Benefits of Dangerous Travel, Revisited

In a previous blog I described a recent trip to three countries in the Middle East, including Syria.  I titled the blog "Dangerous Travel" to highlight the demonstrations that were occurring in Syria at the time and the brutal crackdowns by the government.  Despite the depictions of these events in the media as widespread chaos throughout the country, my wife and I felt quite safe and were very glad we continued the trip.  At that time (April and early May of this year) the violence was in very specific areas at very specific times, posing little threat to tourists.  And most important, the target of these demonstrations was the current regime, not the governments of other countries.

Since then the internal situation in Syria has gotten steadily worse.  Larger and larger demonstrations have occurred, and they have taken place in some cities that were previously thought to be strongholds of support for the Assad regime, like Aleppo. Since we stayed in Aleppo for a few days, this caught our attention.  When we were there things were very calm, and as usual the people welcomed us warmly as they had elsewhere in Syria.  We were struck by the modern sophistication of the city and the charm of its old town area, a noteworthy feature of which was a huge Orthodox Christian cathedral next to an equally huge mosque, and a neighborhood where Burkas and knee-length dresses were evenly mixed on the streets.  The city had prospered over the years from the Assad regime's strong-arm enforcement of stability and had been rewarded for its support of the government's policies.  For demonstrations to occur here was a striking sign of the erosion of Assad's power. 

A second place we visited that is currently in the news is the smaller city of Hama, a picturesque place known for its ancient waterwheels throughout town that are used to draw water from the town river.  We enjoyed it very much, and again we are startled by the contrast between the quiet, seemingly calm place we saw and the images of it as the center of demonstrations by 100,000 anti-government protestors and violent reprisals by Assad's armed forces.  This is the town where Assad's father killed an estimated 10,000 or more in earlier uprisings about 30 years ago.  As detailed in an informative article by Al Jazeera, the recent events began to take place just days after we were there.

Finally, there are the demonstrations in Damascus and the storming of the French and American Embassies there.  These events are chillingly different because they seem to have been sponsored or at least encouraged by the government in response to the visit to Hama by the French and American Ambassadors.  The claim -- without foundation from everything we saw -- is that the anti-Assad demonstrations that have been going on for months now have been instigated by these foreign governments.  Our interpretation is that this is a very desperate attempt by Assad to legitimize his brutal crackdowns in the eyes of his dwindling supporters.

Is it now too dangerous to travel to Syria?

Prior to our trip my answer to this question would have been a quick "Yes."  After traveling there, meeting the people who are the targets of their government's brutal retaliation, and seeing firsthand the disconnect between filtered media versions of events and the reality we experienced, I'm not so sure.  But I think what would now keep me from going is the change in the government's attitude toward foreigners from being objects of  economic exploitation to scapegoats for justifying brutality.  If a government is willing to use tanks and machine guns to quell peaceful demonstrations and kill thousands in the process, it might not care about a protecting a few tourists.

Misperceiving Wealth in America

How is wealth in America distributed?  We're a capitalist country so a certain degree of inequality is justified and appropriate. After all, a major motivational advantage of the wealth-generating power of capitalism is that it allows some people to amass a greater portion of a country's wealth than others.   But just how unequal is the distribution in America today? How accurately do people perceive the inequality? How close is the current distribution to what we might consider ideal?

Harvard Business School Professor Michael Norton and Duke Psychology Professor Dan Ariely have recently published a study that examines these questions (Norton & Ariely, 2011).  The results are timely, given the recent debates over our budgetary crisis and economic policies, and are likely to be very relevant for evaluating the election rhetoric that is already beginning to heat up.  Although our political leaders clearly disagree on the question of ideal wealth distribution,  it isn't at all clear what ordinary people think nor how much agreement there is among them.  Nor is it clear how accurately ordinary Americans perceive the current wealth distribution in America.

Norton & Ariely surveyed 5,522 Americans who were representative of the population in terms of income, voting record, gender, and state of residence.  The careful nature of their sampling technique allows confident generalization to the larger population.

The study revealed that people are generally pretty inaccurate in their perceptions of the actual distribution of wealth in America, tending to believe that wealth inequality is less than it really is.  For example, the richest 20% of Americans actually own 84% of the wealth, but people estimated they own just 59%.  For the middle 60%, where most of us fall, the actual amount owned is only 15%, but people think it is much higher, about 37%.  Estimates regarding the poorest 20% of Americans were most accurate -- they actually own less than 1% of the wealth, but people think they own 5%.  Although there were slight differences in the estimates among demographic groups based on personal wealth, party affiliation, and gender the level of consensus was very high -- inaccuracy was not much greater in one group than another.

