animal theory of mind tasks derive from what I call the "Hare Task." The Hare Task was originally designed for chimpanzees, and is in essence a food competition task. Two chimpanzees, one dominant and one subordinate, are placed at opposite ends of the testing area. Between them are two barriers, one clear (like a window), and one opaque. Just behind each of the barriers, on the side of the subordinate chimp, is a piece of food. In typical interactions, the dominant chimp always has first access to the food. However, the dominant individual can only see the food behind the clear barrier, while the subordinate individual can see both pieces of food.
The set-up looks something like this (source):
The idea is that if the subordinate chimpanzee has a theory of mind - if he (1) knows what the dominant individual does and does not see, and (2) assumes that the behavior of the dominant individual will be consistent with that knowledge - then the subordinate chimp should immediately retrieve the food behind the opaque barrier, and leave the food behind the clear barrier to the dominant chimp.
This sort of task can be easily modified to address slightly different questions for different animals, and recently in the journal Learning and Behavior, psychological scientist Monique Udell and colleagues from the University of Florida, Gainesville, have modified the Hare task to ask if domestic dogs can take the visual perspective of humans. Given that domestic dogs tend to do well on theory of mind tasks, Udell wanted to know if their success emerges due to a theory of mind, or whether their success can be explained by learning processes (such as classical or operant conditioning).
More specifically, some have argued that human-like social skills in dogs are the result of selection through the process of domestication, even if as a correlated by-product of the selection for or against something else. If these social skills are the result of domestication, then they are not simply the result of experience or learning. If this is true, Udell reasoned, then "all healthy populations of domestic dogs should be expected to outperform non-domesticated canids on human attentional-state tasks. Furthermore, this should hold true independent of the age, condition, home environment, or experience level of the dog under test."
In order to investigate this question, Udell tested the ability of three different groups of canids, each of which varied on evolutionary origins or developmental experiments: pet dogs, shelter dogs, and human-reared wolves. All pets dogs were brought into the lab by their owners. The researchers were careful to exclude any shelter dogs that were owner-surrenders, and only tested strays who were comfortable around humans, but clearly had significantly fewer social experiences. The human-reared wolves were from Wolf Park, in Battle Ground, Indiana.
If dogs' success at theory of mind tasks is the result of domestication, then both groups of dogs should outperform wolves, regardless of experience. However, if dogs' success is the result of experience or learning, then the pet dogs should outperform the shelter dogs, and the human-reared wolves might outperform the shelter dogs as well.
Read on »
Posted by Jason G. Goldman at 10:00 AM • 8 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
I am a graduate student in Developmental Psychology at the 
