Men, Women and Spatial Intelligence

Do men and women differ in their cognitive capacities? It's been a popular topic of conversation since as far back as we have records of what people were talking about.

While it's now (almost) generally accepted that men and women are at most only very slightly different in average IQ, there are still a couple of lines of evidence in favor of a gender difference.

First, there's the idea that men are more variable in their intelligence, so there are more very smart men, and also more very stupid ones. This averages out so the mean is the same.

Second, there's the theory that men are on average better at some things, notably "spatial" stuff involving the ability to mentally process shapes, patterns and images, while women are better at social, emotional and perhaps verbal tasks. Again, this averages out overall.

According to proponents, these differences explain why men continue to dominate the upper echelons of things like mathematics, physics, and chess. These all tap spatial processing and since men are more variable, there'll be more extremely high achievers - Nobel Prizes, grandmasters. (There are also presumably more men who are rubbish at these things, but we don't notice them.)

The male spatial advantage has been reported in many parts of the world, but is it "innate", something to do with the male brain? A new PNAS study says - probably not, it's to do with culture. But I'm not convinced.

The authors went to India and studied two tribes, the Khasi and the Karbi. Both live right next to other in the hills of Northeastern India and genetically, they're closely related. Culturally though, the Karbi are patrilineal - property and status is passed down from father to son, with women owning no land of their own. The Khasi are matrilineal, with men forbidden to own land. Moreover, Khasi women also get just as much education as the men, while Karbi ones get much less.

The authors took about 1200 people from 8 villages - 4 per culture - and got them to do a jigsaw puzzle. The quicker you do it, the better your spatial ability. Here were the results. I added the gender-stereotypical colours.

In the patrilineal group, women did substantially worse on average (remember that more time means worse). In the matrilineal society, they performed as well as men. Well, a tiny bit worse, but it wasn't significant. Differences in education explained some of the effect, but only a small part of it.

OK.

This was a large study, and the results are statistically very strong. However, there's a curious result that the authors don't discuss in the paper - the matrilineal group just did much better overall. Looking at the men, they were 10 seconds faster in the matrilineal culture. That's nearly as big as the gender difference in the patrilineal group (15 seconds)!

The individual variability was also much higher in the patrilineal society, for both genders.

Now, maybe, this is a real effect. Maybe being in a patrilineal society makes everyone less spatially aware, not just women; that seems a bit of a stretch, though.

There's also the problem that this study essentially only has two datapoints. One society is matrilineal and has low gender difference in visuospatial processing. One is patrilineal and has a high difference. But that's just not enough data to conclude that there's a correlation between the two things, let alone a causal relationship; you would need to study lots of societies to do that.

Personally, I have no idea what drives the difference, but this study is a reminder of how difficult the question is.

Hoffman M, Gneezy U, List JA (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PMID: 21876159

Men, Women and Spatial Intelligence

Do men and women differ in their cognitive capacities? It's been a popular topic of conversation since as far back as we have records of what people were talking about.

While it's now (almost) generally accepted that men and women are at most only very slightly different in average IQ, there are still a couple of lines of evidence in favor of a gender difference.

First, there's the idea that men are more variable in their intelligence, so there are more very smart men, and also more very stupid ones. This averages out so the mean is the same.

Second, there's the theory that men are on average better at some things, notably "spatial" stuff involving the ability to mentally process shapes, patterns and images, while women are better at social, emotional and perhaps verbal tasks. Again, this averages out overall.

According to proponents, these differences explain why men continue to dominate the upper echelons of things like mathematics, physics, and chess. These all tap spatial processing and since men are more variable, there'll be more extremely high achievers - Nobel Prizes, grandmasters. (There are also presumably more men who are rubbish at these things, but we don't notice them.)

The male spatial advantage has been reported in many parts of the world, but is it "innate", something to do with the male brain? A new PNAS study says - probably not, it's to do with culture. But I'm not convinced.

The authors went to India and studied two tribes, the Khasi and the Karbi. Both live right next to other in the hills of Northeastern India and genetically, they're closely related. Culturally though, the Karbi are patrilineal - property and status is passed down from father to son, with women owning no land of their own. The Khasi are matrilineal, with men forbidden to own land. Moreover, Khasi women also get just as much education as the men, while Karbi ones get much less.