In terms of their ideal distributions of wealth, there was a clear tendency to accept a certain degree of inequality, but to prefer a level that is much less than currently exists.  For example, in people's ideal distribution the wealthiest 20% would own 32% of the nation's wealth, a rather lower figure than the 84% they actually own, and the poorest would own about 11%, not the .1% they actually do.  For the middle 60% the ideal was 57%,  a dramatically higher figure than the 15% actually owned by this group.  Again, income level, party affiliation, and gender were associated with only small differences in ideal figures.  Compared to their estimates of current inequality,

All groups—even the wealthiest respondents—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be, and all groups also desired some inequality—even the poorest respondents. In addition, all groups agreed that such redistribution should take the form of moving wealth from the top [20%] to the bottom [60%]. In short, although Americans tend to be relatively more favorable toward economic inequality than members of other countries (Osberg & Smeeding, 2006), Americans’ consensus about the ideal distribution of wealth within the United States appears to dwarf their disagreements across gender, political orientation, and income. (Norton & Ariely, 2011)

In contrast to the conservative view voiced by congressional politicians who want us to believe that the historical trend in America has been for greater and greater advantage being given to those in lower economic brackets, resulting in overpaid workers, bloated welfare programs and an entitlement society, the reality is that inequality favoring the most wealthy has been steadily increasing, particularly since 1970.  Evidence for this is powerfully presented in a very informative interactive graphic recently published online by The Washington Post.  I urge you to look at these data yourself, but in the meantime I'll offer the Post's summary regarding income distribution in the US:  "Inequality in the U.S. has grown steadily since the 1970s, following a flat period after World War II.  In 2008, the wealthiest 10 percent earned almost the same amount of income as the rest of the country combined (my italics)."  These wealthiest 10 percent are those whom the Republican/Tea Party leaders are willing to defend to the point refusing to consider any budget that would lead to higher taxes on the rich, and in fact have proposed lowering taxes on corporations and on people in the highest income brackets, despite the fact that their tax rate is lower than it has been for most of the past 100 years.

This does not seem like a strategy that might get us closer to most people's ideal distribution of wealth in America. 
___________________________________
Related Blogs:

Punishing the Victims
Terminate Me, Please
Does Size Really Matter?
Tax Tips for Tea Time
The Real Lesson from This Election
These Will Be "The Bad Old Days"

"Lei"zy Horses and Hot Malasadas

There are a number of annual events that make living in Hawai'i very enjoyable.  One I have already written about is the awe-inspiring Ironman Triathlon.  Several others are more celebrations of local culture and history that primarily involve residents, though visitors lucky enough to be here when they occur will also find them to be a unique treat.

One is the yearly parade in honor of King Kamehameha I, the Hawaiian monarch who unified the islands into one kingdom in the late 1700's and ushered in a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity.  Kamehameha was born on our island, and so there is a special local connection to this celebration, which is held state-wide each June. 

Pa'u Riders

The parade route is along part of Ali'i Drive, a waterfront street that passes through the quaint business area of Kailua-Kona.  The backdrop is the crystal clear blue Pacific 50-100 feet away and lining the route are palms, banyan trees, colorful bougainvillea, plumeria, orchids, and other assorted varieties of tropical greenery.  In the golden morning sunlight the scene is eye-poppingly beautiful.

Princess and Two Escorts

The special feature of the parade are eight groups of Pa'u horseback riders, each representing one of the main Hawaiian islands.  Each group consists of a princess and her attendants, plus several male outriders or escorts, all of them (including the horses) wearing the colors and flowers of the island they represent. The word Pa'u means "skirt" and refers back to the tradition started in the 1800's for women riders to wear long flowing skirts to protect their fancy clothing when they were riding to a party or celebration.  The flowers are incorporated into leis and hatbands and are appropriate to the island -- for our Hawai'i Island the riders wear red and the flowers are lehua blossoms woven into leis of maile and other ferns.  The horses wear leis, too, and usually bands of flowers in their harnesses.

