As the Bush administration fades away in the rearview mirror, my sense is that many people — even liberals — are forgetting what it was really like. It becomes, in memory, just another administration whose policies you disapprove of, like the reign of Bush the elder.
But it wasn’t. It was an administration that deliberately misled us into war, exploiting an atrocity to pursue an agenda that had nothing to do with that atrocity — and causing vast amounts of death and destruction in the process, not to mention undermining American strength.
And it was an administration under which America became a torturer, with the enthusiastic approval of top officials.
This wasn’t normal. And if it’s going be normal from now on, all the more reason to remember the Bush years with horror.
Smartphones, iPads, TVs, computers, videogames. Technology is omnipresent, especially for young students. They just can’t get enough; one 2013 study found that college students check their digital devices for non-class purposes 11 times per day on average, and 80 percent of them admitted that the technology was distracting them from class. This has some educators and scientists concerned: Are students distracted because their brains are hard-wired for it after a lifetime of screens? Is there a cultural or behavioral element to the fixation that has infiltrated the classroom?
As scientists work to answer these questions, educators are finding ways to adapt to students’ changes—whatever their cause—and use the technology to their advantage, especially in courses focused on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
When scientists talk about how technology affects the brain, it’s one particular network that they focus on most often. It’s called executive function—the series of mental processes at the root of people’s working memory, which involves tasks like remembering instructions, and abilities such as multitasking or paying attention. While the most rapid brain development occurs before the age of five, people don’t hit their peak executive-function until their late 20s.
A numberof studies have shown the connection between stimuli and executive function. One of the most famous was conducted in 2011 and is commonly known as the “Spongebob study.” The research revealed that four-year-olds experience impaired executive function after watching the cartoon for just 10 minutes. In a separate 2011 study, researchers found that teens who are addicted to the Internet have abnormal neural pathways, which are tied to executive function.
While scientists have not yet looked at how this stress affects executive function in the long term, there’s reason to think it might. This has to do with our understanding of neuroplasticity, or how an individual’s brain changes over time depending on how that person uses it. During adolescence, each person’s brain weeds out the pathways that it uses less often in a process called neural pruning, said Gary Small, a psychiatry professor and director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Longevity Center at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior. “It’s hard to imagine that the way you’re using your brain at a young age isn’t going to affect the pruning process,” he added. In other words, if you spent your youth in front of screens, it would make sense that your adult brain would be hard-wired to process information at a frenzied pace.
But Daniel Willingham, psychology professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, says it’s still too early to draw conclusions about any long-term effects. “I don’t think there’s really good evidence that there is any fundamental change to cognition as a consequence of technology,” he said. “Anyone who says anything about the long-term effects is going to be guessing.” Conclusions found by researchers like the authors of the Spongebob study only factor in short-term impacts on executive function, Willingham said. “The thing about that study is that the measures were taken right after the kids watched the videos, so a better interpretation is that Spongebob makes you tired,” he added. If technology had changed kids’ brains, we would be seeing more impacts of the inattention in places other than in classroom behavior, Willingham said. “You'd predict a significant dive in standardized test scores over the time frame you're guessing kids have been heavy users of digital technology,” he said. The data just doesn’t reflect that so, the jury is still out when it comes to technology’s long-term effects on the brain.
Still, in the short term, kids are havingtrouble paying attention in school. Eyes flit to screens and fingers gravitate toward keyboards before, during, and after lessons. “It’s a big problem if the only way teachers can get students’ attention is through song and dance,” Willingham said.
Educators are incorporating iPads and computers into STEM curricula because they present options for different skills and ways of learning. “Sometimes [iPad and computer] games can help students’ visual-spatial perception and processing speed, and that can be an advantage,” Small said. For example, he mentioned one study that found that surgeons that play videogames more often make fewer errors in the operating room. Another study used a computer game called NeuroRacer that actually increased adult subjects’ ability to multitask.
