Why do we see so many different things in Rorschach ink blots?

Devised as a method of psychiatric assessment over a century ago, the reason people see so many shapes and figures in the blots may finally be explained

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/14/why-do-we-see-so-many-different-things-in-rorschach-ink-blots

Here’s just how early gender stereotypes start to affect kids

Image: Christopher Mineses/mashable

Who is “really, really smart?” Boys or girls?

A new study found that young U.S. girls are less likely than boys to believe their own gender is the most brilliant.

While all 5-year-olds tended to believe that members of their own gender were geniuses, by age 6 that preference had diminished for girls a difference the researchers attributed to the influence of gender stereotypes.

“We found it surprising, and also very heartbreaking, that even kids at such a young age have learned these stereotypes,” said Lin Bian, the study’s co-author and a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

A girl looks through a microscope during the 2016 Russian Festival of Science in Moscow.

Image: Vladimir Trefilov/Sputnik via AP

“It’s possible that in the long run, the stereotypes will push young women away from the jobs that are perceived as requiring brilliance, like being a scientist or an engineer,” she told Mashable.

A growing field

The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, builds on a growing body of research that suggests gender stereotypes can shape children’s interest and career ambitions at a young age.

A global study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that girls “lack self-confidence” in their ability to solve math and science problems and thus score worse than they would otherwise, which discourages them from pursuing science, engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM) fields.

A 2016 study suggested a “masculine culture” in computer science and engineering makes girls feel like they don’t belong.

Students work on a Youth Media project at a STEM-focused public school in Astoria, New York.

Image: AP Photo/The Christian Science Monitor, Ann Hermes

Thursday’s research looks not at specific skills but at the broader concept of high-level intellectual abilities. In short, can girls be geniuses, too?

Sapna Cheryan, a psychology professor at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study, said the results were “super important” because they’re among the first to show us how young children not adults or high-schoolers respond to gender stereotypes.

But she said the findings are just as revealing for young boys as for girls.

“It’s not that girls are underestimating their own gender it’s that boys are overestimating themselves,” she told Mashable. Cheryan was the lead author of last year’s masculine culture study.

What we want as a society is for people to say boys and girls are equal,” she added.

Stereotyping starts early

Andrei Cimpian, a co-author of Thursday’s study, said his earlier research with adults showed that the fields people associate with requiring a high level of smarts also tend to be overwhelmingly represented by men.

“Across the board, the more that people in a field believe you need to be brilliant, the fewer women you see in the field,” Cimpian, an associate professor of psychology at New York University, told Mashable.

This same idea burrows itself into our brains as children, the study suggests.

Researchers worked with 400 children ages 5, 6 and 7 in a series of four experiments for the new study. (Not every child participated in every experiment for the study.)

In the first experiment, the psychologists wanted to see whether children associate being “really, really smart” with men more than with women.

To answer that question, a researcher told each child an elaborate story about a person who was brilliant and quick to solve problems, without hinting at all at the person’s gender. Next, the children looked at a series of pictures of men and women and were asked to guess who from the line-up was the character in the story.

During a series of similar questions, researchers kept track of how often children chose members of their own gender as being brilliant.

Among 5-year-olds, boys picked boys a majority of the time, while girls picked girls.

“This is the heyday of the ‘cooties’ stage,” Cimpian said. “It’s consistent with what we know about in-group biases in this young age group.”

But among 6- and 7-year-olds, a divide emerged. Girls were significantly less likely to rate women as super smart than boys were to pick members of their own gender.

The age groups were similarly split in a second prompt. Researchers asked kids to pick from activities described as either suited for brilliant kids, or kids who try really hard.

Five-year-old boys and girls both showed interest in the smart-kid activities. But by age 6, girls expressed more interest in the games for hard workers, while boys kept on with the “brilliant” games.

Why is this happening?

Researchers said it’s not entirely clear how these stereotypes form. Certainly marketing towards children lab sets are for boys, dollhouses are for girls plays a role.

And history books are filled with the achievements of white men who, generally speaking, did not face the same systemic discrimination that kept women and people of color out of classrooms and laboratories.

Cimpian and Bian said they are planning a larger, longer-term study to explore how these stereotypes form and stick, and how we can correct them.

In the meantime, they suggested a few ways that parents and teachers of young children could work to dispel the biased idea that men are inherently more prone to brilliance than women.