The authors took about 1200 people from 8 villages - 4 per culture - and got them to do a jigsaw puzzle. The quicker you do it, the better your spatial ability. Here were the results. I added the gender-stereotypical colours.

In the patrilineal group, women did substantially worse on average (remember that more time means worse). In the matrilineal society, they performed as well as men. Well, a tiny bit worse, but it wasn't significant. Differences in education explained some of the effect, but only a small part of it.

OK.

This was a large study, and the results are statistically very strong. However, there's a curious result that the authors don't discuss in the paper - the matrilineal group just did much better overall. Looking at the men, they were 10 seconds faster in the matrilineal culture. That's nearly as big as the gender difference in the patrilineal group (15 seconds)!

The individual variability was also much higher in the patrilineal society, for both genders.

Now, maybe, this is a real effect. Maybe being in a patrilineal society makes everyone less spatially aware, not just women; that seems a bit of a stretch, though.

There's also the problem that this study essentially only has two datapoints. One society is matrilineal and has low gender difference in visuospatial processing. One is patrilineal and has a high difference. But that's just not enough data to conclude that there's a correlation between the two things, let alone a causal relationship; you would need to study lots of societies to do that.

Personally, I have no idea what drives the difference, but this study is a reminder of how difficult the question is.

Hoffman M, Gneezy U, List JA (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PMID: 21876159

What Big Eyes You Have

According to the BBC, a new study has found that northern peoples have bigger eyes - and bigger brains.


Actually, the paper in question talked about eyes but didn't make much of the brain finding, which is confined to the Supplement. Nonetheless, they did find an effect on brain size too. Peoples living further from the equator have larger eye sockets and also larger total cranial capacity (brain volume), apparantly. The authors include Robin Dunbar of "Dunbar's Number" fame.

Their idea is that humans evolved larger eyes because further from the equator, there's on average less light, so you need bigger eyes to collect more light and see well.

They looked at 19th century skulls stored in museum collections, and measured the size of the eye sockets (orbits). They did this by filling them with a bunch of little glass balls and counting how many balls fit. They had a total of 73 "healthy adult" skulls from 12 different places, ranging from Scandinavia to Kenya.

Latitude essentially meant northern-ness because only one population (Australian Aborigines) were from far south of the equator.

Total brain size also increased with latitude, but eye size increased even faster, so the eye:brain ratio increased. They don't really discuss the brain size finding, except to suggest that it might be accounted for by increased visual cortex (though there's no direct evidence of that), but here it is, showing latitude vs. cranial capacity in ml.

The idea that northern peoples are brainier unfortunately has a long history. For example, it's been suggested that the coldness of northern climes meant that life was harder, so people evolved to be smarter to survive.

The heat of the Sahara was easy living compared to the deadly horrors of an English winter, in other words. Hmm.

The idea that higher latitudes are darker, so you'd need bigger eyes, and then a bigger brain (at least the visual parts of the brain) to process what you see, is certainly more plausible than that theory. However, the data in this paper seem pretty scanty.

Measuring skulls by filling them with little balls was cutting edge neuroscience in the 19th century. However, nowadays, we have MRI scanners. Although usually intended to image the brain, many MRI scans of the head also give an excellent image of the skull and eyes. Millions of people of all races get MRI scans every year.

Nowadays, people have medical records, so we can tell exactly how healthy people are. The people who became these skulls in a museum were said to be healthy, but how healthy a 19th century Indian or Kenyan could hope to be, by modern standards, I'm not sure. Certainly there's an excellent chance that they were malnourished and I suspect this would make your eyes and skull smaller.

Pearce, E., & Dunbar, R. (2011). Latitudinal variation in light levels drives human visual system size Biology Letters DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0570

What Big Eyes You Have

According to the BBC, a new study has found that northern peoples have bigger eyes - and bigger brains.


Actually, the paper in question talked about eyes but didn't make much of the brain finding, which is confined to the Supplement. Nonetheless, they did find an effect on brain size too. Peoples living further from the equator have larger eye sockets and also larger total cranial capacity (brain volume), apparantly. The authors include Robin Dunbar of "Dunbar's Number" fame.