But to give students these educational benefits, teachers must find ways to work the technology into their lessons without giving students’ leeway for distraction. That’s much more difficult than before, Willingham says, because of students’ expectations, not their brains. “When you think about digital technology—and videogames, social media—there’s something they have in common: Something interesting happens with very little effort from me,” Willingham said. “And there’s always something else to choose from. This leads kids to think that being a little bored is not normal.” He referred to a 2012 study from the Pew Research Center in which 87 percent of teachers surveyed think that technology is creating “an easily distracted generation with short attention spans.” Willingham is concerned because “kids can pay attention but they just don’t want to. They have the expectation that everything should always be interesting.”
Small and Willingham, like others in this field, disagree about how technology is affecting students’ brains in the long term. But they do agree on what action to take now: a cultural shift away from screens. Willingham doesn’t think technology is changing how kids learn, but he and his wife have continued to limit how much access their children have to technology. “Our thinking was opportunity costs—we wanted our kids to be doing other things,” he said. “But that’s not out of a belief that you’re frying their brains, because there’s not much data to show that that’s really true.”
Small agrees with Willingham’s tactic; students have near constant access to technology, but that doesn’t mean we should stop evaluating the role it plays in or out of the classroom. “Educators should be paying very careful attention to how kids are using technology,” Small said. “Because we don’t know what the long-term effect is, we’re going on impressions [about what works]. But we need to get more data to inform educators and policy makers in order to best take advantage of wonderful new technologies.”
In my world it's final exam week. Thank goodness I don't have to take no more final exams. I done good on English tests back in the day but I forgot everthing else I used to know. I do remember Huck Finn. I always wanted to light out for the territories with him. We could take Jim with us and take turns cussing Pap.
Cats and their human devotees are a misunderstood bunch. This I learned when I wrote “Why cats never became man’s best friend” explaining
how the newly mapped cat genome reveals that, compared with dogs, house
cats are only partly domesticated. The backlash on Quartz’s Facebook page
was epic. The post received nearly 1,700 comments—more than any other
post on Quartz’s Facebook page, ever. What prompted this outpouring?
I referenced the cat stereotype commonly traded among dog people that
cats are passive-aggressive and emotionally unavailable.
On the face of it, dog people seem to be less touchy. Our article last year on dogs’ genetic wildness (“Stop
coddling your dog—he’s 99.9% wolf”) was widely read, but it sparked
hardly any response from dog people at all—and certainly no outrage.
So
why do cat people come off as so darned sensitive? Maybe because they
are. Studies do indeed show cat people tending toward greater
nervousness and moodiness than the pro-canine crew. Recent research also
suggests pet owners with more neurotic traits are also inclined to feel
more anxiety about their pets’ feelings toward them. Whether
consciously or not, both media and society seem to love to rub this
insecurity in.
Yet
many in the pro-cat camp argues that the bond they share with their
cats is superior to what dog people experience with their pets:
Sounds
pretty bitter, maybe. But on this point, at least, the cat people are
not as crazy as the stereotype maintains. Their pet of choice
has largely resisted the human meddling that has somehow hewn chihuahuas
and whippets from the genes of wolves—meaning: cats just aren’t
programmed to please people the way dogs are. And this may explain why
cat people seem to have an incredibly deep bond with their pets.
How cats domesticated themselves
(By Flickr user Lauri Rantala (image has been cropped; available here: https://flic.kr/p/KCeRy))
Compared to dogs, house cats still have much more in common genetically with their wild cousins—something the recent mapping of the cat genome (paywall)
highlighted. It’s the differences between kitties and wild cats,
however, that illuminate a lot about the history of human-cat relations.
