CONTENTS
|| Stepping through the minefields of risk to your health ||
|| The natural-is-better bias ||
|| Chatting with the dearly departed - AI’s new business opportunity ||
|| The consciousness conundrum continues to elude understanding ||
|| Second helpings - good reading from the web ||
If this email is truncated at some point, please use the “View in browser” button to view the entire material.
LEAD ARTICLE
Stepping through the minefields of risk to your health
It's much like walking through a live minefield; a false step could kill you or render you short of limbs and other essential body parts.
The Nanny State. Do this; don't do that. We are inundated with long lists of items—diet-, activity-, lifestyle-, and environment-related—that pose risks to health and longevity and earnest exhortations to stay away from this or to do that. We dwell in a state of constant anxiety from the dark cloud of these strictures. Afraid of illness and death, we look for strategies to dodge or at least postpone the event, and we end up equally afraid of living and enjoying all that life offers.
Recommendations and guidelines can often be contradictory and confusing.
Consider:
Let's start with alcohol; always a good mood-setter. Too much is bad; there's no getting away from that. For some years, it was a great source of comfort to hear that moderate drinkers (a glass of wine a day) actually fared better than alcohol abusers or teetotallers. And then, just a short while ago, the spoilsports came in with the news that all alcohol is bad. That's enough to drown your sorrows in ... ?
The big one: cholesterol levels and heart disease. For decades, we were on a witch hunt against cholesterol and fats. Suddenly, the brakes went on, and carbs have become enemy #1.
Again, cigarettes and tobacco are bad—no argument. Lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a long list of serious diseases are all strongly linked with tobacco usage. Vaping and its relatives caught on in a big way with those who refused to let go of the suckling reflex. Good news and bad news again. E-cigarettes may not be harmless.
Coffee: maybe yes, maybe no; the jury is still out.
10,000, then 7500, and now 3500 steps a day. Sitting is the new smoking, at least for now. Based on no evidence other than an ad during the 1960 Tokyo Olympics, the mantra of 10,000 steps a day was chanted everywhere. Then, studies showed that 7500 was good enough and, more recently, watered down further to a mere 3500. Just wait till someone says all movement is bad; stillness is the key.
Exercise, diets—we have talked about these in detail in earlier issues of {P}rescription.
Excessive screen time, multitasking—the list goes on.
Risk 101
Risk calculations are statistics (often derived from unsound data) that represent good sense, not guarantees.
Let's take a walk through what the whole idea is about.
When two seemingly unrelated events occur at the same time, we call it coincidence and brush the event off as the way the world works. We don't expect it to happen again. (Or, if you are a Jungian, you might label it synchronicity.)
When the combo(s) occurs often but not always, it now becomes an association. My grandmother's knee would become painful when the weather was cold and damp. However compelling this connection may seem, it remains an association. The weather is not the direct cause of the discomfort. Worse still, reversing the association—my grandmother's knee being the cause of the weather—is ludicrous. Don't snigger at the reverse association; similar reasoning happens more often than you think.
GOLDEN RULE: Association does not imply cause and effect (causality).
This is a common pitfall that leads to huge amounts of sloppy ideas and practices. Poorly verified associations have been the basis of sweeping governmental regulations and recommendations. Untold amounts of public money have been spent based on dubious associations.
Scientific methodology exists to prove that an association is consistent and not due to mere chance. An association that is verified by such a scientific study is now upgraded to a risk.
Risk is not an "on-off" deal but spreads across a wide spectrum based on the item in question. For instance, the risk of lung cancer is based on the number of pack-years of smoking.
When the event-outcome pair is constant and inevitable, only then can we talk about causality. The field of infectious disease is one of the few places where causality is clear and actionable.
Once again, risk is not the same as cause.
Some people have a risk but no outcome; not all smokers get cancer; some people with high cholesterol levels don’t come down with heart attacks.
Some people have the outcome in the absence of risk; non-smokers also get lung cancer; people with normal cholesterol levels get heart attacks.
Ergo: modification of risk is no promise of elimination of disorders.
So, what do I do?
Risk, at best, represents good sense. It's not a guarantee. Researchers derive the statistics and numbers from groups and populations. They may not be applicable to a specific individual.
The myth of the "normal" human
None of us are normal.
Normality is a social construct, not an absolute fact. It is used to foster a sense of belonging and uniformity, yet it is neither stable nor universal.
A large collection of data often forms a bell-shaped curve on a graph, with the highest number of observations falling around the top and a diminishing tail on each side. Observations are often confined to a limited selection of people chosen in conformity with a scientist's previous conceptions.
Despite this distribution, normal and average are often confused, and this idea has been around for a long time. This fostered the notion that a specific sort of person was "normal," even if they were not the most prevalent statistically. Individuals often differ from the population data, the happy mean, from which risk is derived.
🇪🇳🇩🇶🇺🇴🇹🇪
"We are far too biologically complex to be affected entirely by one aspect of our lifestyle. ... when it comes to our health we need to forgo oversimplification in favour of a much keener eye for detail." Rosie Driffill
Natural remedies might not be better – so why do we still prefer them?
Love S, The Guardian. November 2023
Natural over synthetic - why the persistent preference?
Go deep, and you will find that there is no totally synthetic product. At some point, there is a starter “natural” element that is processed to yield the final synthetic item — plastics from petroleum, computer chips from silica. Yet, there is a persistent antipathy towards the synthetic, hardwired in us.
ℍ𝕖𝕣𝕖'𝕤 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕝𝕖
Natural trumps synthetic. In the world of consumer choices, people often prefer natural products, influenced by the natural-is-better bias. This bias extends to choosing natural remedies over synthetic ones for both physical and psychological conditions.