Their idea is that humans evolved larger eyes because further from the equator, there's on average less light, so you need bigger eyes to collect more light and see well.

They looked at 19th century skulls stored in museum collections, and measured the size of the eye sockets (orbits). They did this by filling them with a bunch of little glass balls and counting how many balls fit. They had a total of 73 "healthy adult" skulls from 12 different places, ranging from Scandinavia to Kenya.

Latitude essentially meant northern-ness because only one population (Australian Aborigines) were from far south of the equator.

Total brain size also increased with latitude, but eye size increased even faster, so the eye:brain ratio increased. They don't really discuss the brain size finding, except to suggest that it might be accounted for by increased visual cortex (though there's no direct evidence of that), but here it is, showing latitude vs. cranial capacity in ml.

The idea that northern peoples are brainier unfortunately has a long history. For example, it's been suggested that the coldness of northern climes meant that life was harder, so people evolved to be smarter to survive.

The heat of the Sahara was easy living compared to the deadly horrors of an English winter, in other words. Hmm.

The idea that higher latitudes are darker, so you'd need bigger eyes, and then a bigger brain (at least the visual parts of the brain) to process what you see, is certainly more plausible than that theory. However, the data in this paper seem pretty scanty.

Measuring skulls by filling them with little balls was cutting edge neuroscience in the 19th century. However, nowadays, we have MRI scanners. Although usually intended to image the brain, many MRI scans of the head also give an excellent image of the skull and eyes. Millions of people of all races get MRI scans every year.

Nowadays, people have medical records, so we can tell exactly how healthy people are. The people who became these skulls in a museum were said to be healthy, but how healthy a 19th century Indian or Kenyan could hope to be, by modern standards, I'm not sure. Certainly there's an excellent chance that they were malnourished and I suspect this would make your eyes and skull smaller.

Pearce, E., & Dunbar, R. (2011). Latitudinal variation in light levels drives human visual system size Biology Letters DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0570

Language Is General?

So according to the authors of a paper in Nature:

It suggests rather that language is part of not a specialised module distinct from the rest of cognition, but more part of broad human cognitive skills.

The paper is Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. They found that the various grammatical rules governing the proper order of different words in a sentence changed over time, and crucially that there were no fixed associations between them: no correlations such that when one rule changed, another rule had to change at the same time.


This, they say, is inconsistent with the currently dominant linguistic theory of "language universals" fixed by the structure of the human brain/mind. One of the authors has written an excellent explanation here and languagelog has a nice discussion here.

Yet I'm not convinced that "broad human cognitive skills" can explain language. I'm not qualified to comment on the details of this study, but, I do know that the average 7 year old kid has effortlessly learned how to use at least one language, with the appropriate grammar, syntax, and a vocabulary of thousands of words.

On the other hand, take my phone. My phone can't do that. It can, just about, take my voice and convert it into text. It gets it right most of the time. It has absolutely no idea what those words mean. All it can do is send them to Google and search for them.

Speaking of Google, Google Translate is what you get when roomfuls of computers try to "do language". It's useful, it's cool, and it gets it more-or-less right most of the time. But the output it produces is stilted, often ungrammatical, and generally sounds nothing like a native speaker would ever produce.

Let me repeat myself:

On the other hand, take my phone. My phone is that you can not do it. It just converts the text to voice can take me. Most of the time it gets to the right. What is the meaning of the word that has absolutely no idea. That it can, Google, is to send them to find them. Speaking of Google, Google translator you use your computer's roomfuls said, "do language" and attempt to, are obtained. It's cool, then great, but it is more or less right, gets most of the time. However, the output it generates is often exaggerated ungrammatical It sounds more like a native speaker so far generated in general.

That's my last paragraph Google Translated to Japanese and right back. Hmm.

On the other hand my phone can perform millions of arithmetical operations per second. The 7 year old probably takes a minute or two of hard effort to multiply two digits together. So who's got more "general cognitive ability"?

To say that language is a manifestation of human "general" or "broad" cognition is to say that human general cognition is better at learning languages than it is at doing arithmetic: which rather begs the question of how "general" it is.