Cats in human drag: amusing back in 1914.(Harry Whittier Frees, Library of Congress)
Among
the biggest divergences involve genes that influence reward-seeking
behavior and response to fear. About 9,000 years ago when grain
agriculture began spreading throughout the Fertile Crescent, scientists
think wild cats began encountering people more often as they hunted
the rodent populations that swarmed granaries during harvests. Farmers
likely responded by rewarding those cats that stuck around with food
scraps. The offspring of those whose genes allowed them to tolerate the
presence of humans are the ancestors of modern-day house cats.
Communication,
too, is something that cats most likely adapted as they developed the
need to avoid fighting with other cats, as well as to win protection of
humans—a process that “extended cats’ social repertoire,” wrote John Bradshaw, a professor at the University of Bristol and the author of Cat Sense, in a 2013 Washington Post article.
Peruvian surfer Domingo Pianezzi rides a wave accompanied by a cat named Nicolasa at the San Bartolo beach in Lima.(Reuters//Pilar Olivares)
“Domestication”
refers to the changing of an animal’s genetic makeup through selective
breeding to enhance traits and behaviors that appeal to humans. House
cats have been domesticated, but it’s little thanks to selective
breeding by humans (pure breeding began only 200 years ago). Only a tiny fraction of cats
mate with partners that humans choose for them, as recent research
highlights, and uncontrolled breeding of feral and free-roaming cats
generates most of the house cat population.
“In
contrast to almost every other domestic animal, cats retain remarkable
control over their own lives. Most go where they please and when they
please and, crucially, choose their own mates,” wrote Bradshaw in the Post. “Unlike dogs, only a small minority of cats has ever been intentionally bred by people.”
Because house
cats continue to mate with wild populations, their hunting abilities
have stayed largely intact. This is a big part of why today’s house cats
still retain the wild cat genes that make them formidable
predators—retaining night vision, for example, or the broadest range of
hearing among carnivores. Unlike most dogs, they haven’t evolved in ways
that make them more dependent on humans for food.
In pop culture, dogs are heroes, cats are zeroes
(Flickr user Hannes Engelbrecht (image has been cropped; available at https://flic.kr/p/opkb2g))
Aversion
to cats’ lingering wildness might have something to do with how they’re
typically portrayed. One of the biggest points of antagonism for cat
people is a dog-cat rivalry that the media and popular culture stoke—and
the fact that it almost always favors dogs. Compare Lassie, Toto, Air Bud, Benji, and Max, with Garfield, the Cheshire Cat, Mr. Bigglesworth, Azreal, Lucifer, Tom, Si and Am.
You’d
think these cliches might get tired. Yet the media
relentlessly breathes new life into these conventions (myself included:
dogs, as my previous headline alluded, are “man’s best friend,” cats
“man’s best frenemy”). Dogs are loyal, affectionate, friendly, and
playful, according to the common wisdom. In fact, a recent study (paywall) found that news stories about dogs tend to be picked up more frequently than non-dog-related stories.
Examine
cat coverage and it becomes apparent that the media openly exploits the
dog-cat rivalry, often portraying them as aloof at best—and at worst,
cold, calculating, manipulative, bloodthirsty, toxic, and incapable of love. Sometimes all of the above.
1
The media love to hate cats.(Screenshots clockwise from top left: Atlantic.com, NBCnews.com, Vox.com, NYMag.com, Jezebel.com, guardian.com)
Meowing martyrs
Stereotype brought to you by Pope Gregory IX.(Flickr user Suzi Duke (image has been cropped; available at http://flic.kr/p/q99Er))
This
hating on cats thing—it isn’t all that original. The conceit’s
true pioneer was Pope Gregory IX, who declared in 1233 that during
Satanic masses, the Devil took the form of a black cat.
All
over Europe, the Catholic Church tortured and executed cat owners for
witchery. Since having cats could get you burned at the stake, people
began slaughtering domestic cats—a trend worsened by the misconception
that cats caused the Black Death,
which began ravaging the continent in the mid-1300s. Europe’s entire
domestic cat population was very nearly wiped out, and many tens of
thousands of “witches” were burned at the stake over the next 400 years.