Horses have been in Hawaii only for about 200 years.  They were introduced in 1803, when a mare and foal were brought by Richard Cleveland as a gift to King Kamehameha I.  Hawaiians had of course never seen such an animal -- the only mammals in the islands until humans arrived were the monk seal and an indigenous species of  bat.  The Hawaiians introduced dogs and pigs from Polynesia  (and maybe accidentally the palm rat), and in 1793 Captain George Vancouver presented King Kamehameha I with 5 black longhorn cattle. The cattle multiplied wildly, and in 1832 John Palmer Parker worked with King Kamehameha III to bring Mexican vaqueros with riding and roping skills to help with his booming cattle ranching business.  The vaqueros adapted well to Hawaii, where they were called paniolos (a Hawaiian interpretation of "espanol"), and introduced the cowboy culture here even before it was developed on the mainland U.S.  Of course here the cowboys do the hula instead of the two-step.  In the early 1900's Portuguese immigrants were recruited as ranch workers and they added their own cultural flavor to the mix, including the invention of the ukelele.

Poop Patrol

A parade with nearly a hundred horses is going to generate considerable fertilizer.  One of the cutest parts of the parade are the teams of pooper-scoopers that follow each of the Pa'u units.  They pull small wagons often decorated as colorfully as the Pa'u groups, and the scoopers do their job with a humorous flourish.  For example, this year the team following the riders representing Koho'olawe, a small island off the coast of Maui that was used for many years by the U.S. military as a bombing range, called themselves "The Bomb Squad,"  a double nod to the historic military reference and to the still-steaming missiles on the street. One of my favorites a few years back was a group whose highly decorated poop wagon had a large sign saying "Hot Malasadas!"  We residents in the crowd had to explain to visitors that malasadas are Portuguese doughnuts, a delicious favorite pastry found in bakeries all over the island.

For me the parade captures the character of Hawai'i very well:  A mix of Hawaiian, European, Asian, and Polynesian cultures displaying the complexity and diversity of influences on our history,  all in a physical setting that is hard to match.

Punishing the Victims?

[***Warning***  This blog contains material known to be toxic to the majority of members of the House of Representatives.]

Okay, let me get this straight.  The Republican/Tea Party's plan to solve the country's economic problems is to lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy while simultaneously cutting spending for social programs, such as Medicare, Transportation, Education and welfare assistance.  The conservative approach would also give corporations a boost by repealing an act that requires companies receiving federal contacts to pay workers at least at the level of prevailing local salaries and benefits.  This would allow those companies to pay workers less than they do now.  In short, we should increase the income of corporations and the wealthy but cut the income and benefits of middle and lower class workers.  Hooookay.

Doesn't this strategy put the burden for fixing the economy on the people who are suffering the most from the current recession?  That is, the ordinary people who are losing their houses, their jobs, and their health care?

The Republican/Tea Party argument is that the maximum marginal income tax rate (currently 35%) is the main obstacle to economic recovery and that cutting it would stimulate growth and reduce unemployment.  The wealthy would then have even more money to spend, which would trickle down to the less-wealthy, and corporations would have more funds to invest in expansion and hiring.   Sounds good, except there are some very large holes in this argument.

First, the current maximum tax rate is actually lower than it has been for most of the past 100 years, including periods when our economic situation has been far better than it is now.  There is simply no credible evidence that this rate is tied to economic growth.

Second, no one actually pays the highest rate.  Being a marginal tax bracket means that it applies only to income above a certain level, not to all the income of a person or corporation.  And it is levied only after all tax breaks and deductions have been applied, resulting in a much lower effective  tax rate.  For large corporations this is about 25% and for the wealthy about 18% on average.  For small businesses, according to the SBA, the effective range is from 13% to 27% depending on how they are structured.  And many corporations pay little or no tax at all. For example, in 2010 GE had a profit of  $5.1 billion and paid no Federal income tax, and is expected to have only a small tax bill again for 2011 (for an analysis of how they do this, see Forbes or Reuters). From 2008 to 2010 General Electric Co, American Electric Power Co Inc, DuPont Co and nine other companies had a negative 1.5 percent tax rate on $171 billion in profits according to a study reported by Reuters.

Third, a more direct way of linking tax rates to the nation's economic productivity is to calculate the percentage of taxes relative to the Gross National Product.  As economist Bruce Barlett notes in a recent NYT article:

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984. In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

I readily admit that sacrifice and budget cuts are necessary to get us out of the economic mess we are in.  But to me the burden has to shared by everyone,  rather than mostly by those who can least afford it.  To cut spending and increase revenue through taxes and/or closing tax loop holes on corporations and wealthy Americans isn't being unreasonably progressive -- it's just fair.