Bian noted that previous research has shown that girls respond better to what psychologists call a “growth mindset” the idea that studying, learning and making an effort are the key ingredients for success, not a stroke of genetic luck.

“We should recommend the importance of hard work, as opposed to brilliance,” she said.

A news clipping for Katherine Johnson, a NASA mathematician who was the lead figure in the movie ‘Hidden Figures.’

Image: Joseph Rodriguez /News & Record via AP

Sharing and touting the achievements of women can also help counter the stereotypes that genius is reserved for men. Cimpian cited the book and movie Hidden Figures, about the women scientists who helped NASA astronauts get to space for the first time, as a prime example.

Cheryan, the UW psychologist, said including young boys in such efforts is critical.

“There’s a societal message that if there’s a gender gap, it’s the girls we need to fix,” she said. “We have to be careful with that message, because it just reinforces the similar hierarchy that the boys are always doing the right thing. In reality, there’s probably things that could happen on both sides.”

BONUS: 5 Gender Stereotypes That Used To Be The Opposite

Read more: http://mashable.com/2017/01/26/girls-gender-stereotype-study/

Paintings reveal early signs of cognitive decline, claims study

Psychologists believe they can identify progressive changes in the work of artists who went on to develop Alzheimers

The first subtle hints of cognitive decline may reveal themselves in an artists brush strokes many years before dementia is diagnosed, researchers believe.

The controversial claim is made by psychologists who studied renowned artists, from the founder of French impressionism, Claude Monet, to the abstract expressionist Willem de Kooning.

While Monet aged without obvious mental decline, de Kooning was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease more than a decade before his death in 1997.

Alex Forsythe at the University of Liverpool analysed more than 2,000 paintings from seven famous artists and found what she believes are progressive changes in the works of those who went on to develop Alzheimers. The changes became noticeable when the artists were in their 40s.

Though intriguing, the small number of artists involved in the study means the findings are highly tentative. While Forsythe said the work does not point to an early test for dementia, she hopes it may open up fresh avenues for investigating the disease.

I dont believe this will be a tool for diagnosis, but I do think it will trigger people to consider new directions for research into dementia, she said.

William de Koonings Woman 1, 1950 and Untitled XXVIII, 1983. Composite: Alamy

The research provoked mixed reactions from other scientists. Richard Taylor, a physicist at the University of Oregon, described the work as a magnificent demonstration of art and science coming together. But Kate Brown, a physicist at Hamilton College in New York, was less enthusiastic and dismissed the research as complete and utter nonsense.

Forsythe and her colleagues used digital imaging software to calculate how a mathematical feature called fractal density varied in artists paintings over their careers. The seven artists included Monet, Pablo Picasso and Marc Chagall, who all aged without obvious brain disease; Salvador Dali and Norval Morrisseau, who developed Parkinsons; and de Kooning and James Brooks, another abstract expressionist who was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 1985, seven years before his death.

Fractals are geometric patterns that repeat themselves at different size scales. They are seen in nature in the branching of trees and rivers, and in the craggy contours of coastlines. In paintings, fractals appear when patterns made by the tiniest brush strokes repeat on larger scales. The fractal dimension is a measure of fractal complexity, where an artwork with a large fractal dimension has a high ratio of fine to coarse fractal patterns.

Forsythe found that paintings varied in their fractal dimensions over an artists career, but in the case of de Kooning and Brooks, the measure changed dramatically and fell sharply as the artists aged. The information seems to be like a footprint that artists leave in their art, Forsythe said. They paint within a normal range, but when something is happening the brain, it starts to change quite radically.

Writing in the journal Neuropsychology, the scientists claim that the fractal dimensions of paintings by Monet, Picasso and Chagall tended to rise as they aged. For Dali and Morrisseaus work, the fractal dimension followed an upside-down U-shape over time, at first rising and then falling. The most stark result was seen in the works of de Kooning and Brooks, where the fractal dimension started high and dropped rapidly from the age of 40.

The work has echoes of previous studies that revealed early signs of dementia in the language used by the former US president Ronald Reagan, and the novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch. Telltale hints of future dementia have also been spotted in autobiographical essays written by nuns in their 20s.

Taylor pioneered the use of fractals to study and even authenticate drip paintings by the late US artist Jackson Pollock. He believes Forsythes research could do the same for other artists and save museums from being conned into buying fake artworks. But he also saw more important applications. This work could hopefully be used to learn more about conditions such as dementia, he said.