This doesn't mean that language is a special module of the brain, or that there are "language universals" beyond the fact that they're all languages, though that seems like a pretty big one. But it would take very, very strong evidence to make me doubt that the existence of language is somehow built into the human brain.

Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Levinson SC, & Gray RD (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature PMID: 21490599

Language Is General?

So according to the authors of a paper in Nature:

It suggests rather that language is part of not a specialised module distinct from the rest of cognition, but more part of broad human cognitive skills.

The paper is Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. They found that the various grammatical rules governing the proper order of different words in a sentence changed over time, and crucially that there were no fixed associations between them: no correlations such that when one rule changed, another rule had to change at the same time.


This, they say, is inconsistent with the currently dominant linguistic theory of "language universals" fixed by the structure of the human brain/mind. One of the authors has written an excellent explanation here and languagelog has a nice discussion here.

Yet I'm not convinced that "broad human cognitive skills" can explain language. I'm not qualified to comment on the details of this study, but, I do know that the average 7 year old kid has effortlessly learned how to use at least one language, with the appropriate grammar, syntax, and a vocabulary of thousands of words.

On the other hand, take my phone. My phone can't do that. It can, just about, take my voice and convert it into text. It gets it right most of the time. It has absolutely no idea what those words mean. All it can do is send them to Google and search for them.

Speaking of Google, Google Translate is what you get when roomfuls of computers try to "do language". It's useful, it's cool, and it gets it more-or-less right most of the time. But the output it produces is stilted, often ungrammatical, and generally sounds nothing like a native speaker would ever produce.

Let me repeat myself:

On the other hand, take my phone. My phone is that you can not do it. It just converts the text to voice can take me. Most of the time it gets to the right. What is the meaning of the word that has absolutely no idea. That it can, Google, is to send them to find them. Speaking of Google, Google translator you use your computer's roomfuls said, "do language" and attempt to, are obtained. It's cool, then great, but it is more or less right, gets most of the time. However, the output it generates is often exaggerated ungrammatical It sounds more like a native speaker so far generated in general.

That's my last paragraph Google Translated to Japanese and right back. Hmm.

On the other hand my phone can perform millions of arithmetical operations per second. The 7 year old probably takes a minute or two of hard effort to multiply two digits together. So who's got more "general cognitive ability"?

To say that language is a manifestation of human "general" or "broad" cognition is to say that human general cognition is better at learning languages than it is at doing arithmetic: which rather begs the question of how "general" it is.

This doesn't mean that language is a special module of the brain, or that there are "language universals" beyond the fact that they're all languages, though that seems like a pretty big one. But it would take very, very strong evidence to make me doubt that the existence of language is somehow built into the human brain.

Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Levinson SC, & Gray RD (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature PMID: 21490599

Herbs Are Not Your Friends

Rather than nasty artificial drugs, wouldn't it be nice if we could just take some herbs and get better? A lot of people think so. Indeed, a large proportion of our drugs and medicines come from plants, or are closely related to plant chemicals. There's aspirin, morphine, caffeine, cocaine, quinine, and many more. It's as if plants were going out of their way to help us.

In fact, it's more like the opposite. Most of these drugs are poisons, produced by the plant to stop animals (that means you) from eating them. As a plant, you don't want to get eaten, but being, well, rooted to the spot, you can't exactly run away. All you can do is to make animals not want to eat you. So you fill yourself with noxious, or at least nasty-tasting, chemicals.

By contrast, many plants do want their seeds to get swallowed (but not chewed) by animals and birds, because this ensures that they are spread over a wide area. So they wrap them in delicious, colourful packages. This is why, with only a few exceptions, fruit are sweet and safe while while plant leaves, roots and stems are unpleasant, and often toxic.

In fact, this is quite possibly why the taste of bitter is so unpleasant. Plant toxins are usually alkaloids. Animals must have evolved to find alkaloids nasty, because many of them are poisonous and you survive longer if you don't enjoy eating poison.

Caffeine, for example, is found in the seeds ("beans") of the coffee plant, and it makes them taste bitter, to deter herbivores. But those seeds are themselves wrapped in a fruit called the coffee cherry, which is apparently sweet and tasty, although most of them get thrown away in the production of coffee. Coffee wants you to eat the fruit, but swallow the seeds whole, and thereby help spread its DNA. Quinine is one of the bitterest substances on earth, and it's there to protect the bark of the tree. Nicotine is a bitter insecticide. And so on.