The Benefits of Dangerous Travel

How do you know when you're in danger?  Sometimes it seems perfectly clear:  a truck barreling down on you as you cross a street;  hiking on a narrow ledge with a 500-foot fall;  a nervous mugger pointing a gun at you; an angry mob around you chanting anti-American slogans when you are in a foreign country.  In these examples the imminence of harm and the source of the threat are certain and unambiguous.

But many times assessing danger requires making an inference, an attribution, or an interpretation that isn't so clear.  As we begin to cross a street, we make inferences regarding the local norms involving drivers versus pedestrians and the likelihood a car or truck will yield to us.  When we encounter a high ledge while hiking we look at its riskiness based our assessment of our physical abilities and experience in comparable situations.  In planning a trip abroad we judge the likelihood of being the target of resentment or anger in a foreign country based on current news reports and personal accounts of other travelers.  We usually feel confident that we have correctly determined the threat or danger -- that we know whether we are in danger -- but in truth we have only really guessed.

I wrote last February that my wife and I were considering going ahead with our plans to visit the Middle East, despite the turmoil there (see my blog of February 15th) .  We did indeed make the trip, and recently returned from a month in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.  We were there from April 12 to May 12, during the regional upheaval journalists and politicians have now dubbed the "Arab Spring"  or "Arab Awakening" (I suppose these are appropriate labels, but in this case Springtime and Awakening are associated with bullets, tanks, and firebombs).  We certainly hadn't planned to be involved in these momentous events, and new developments along the way forced us to assess danger far more than normal in our travels:  protests in Syria intensified and so did the brutal government crackdown on them;  just as we were about to enter Syria, the Jordan/Syria land border was closed, though it was still possible to fly between countries, which we did;  shortly after entering Syria the U.S. State Department issued a warning advising U.S. citizens to leave the country immediately (we didn't);   in Libya the UN stepped up its military action against the government; about halfway into our trip Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces; while we were in Egypt there were violent clashes between Christian and Muslim groups.

Were we in danger?  You might infer from the list of events above that we were standing in the middle of the street with a truck barreling down on us -- the clearly harrowing situation I suggested at the beginning.  And to be honest, if all these things happened right before we left home we might have cancelled.  But we're now convinced that would have been a mistake, that we were in fact not in significant danger, and that whatever level of risk present was far outweighed by the positive benefits of the trip.

We weighed the information we received from news sources and from the State Department along with our own direct observations, which contrasted sharply. Everywhere we went people of all walks of life, ages, and social position were genuinely welcoming and friendly -- particularly when they found out we were Americans.  Although we stood out like sore thumbs (it is not possible to blend in there, especially when you're two of only a handful of tourists), we never felt like targets of resentment or anger.  Naturally our inferences might have been wrong, but the probability of our misjudgment has to be considered in the context of 40 years of mostly independent travel that has exposed us to a variety of social situations and interactions requiring us to assess the sincerity and honesty of people's motives.  Based on that experience, we have to regard this as one of the safest trips we have ever taken and probably one of the most enjoyable.

Some of you reading this may wonder why we would travel to a place where there is even a chance of danger -- what's the great attraction that makes the inconvenience and potential hassles worthwhile?  This is tough to answer. In response to a good friend who challenged our motivation for this trip, I said that our rewards for travel here were the same as they always have been for us:  acquiring a deeper understanding of different cultures, including those under the thumb of notorious, disgusting regimes; seeing first-hand the layers of history embodied in the art and architecture of past civilizations and current societies;  appreciating the ecology and geology of other parts of the world.

Paul Theroux put it a bit more eloquently in a recent NYT article on traveling during turbulent times, and I'll close with his words:

"In the bungling and bellicosity that constitute the back and forth of history, worsened by natural disasters and unprovoked cruelty,  humble citizens pay the highest price. To be a traveler in such circumstances can be inconvenient at best, fatal at worst. But if the traveler manages to breeze past such unpleasantness on tiny feet, he or she is able to return home to report: 'I was there. I saw it all.' The traveler’s boast, sometimes couched as a complaint, is that of having been an eyewitness, and invariably this experience — shocking though it may seem at the time — is an enrichment, even a blessing, one of the life-altering trophies of the road. 'Don’t go there,' the know-it-all, stay-at-home finger wagger says of many a distant place. I have heard it my whole traveling life, and in almost every case it was bad advice. In my experience these maligned countries are often the most fulfilling."