To me, the most inspiring message to come out of this work is that beautiful artworks can result from pathological conditions, he said. When de Kooning was diagnosed with Alzheimers, some critics argued that he should stop painting, but as he slipped into dementia, his artwork changed and became more simple, Taylor said.

To me, these more simple works conveyed a peacefulness that wasnt present in his nurture-dominated earlier work. It all goes to show that sometimes you can think too much about art. Sometimes you just need to tune into your inner self, the nature part, he said.

But Brown disagreed. In 2006, she co-authored a paper in Nature that disputed Taylors research. She said that sketches dashed out on her computer had the same fractal dimensions as a Pollock drip painting and might be authenticated as the real thing.

The whole premise of fractal expressionism is completely false, Brown said. Since our work came out, claims of fractals in Pollocks work have largely disappeared from peer-reviewed physics journals. But it seems that the fractal zealots have managed to exert some influence in psychology.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/29/paintings-reveal-early-signs-of-cognitive-decline-claims-study

Our nine-point guide to spotting a dodgy statistic

Brexit is just the latest instance of politicians bending figures to match their agenda

I love numbers. They allow us to get a sense of magnitude, to measure change, to put claims in context. But despite their bold and confident exterior, numbers are delicate things and thats why it upsets me when they are abused. And since theres been a fair amount of number abuse going on recently, it seems a good time to have a look at the classic ways in which politicians and spin doctors meddle with statistics.

Every statistician is familiar with the tedious Lies, damned lies, and statistics gibe, but the economist, writer and presenter of Radio4s More or Less, Tim Harford, has identified the habit of some politicians as not so much lying to lie means having some knowledge of the truth as bullshitting: a carefree disregard of whether the number is appropriate ornot.

So here, with some help from the UK fact-checking organisation Full Fact, is a nine-point guide to whats really going on.

Use a real number, but change its meaning

Theres almost always some basis for numbers that get quoted, but its often rather different from what is claimed. Take, for example, the famous 350m, as in the We send the EU 350m a week claim plastered over the big red Brexit campaign bus. This is a true National Statistic (see Table 9.9 of the ONS Pink Book 2015), but, in the words of Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority watchdog, it is not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU. In fact, the UKs net contribution is more like 250m a week when Britains rebate is taken into account and much of that is returned in the form of agricultural subsidies and grants to poorer UK regions, reducing the figure to 136m. Sir Andrew expressed disappointment that this misleading claim was being made by Brexit campaigners but this ticking-off still did not get the busrepainted.

George Osborne quoted the Treasurys projection of 4,300 as the cost per household of leaving the EU. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Make the number look big (but not too big)

Why did the Leave campaign frame the amount of money as 350m per week, rather than the equivalent 19bn a year? They probably realised that, once numbers get large, say above 10m, they all start seeming the same all those extra zeros have diminishing emotional impact. Billions, schmillions, its just a Big Number.

Of course they could have gone the other way and said 50m a day, but then people might have realised that this is equivalent to around a packet of crisps each, which does not sound soimpressive.

George Osborne, on the other hand, preferred to quote the Treasurys projection of the potential cost of leaving the EU as 4,300 per household per year, rather than as the equivalent 120bn for the whole country. Presumably he was trying to make the numbers seem relevant, but perhaps he would have been better off framing the projected cost as 2.5bn a week so as to provide a direct comparison with the Leave campaigns 350m. It probably would not have made any difference: the weighty 200-page Treasury report is on course to become a classic example of ignoredstatistics.

Recent studies confirmed higher death rates at weekends, but showed no relationship to weekend staffing levels. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

Casually imply causation from correlation

In July 2015 Jeremy Hunt said: Around 6,000 people lose their lives every year because we do not have a proper seven-day service in hospitals. and by February 2016 this had increased to 11,000 excess deaths because we do not staff our hospitals properly at weekends. These categorical claims that weekend staffing was responsible for increased weekend death rates were widely criticised at the time, particularly by the people who had done the actual research. Recent studies have confirmed higher death rates at weekends, but these showed norelationship to weekend staffinglevels.

Tom Blenkinsop and David Cameron on nurse numbers at PMQs, December 2014

Choose your definitions carefully

On 17 December 2014, Tom Blenkinsop MP said, Today, there are 2,500 fewer nurses in our NHS than in May 2010, while on the same day David Cameron claimed Today, actually, there are new figures out on the NHS there are 3,000 more nurses under this government. Surely one must bewrong?