Psychological impact concerns. A study showed that people are more inclined to choose natural remedies for psychological
conditions due to fears that synthetic drugs might alter their "true self".
Don't mess with my "True Self". People believe their mystical "true self" is their core essence and fear that synthetic drugs might change this essence.
Medicate or meditate? From medicine cabinets to societal norms, the natural bias is everywhere. It's more than just a health choice; it's a spiritual, almost holy crusade. This notion impacts how individuals perceive and accept the effects of psychiatric medications.
Downside. Beliefs about synthetic drugs altering the true self can lead to avoidance of effective medications with significant implications. It can lead to reluctance in accepting treatments like vaccines, reflecting broader societal values and beliefs about naturalness.
🇪🇳🇩🇶🇺🇴🇹🇪
“What bothers me today is the lack of, well, I guess you'd call it authentic experience. So much is a sham. so much is artificial, synthetic, watered-down, and standardised...we're standardising people, their goals, their ideas. the sham is everywhere.” ― Tom Robbins
Chatting with the dearly departed - AI’s new business opportunity.
Agarwal M, Vox. November 2023
There is no letup in the constant bombardment of generative AI products. Chatbots, with ChatGPT being the leader of the band, have infiltrated every nook and cranny of our workday world. The capability of these Large Language Models (LLM) grows at frightening speed. It had to happen; Silicon Valley has now made it possible to carry on conversations with the dead.
ℍ𝕖𝕣𝕖'𝕤 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕝𝕖
There's an app for that. For generations, the Ouija Board has served as a conduit to the spirits and ghosts of the departed. No more. People have started building "ghost bots" of dead loved ones using old text messages and feeding them into ChatGPT to bring consolation to their grief.
Grief Tech. Startups in Silicon Valley are using AI to simulate the departed. Firms such as Replika and HereAfter AI provide services like interactive conversations and virtual hangouts to help customers cope with grief.
Cashing in on the Great Beyond. No surprise that Grief Tech offers premium, subscription-based services as well. This technology is part of a broader movement, including digital estate planning and cremation diamonds made from ashes.
Long-term impact and ethics. While mourning-technology can be beneficial for individuals, ethical concerns remain, as do events highlighting the limitations and possible downsides of the technology. One cannot underestimate the potential to manipulate emotions and exacerbate the despair of grieving individuals. Issues like consent of the deceased, psychological dependency, and data privacy concerns are sure to arise.
🇪🇳🇩🇶🇺🇴🇹🇪
“The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves.” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein
"This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” ― Stephen Hawking
The consciousness conundrum continues to elude understanding
What is it like to be a crab?
Dresser S, Aeon. November 2023
Focusing exclusively on the brain and neurological structures to understand the working of consciousness might have been barking up the wrong tree. Consciousness may well be all pervasive.
ℍ𝕖𝕣𝕖'𝕤 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕝𝕖
The Bet: Twenty-five years ago, neuroscientist Christof Koch bet a case of wine on the certainty of new neuroimaging tools to solve the mysteries of consciousness. Enter philosopher David Chalmers, eyebrow raised, doubtful of such a grand claim. Fast forward to today. Koch humbly handed over a case of wine to Chalmers. Score one for philosophy, zero for neuroscience! This act highlights the persistent challenges in identifying the neural correlates of consciousness, despite significant advancements in the field.
Not so easy: The 'easy problem' of consciousness, as termed by Chalmers, involves identifying neural structures linked to conscious experience. This has proven difficult, and the 'hard problem'—understanding why and how material beings experience consciousness—remains even more elusive. The focus on the easy problem might have inadvertently complicated efforts to solve the hard problem, suggesting a potential misdirection in research efforts.
From taboo to trendy: For a very long time, talking about consciousness in science circles was like serving steak and hamburgers at vegan dinners. The field gained legitimacy with Koch and Francis Crick’s 1990 paper, which proposed studying consciousness in animals. They studied animal consciousness (sans language), focusing on vision. Innovative? Absolutely, but also a bit anthropocentric, suggesting that human-like traits (e.g., complex nervous systems) are essential for consciousness. This perspective may have overlooked other important aspects or forms of consciousness in different species.
Consciousness Club expands its membership: The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012) marked a significant shift, acknowledging consciousness in a wider range of animals, including those without a neocortex. This declaration challenged the previously dominant neurocentric view and highlighted the importance of soft markers, like goal-oriented behaviour and emotional expression, in identifying consciousness across species. This was a big blow to the idea that you need a complex brain to join the consciousness club.
Rethinking research approaches and assumptions: The current state of consciousness studies suggests the need for a broader, more inclusive approach. This could involve extending research to simpler organisms and different sensory modalities, challenging the existing anthropocentric and neurocentric biases. By embracing a more diverse range of species and physiological systems, researchers might uncover new insights into consciousness, potentially making the hard problem more approachable.
🇪🇳🇩🇶🇺🇴🇹🇪
“Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.” ― Alan Watts
SECOND HELPINGS
Good reading from all over
1. Eleven strategies for making reproducible research the norm
2. Highly successful people have 'prodigious amounts of productive paranoia,' says expert—here's what that means
3. Plants are more productive on weekends thanks to cleaner air
4. How can you define a 'drug'? Nobody really knows
5. Dorothy Bishop on the prevalence of scientific fraud
6. Hello, stranger – Talking to random people
7. Did Humans Ever Live in Peace?
Interesting article ! There could be coincidences where as certain ailments are concerned but climate definitely plays a role as experienced personally ! There don’t seem to be explanations for certain problems one experiences !