Jogging the Memory of a Geezer

[**Warning**  This blog is another in my "Geezerhood" series.  Past entries have included "Embracing Your Inner Geezer," "How to Compress Your Morbidity," "The Power of Negative Thinking," and "So, What Do You Do All Day?".   Those readers who have decided they are immune from Geezerhood may find this material irrelevant and are urged to use discretion in reading further.]

As the saying goes, "Growing old isn't for whimps."  Besides the challenge of coping with physical changes, as discussed in my blog of  2/1/11, there is also the challenge of possibly losing your mind, or at least not being  able to remember where you put it.  Sad personal reminders of this are several academic colleagues of mine who are now in various stages of Alzheimer's, a disease made all the more tragic for these people because they were all bright, well-educated intellectuals with incisive minds. 

Alzheimer's is the most prevalent form of dementia, followed by dementia produced by strokes.  And it is indeed prevalent. According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans have the disease.  At age 65 the estimated lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia is 20% for women and 17% for men.  For those who make it to 85, the risk is much higher -- 43%.   And it is indeed deadly.  Alzheimer's is currently the 6th leading cause of death in this country, 5th for those over 65.  It is estimated that 61 percent of people with Alzheimer’s at age 70 will die before age 80 compared with 30 percent of people at age 70 without the disease.

An optimistic take on these grim statistics is that most geezers won't be stricken by Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia during their "golden years" -- if  20%  are afflicted, then the other 80% won't be, right?  While this optimism is justified in the strictest sense,  there is now a substantial body of scientific evidence that even "normal" geezers will experience some degree of cognitive decline due to changes in neurological processes and brain structure that are an inevitable result of aging.  These physical changes will likely be manifested in difficulties in learning, reasoning, decision making, cognitive task performance, and memory.   The evidence also shows, though, that there is a wide range among individuals in the type and degree of difficulties they experience, even among those with the same degree of  neurological degradation.  A more realistic approach then, is to ask "how much cognitive decline will I experience and is there anything I can do about it?"

The most recent research bearing on these questions has been nicely summarized and evaluated by Christopher Hertzog in a monograph published by the Association for Psychological Science (Hertzog et.al., 2008).  Hertzog's analysis of the available data suggests that there are a number of identifiable factors that influence a person's degree and rate of decline, and that there are certain interventions that can -- within limits -- alter an individual's position within the possible range of functioning.

It is important to note that the evidence for some of these "enrichment effects" is not very strong or is controversial, while for other factors the research seems much clearer and stronger.  For example, it is somewhat surprising that the common sense idea of staving off cognitive decline by leading an intellectually active lifestyle (the "use it or lose it" hypothesis) -- while it has received consistent empirical support -- must be tempered by the fact that the strength of the effect is not as strong as it is for other factors and may be open to alternative explanations  (Hertzog et. al., 2008).  Nonetheless, research over the last 10 years indicates that continued engagement in mentally stimulating activities (reading books, attending plays, playing chess, writing, playing a musical instrument, attending public lectures, taking courses, etc.) can reduce the debilitating effects of "normal" cognitive decline, and even lower the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (Wilson et. al, 2007).

Another approach to cognitive enrichment is based on what might be called the "mental pushup" model., where older people are exposed to interventions that involve specific training in memory, reasoning, or problem solving.  For example,  in a study by Ball et al. (2002), 2500 participants over 65 went through training sessions in one of three cognitive domains:  memory, reasoning, or visual search.  The results showed marked gains for each training group that persisted over a 5-year follow up period.  As encouraging as these results seem, it was also found that the enhancement effects didn't transfer to performance-based measures of everyday problem solving or everyday speed of processing -- in other words, the benefits were restricted to the specific training domains and didn't generalize to other kinds of tasks.   A number of other studies have reached the same conclusion -- very little generalization of the cognitive gains achieved by training specific skills or processes (Hertzog et al., 2008).