It wasn’t just Catholics who had it in for cats, though; Queen Elizabeth I’s coronation festivities included burning a cat alive (so festive!). To this day, cats endure torture and persecution
that just doesn’t seem to happen to dogs. For instance, people might
say this about specific dog breeds—pit bulls or poodles, say—but not
about dogs in general:
Dogs, the people-pleasers
Against
that backdrop, it’s not really all that surprising that cat
people might be sick of fighting the prevailing wisdom that dogs are
more generous of spirit than cats. And, scientifically speaking, this
bias is unfair. Recall that dog genes have been shuffled around for
millennia to suit human needs. While people throughout the ages were
burning and brutalizing cats, dogs were by their sides fetching ducks,
chasing foxes, and killing Attila the Hun’s enemies, to name a few of the skills they were bred for.
This
brings us back to the evolution issue. Again, house cats are mainly a
product of natural, and not artificial, selection—they domesticated
themselves, you might say.
Dogs, not so much. Starting between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago, when dogs were first domesticated from ancient wolves,
they’ve been bred to please people. The ease with which humans can
breed them also means that humans have selected for genes that make dogs
more appealing to them—and not just for skills, but also for aesthetics
and personality.
That
lack of mystery might have something to do with why Hollywood, the
media and the general populace is more inclined to relate to dogs than
cats, notes Mikel Delgado, a scientist at the University of California,
Berkeley and a professional cat behavior consultant.
“I
think part of the [media bias] is because cats are less transparent to
us—they appear to have less facial expression,” she says. Dogs, by
comparison, are thought to act on their whims and readily reflect what
seem to humans to be familiar emotions. But dogs have probably been bred
for these traits, says Delgado. “They were fed because they could
wrinkle their eyebrows, and we bred them further to mirror our own
expressions,” she says.
This
goes for communication, too. Thanks to many millennia’s worth of dog
gene-tweaking, humans have set the standard for what behaviors convey
pet affection. In fact, dogs now automatically treat humans differently
from how they treat other dogs, notes Bradshaw in this National Geographic interview.
Genetically
speaking, though, cats come out of the box less programmed to socialize
with humans than dogs do. In fact, they treat humans much as they treat
other cats, says Bradshaw.
Scientists
don’t know for sure what behavior indicates affection for humans. But
since cats haven’t been bred en masse to please, each is different
enough from the next that the repertoire of physical and vocal
communication they use to express affection also isn’t standard. Cats
also tend to be much less reliant on people than dogs are. They are good
at taking care of themselves—e.g. hunting and cleaning
themselves—and will reject abusive owners.
Mutual dependency is therefore more balanced than it is with dog ownership; pet and pet owner both have
to work to understand each other, negotiating emotional and
physical needs in a similar way to how human friends do, says Bradshaw.
Being totally different animals—ones with conflicting views on things
like, say, ideal time of day to sleep, definitions
of cleanliness, or the recreational value of a W2 form—makes that
process much less straightforward. But it means that when cats give and
receive affection, it’s not necessarily in exchange for food or because
their DNA is hardwired to do so. It’s probably because, like
humans, they feel inspired to express it.
Cat people: more neurotic than dog people?
Cat people are different.(Reuters/Yves Herman)
It
should come as no surprise that just as cats and dogs differ so too
do the people who identify as their owners. A now renowned 2010 study by
University of Texas psychologist Samuel Gosling and colleagues
examined personality traits of people who label themselves “dog people”
and “cat people,” among survey respondents in North America, the UK,
Australia and other countries. They found that cat-lovers tended to be
less cooperative, compassionate, and outgoing than those who dig dogs,
and tended toward more anxiety and depression. Cat people were also
found to be more artistic and intellectually curious than dog people.