But Mr Blenkinsop compared the number of people working as nurses between September 2010 and September 2014, while Cameron used the full-time-equivalent number of nurses, health visitors and midwives between the start of the government in May 2010 and September 2014. So they were both, in their own particular way,right.

Indicator hopper: Health secretary Jeremy Hunt. Photograph: PA

Use total numbers rather than proportions (or whichever way suits your argument)

In the final three months of 2014, less than 93% ofattendances at Accident and Emergency units were seen within four hours, the lowest proportion for 10 years. And yet Jeremy Hunt managed to tweet that More patients than ever being seen in less than four hours. Which, strictly speaking, was correct, but only because more people were attending A&E than ever before. Similarly, when it comes to employment, an increasing population means that the number of employed can go up even when the employment rate goes down. Full Fact has shown how the political parties play indicator hop, picking whichever measure currently supports their argument.

Is crime going up or down? Dont ask Andy Burnham. Photograph: PA

Dont provide any relevant context

Last September shadow home secretary Andy Burnham declared that crime is going up, and when pressed pointed to the police recording more violent and sexual offences than the previous year. But police-recorded crime data were de-designated as official statistics by the UK Statistics Authority in 2014 as they were so unreliable: they depend strongly on what the public choose to report, and how the police choose to recordit.

Instead the Crime Survey for England and Wales is the official source of data, as it records crimes that are not reported to the police. And the Crime Survey shows a steady reduction in crime for more than 20 years, and no evidence of an increase in violent and sexual offences lastyear.

Exaggerate the importance of a possibly illusory change

Next time you hear a politician boasting that unemployment has dropped by 30,000 over the previous quarter, just remember that this is an estimate based on a survey. And that estimate has a margin of error of +/- 80,000, meaning that unemployment may well have gone down, but it may have gone up the best we can say is that it hasnt changed very much, but that hardly makes a speech. And to be fair, the politician probably has no idea that this is an estimate and not a headcount.

Serious youth crime has actually declined, but thats not because of TKAP. Photograph: Action Press / Rex Features

Prematurely announce the success of a policy initiative using unofficial selected data

In June 2008, just a year after the start of the Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP), No 10 got the Home Office to issue a press release saying the number of teenagers admitted to hospital for knife or sharp instrumentwounding in nine police force areas fell by 27% according to new figures published today. But this used unchecked unofficial data, and was against the explicit advice of officialstatisticians. They got publicity, but also a serious telling-off from the UK Statistics Authority which accused No 10 of making an announcement that was corrosive of public trust in officialstatistics. The final conclusionabout the TKAP was that serious youth violence had declined in the country, but no more in TKAP areas thanelsewhere.

Donald Trump: Am I going to check every statistic?
Photograph: Robert F. Bukaty/AP

If all else fails, just make the numbers up

Last November, Donald Trump tweeted a recycled image that included the claim that Whites killed by blacks 81%, citing Crime Statistics Bureau San Francisco. The US fact-checking site Politifact identified this as completely fabricated the Bureau did not exist, and the true figure is around 15%. When confronted with this, Trump shrugged and said, Am I going to check every statistic?

Not all politicians are so cavalier with statistics, and of course its completely reasonable for them to appeal to our feelings and values. But there are some serial offenders who conscript innocent numbers, purely to provide rhetorical flourish to theirarguments.

We deserve to have statistical evidence presented in a fair and balanced way, and its only by public scrutiny and exposure that anything will ever change. There are noble efforts to dam the flood of naughty numbers. The BBCs More or Lessteam take apart dodgy data, organisations such as Full Fact and Channel 4s FactCheck expose flagrant abuses, the UK Statistics Authority write admonishing letters. The Royal Statistical Society offers statistical training for MPs, and the House of Commons library publishes a Statistical Literacy Guide: how to spot spin and inappropriate use ofstatistics.

They are all doing great work, but the shabby statistics keep on coming. Maybe these nine points can provide a checklist, or even the basis for a competition how many points can your favourite minister score? In my angrier moments I feel that number abuse should bemade a criminal offence. But thats a law unlikely to be passed bypoliticians.

David Spiegelhalter is the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge and president elect of the Royal StatisticalSociety

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/17/politicians-dodgy-statistics-tricks-guide