However, there have some very recent attempts to develop training strategies involving more complex mechanisms that do show generalization.  One example is training in quickly switching between different tasks or between different sets of cues relevant to the same task,  both of which are abilities involving cognitive control that usually decline significantly with age.  In a study by Karbach & Kray (2009)  this type of intervention not only significantly improved older adults' task-switching performance,  but also produced generalized improvements in verbal and spatial memory, and reasoning skills.

Another promising new approach is "metacognition"  training.  "The essential feature of metacognitive interventions is to train individuals to assess processing demands of task contexts and to select, implement, and evaluate strategies during performance" (Hertzog et al., 2008, p. 20).  For example, one metacognitive approach trains people on using mnemonic memory techniques coupled with self-testing to determine when material has been learned well enough to permit later retrieval (Dunlosky et al., 2007).  Research indicates that the generality of this technique enables older people to apply it to everyday situations outside the experimental context.

As promising as some of these training strategies are, there is one type of intervention that recent research shows is hands down the most effective in lessening cognitive decline associated with aging:  physical activity.  It even seems to "compress cognitive morbidity" so that the period of diminished mental capacity is shorter, even among those with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia (I discussed compression of morbidity regarding physical aspects of aging in an earlier blog).

The fitness fanatics out there no doubt are vigorously nodding their heads in agreement as they read this before their spinning class or after their 15-mile run.  But the real news in this research is that (a) the level of physical activity required to achieve significant benefits is really quite modest, and (b) beneficial effects can be achieved even when the physical activities are initiated later in life. This is particularly encouraging for those geezers who have physical limitations or injuries that prevent them from engaging in high impact aerobics, or for those who weren't physically active in their younger years.

For example, in a study by Kramer et al. (1999) older adults who were in good health but sedentary were randomly assigned to either a training condition in which they walked briskly for 1 hour per day 3 days a week for 6 months, or a condition in which they performed stretching and toning exercises for the same amount of time.  Those in the walking condition but not the stretching and toning condition showed generalized improvement in various aspects of cognitive functioning, including the ability to selectively process task-relevant information while ignoring irrelevant information, the ability to override inappropriate responses, and the ability to switch rapidly between multiple tasks.

In another example, the activity levels of 6,000 women aged 65 and older were assessed (e.g, blocks walked per week, flights of stairs climbed per day, frequency and duration of  various exercise and sports activities) and then levels of cognitive functioning were measured 6-8 years later (Yaffe et al., 2001).  Those who were more active were 30% less likely to show cognitive decline, even after adjusting for education level, health status, and other rival explanations.  Interestingly, walking distance was related to cognitive functioning whereas walking speed was not, suggesting that even moderate levels of activity have a beneficial effect.

Finally, a number of studies have found that modest physical activity and exercise can reduce the probability of severe cognitive problems in later life.  Rovio (2005), for instance, found that physical activity in middle age consisting of as little as 20-30 minutes twice per week of exercise vigorous enough to produce breathlessness and sweating reduced the risk of dementia 20 years later by 52%. 

After evaluating all of the available research regarding cognitive functioning in older adults, including the studies focusing on physical activity, Hertzog et al. (2008) offers this optimistic conclusion:

"What is most impressive to us is the evidence demonstrating benefits of aerobic physical exercise on cognitive functioning in older adults. Such a conclusion would have been controversial in the not-too-distant-past, but the evidence that has accumulated since 2000 from both human and animal studies argues overwhelmingly that aerobic exercise enhances cognitive function in older adults.  The hypothesis of exercise-induced cognitive-enrichment effects is supported by longitudinal studies of predictors of cognitive decline and incidence of dementia, but also by short-term intervention studies in human and animal populations.  The exercise-intervention work suggests relatively general cognitive benefits of aerobic exercise but indicates that cognitive tasks that require executive functioning, working memory, and attentional control are most likely to benefit."  (p.41)

Geezerhood is tough.  But thanks to increases in our scientific understanding of aging, we are seeing some real advances in practical ways to come to terms with it.  Cognitive decline may be inevitable, and for some us it will be devastatingly severe.  But thankfully there are ways we can lessen the degree to which the quality of our lives are impacted by the relentless march of time.



References:

Ball, K., Berch, D.B., Helmer, K.F., Jobe, J.B., Leveck, M.D., Marsiske, M. (2002.  Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults:  A randomized controlled trial.  Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 2271-2281.

Dunlosky, J., Cavallini, E.,  Roth, H.,  McGuire, C.L., Vecchi, T., & Hertzog, C. (2007).  Do self-monitoring interventions improve older adults' learning?  Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62B (special issue I), 70-76.