Most
of those findings held up in a study of pet owners by
Berkeley’s Delgado and Gretchen Reevy, professor at California State
University, which will be published in the upcoming edition of the
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Their research also revealed
that while cat and dog people seem to love their pets equally, cat
people “might have a slightly more anxious relationship with their pet
than dog people,” says Delgado. Maybe that has something to do with the
roaring conviction with which Quartz’s cat people readers insist their
pets truly love them.
The feline mystique
A 1948 portrait of Salvador Dali and three airborne cats.(Philippe Halsman, via the Library of Congress)
More
provocative, though, is what turned up in the comments section at the
end of Delgado and Reevy’s survey, in which pet owners of both types
could remark on their animal of choice. Cat people rhapsodized
about their cat’s individuality, writing things like “my cat is the
smartest.” Dog owners, on the other hand, tended either to celebrate
their pet’s obedience or make general statements about all dogs (e.g. “I love dogs” or “dogs are sweet!”), says Delgado.
The
Facebook comment thread lends more proof to the cat part of that
phenomenon. Dolly, Boris, Buddi, Cuddles, Snowy, Salem, Isis, George
Hubert, and Noodle are among hundreds of other cats praised in sometimes
TMI-levels of detail.
This
makes sense. Cats’ independence, lack of transparency, and
self-sufficiency means when people finally reach harmony with their
kitty, they’ve overcome huge natural barriers to build a bond of mutual
respect.
Clearly
that viral sensation isn’t driven by pet-type allegiance; according to
Gosling’s study, just 11.5% of respondents identified as cat people,
while self-professed dog people make up nearly half.
It’s hard to say exactly why cats are so enduringly hilarious, but something about their attitude is clearly ripe for spoofing.
Dogs
go viral too, of course. But the exceptions prove the rule. No one
shares YouTubes of how obedient or friendly or guilty-looking they are;
those are expected of them. They mainly go viral only when they’re doing
something virtuoso, like warbling “I love you.”
Dogs
have to do something super-smart to attract attention. Cats, though,
just have to be; the captions write themselves. The universal fun that
seems to come from imagining a cat’s thoughts hints at a grudging
respect for the fact that they appear to be thinking anything at all. Dog-shaming, by
comparison, is a one-note joke playing on dopey dog naughtiness. Cats
have a much richer range of ambitions and emotions for LOLCat-maker to
exploit.
To put it another way, cats trounce dogs on the internet precisely
because they are misunderstood—or, more accurately, because they’re so
much harder than dogs to understand. We can pat ourself on the back for
that. In breeding his own best friend, man made a creature inclined
to listen to him more than to Nature. Cats haven’t let that happen, and
yet they still choose to love people. You don’t have to be a cat person
to respect them for it.
The
traveling salesman of 38 yrs runs into some strange things on the road
particularly like today when he is trolling down the highway into Pike
County, Alabama, where strange things are the norm. All of a sudden
south of Montgomery all traffic vanishes on the highway, as do all
houses and businesses. Alabama pine trees hug the highway. I feel
nature closing in and I start to suffocate. I've heard of werewolves
and Big Foot roaming the country side in Pike County. I drive for
miles and miles and it's nothing but me and my '98 Kia and the highway
and the pine trees. All of a sudden there is a clown on the side of the
road bearing a strange resemblance to Harpo Marx. He blows his horn at
me and waves. I intend to stop but when I look back he has vanished.
Then there is a mime on the side of the road bearing a strange
resemblance to Charlie Chaplin dressed in black playing with a bowler
hat. He vanishes before I can turn around. Yikes! All 13 hairs on the
top of my head are standing straight up before I see a sign that says
Troy. I am safe, never so happy to arrive in Troy, Alabama, deep in the
heart of Pike County. Strange things happen when you've been on the
road for 38 years.
Freddy HudsonI
had a similar experience the last time I ventured through Pike County.
I saw a man by the road, dressed in a suit and smoking. He was holding
a sign that read, "You are entering another dimension, that of sound,
sight, and mind." He vanished in my rearview mirror.