Hertzog, C., Kramer, A.F., Wilson, R.S.,  & Lindenberger, U. (2008).  Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development:  Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced?  Psychological Science in the Public Interest, (9).

Karbach, Julia, & Kray, Jutta (2009). How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training.  Developmental Science,  978-990.

Kramer, A.F.,  Hahn, S., Cohen, N.J., Banich, M.T., McAuley, E., Harrison, C.R., et al. (1999).  Aging, fitness and neurocognitive function.  Nature, 400, 418-419.

Rovio, S., Kareholt, I., Kelkala, E.I., et al. (2005).  Leisure time physical activity at midlife and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.  Lancet Neurology, 4, 705-711.

Yaffe, K., Barnes, D., Nevitt, M., Lui, L.Y., & Covinsky, K. (2001).  A prospective study of physical activity and cognitive decline in elderly women.  Archives of Internal Medicine., 161, 1703-1708.


Wilson, R.S., Scherr, P.A., Schneider, J.A., Li, Y., & Bennett, D.A. (2007).  The relation of cognitive activity to risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.  Neurology, 69, 1911-1920.

It's a Guy Thing

My sister recently forwarded me a story that has been circulating on the internet for quite some time, though I have never seen it before.   I'll quote it below, then make some comments about whether it is true or not.  Right now, though, you should know that I was gasping for breath from laughing when I read it.  In short, you have been forewarned that this is my kind of humor (see What, Me Worry? for an analysis of what makes me laugh):

Pocket Tazer Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife. A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Tazer for their anniversary submitted this:
Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized Tazer.

The effects of the Tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no long term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety...??

WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home... I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button and pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.

AWESOME!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave.

Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right?

There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target.

I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and then thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised.

Am I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and Tazer in another.
 The directions said that:
a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant;
a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; and
a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water.

Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference (loaded with two itsy, bitsy AAA batteries); pretty cute really, and thinking to myself, 'no possible way!'

What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.

I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side so as to say, 'Don't do it stupid,' reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny lil ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad.. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it.

I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and...

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT THE... !!!

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs! The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.

Note:
If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a Tazer,
one note of caution:

There is NO such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor!
A three second burst would be considered conservative!

My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace.

My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching.

My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs.

I had no control over the drooling.

Apparently I had crapped in my shorts, but was too numb to know for sure, and my sense of smell was gone.

I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head, which I believe came from my hair.

I'm still looking for my testicles and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!

PS: My wife can't stop laughing about my experience, loved the gift and now regularly threatens me with it!
 

If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!

This story has been circulating since 2004, and although it has never been determined for sure that it is just a wildly funny made-up tale, there are strong hints that it is just that.  Most telling is that the story has changed over the years by being updated and expanded -- for example, in the original story it was Jessie Ventura who was the pro-wrester instead of Hulk Hogan.  You can compare the version above with the original available on  Snopes.com, my favorite site for researching stuff like this.  Despite the strong possibility it didn't really happen, it is still very funny indeed.  Oh, and a little quick Googling reveals that such devices do, in fact exist.  For example,  at BestStunGun.Com you can buy one for about $70 that is the size of a pen, generates 800,000 volts, and requires just two small 3-volt CR2 batteries.

Incidents that really have happened and which showcase human (usually male) stupidity are collected and presented at another of my favorite sites, The Darwin Awards.  The Darwin Awards "...salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it..."   Here's just one example, called Dying to Go:

Dying To Go
2009 Darwin Award Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin

(12 April 2008, Florida) Traffic was moving slowly on southbound I-95. Shawn M. had recently left a Pompano Beach bar, and now he was stuck in traffic. As the saying goes, you don't buy beer--you just rent it, and Shawn couldn't wait another moment to relieve himself. "I need to take a leak," he told his friends. Traffic was deadlocked, so the waterlogged man climbed out, put his hand on the divider, and jumped over the low concrete wall... only to fall 65 feet to his death. "He probably thought there was a road, but there wasn't," said a Fort Lauderdale police spokesman. The car was idling on an overpass above the railroad lines. His mother shared her thoughts. "Shawn didn't do a whole lot for a living. He got along on his charm, just like his father." Though his death was tragic, Shawn's downfall proves the old adage: Look before you leak!

Definitely more of my kind of humor.