There are some plant chemicals which have medicinal effects which are entirely coincidental: St John's Wort for example contains some molecules with interesting effects on animals, which are probably quite unrelated to its role in the plant (it absorbs light). It's also true that plants contain lots of nutrients and the non-toxic ones are, by and large, "healthy" foods, compared to animal products. I say this as a vegetarian. But that doesn't mean that they cure anything.

So the idea that herbal medicines are "natural", and thereby safe, is completely backwards. They are natural; that doesn't make them safe; nature is red in tooth and claw and even the plants are out to get you.

Herbs Are Not Your Friends

Rather than nasty artificial drugs, wouldn't it be nice if we could just take some herbs and get better? A lot of people think so. Indeed, a large proportion of our drugs and medicines come from plants, or are closely related to plant chemicals. There's aspirin, morphine, caffeine, cocaine, quinine, and many more. It's as if plants were going out of their way to help us.

In fact, it's more like the opposite. Most of these drugs are poisons, produced by the plant to stop animals (that means you) from eating them. As a plant, you don't want to get eaten, but being, well, rooted to the spot, you can't exactly run away. All you can do is to make animals not want to eat you. So you fill yourself with noxious, or at least nasty-tasting, chemicals.

By contrast, many plants do want their seeds to get swallowed (but not chewed) by animals and birds, because this ensures that they are spread over a wide area. So they wrap them in delicious, colourful packages. This is why, with only a few exceptions, fruit are sweet and safe while while plant leaves, roots and stems are unpleasant, and often toxic.

In fact, this is quite possibly why the taste of bitter is so unpleasant. Plant toxins are usually alkaloids. Animals must have evolved to find alkaloids nasty, because many of them are poisonous and you survive longer if you don't enjoy eating poison.

Caffeine, for example, is found in the seeds ("beans") of the coffee plant, and it makes them taste bitter, to deter herbivores. But those seeds are themselves wrapped in a fruit called the coffee cherry, which is apparently sweet and tasty, although most of them get thrown away in the production of coffee. Coffee wants you to eat the fruit, but swallow the seeds whole, and thereby help spread its DNA. Quinine is one of the bitterest substances on earth, and it's there to protect the bark of the tree. Nicotine is a bitter insecticide. And so on.

There are some plant chemicals which have medicinal effects which are entirely coincidental: St John's Wort for example contains some molecules with interesting effects on animals, which are probably quite unrelated to its role in the plant (it absorbs light). It's also true that plants contain lots of nutrients and the non-toxic ones are, by and large, "healthy" foods, compared to animal products. I say this as a vegetarian. But that doesn't mean that they cure anything.

So the idea that herbal medicines are "natural", and thereby safe, is completely backwards. They are natural; that doesn't make them safe; nature is red in tooth and claw and even the plants are out to get you.

Marc Hauser's Scapegoat?

The dust is starting to settle after the Hauser-gate scandal which rocked psychology a couple of weeks back.

Harvard Professor Marc Hauser has been investigated by a faculty committee and the verdict was released on the 20th August: Hauser was "found solely responsible... for eight instances of scientific misconduct." He's taking a year's "leave", his future uncertain.

Unfortunately, there has been no official news on what exactly the misconduct was, and how much of Hauser's work is suspect. According to Harvard, only three publications were affected: a 2002 paper in Cognition, which has been retracted; a 2007 paper which has been "corrected" (see below), and another 2007 Science paper, which is still under discussion.

But what happened? Cognition editor Gerry Altmann writes that he was given access to some of the Harvard internal investigation. He concludes that Hauser simply invented some of the crucial data in the retracted 2002 paper.

Essentially, some monkeys were supposed to have been tested on two conditions, X and Y, and their responses were videotaped. The difference in the monkey's behaviour between the two conditions was the scientifically interesting outcome.

In fact, the videos of the experiment showed them being tested only on condition X. There was no video evidence that condition Y was even tested. The "data" from condition Y, and by extension the differences, were, apparently, simply made up.

If this is true, it is, in Altmann's words, "the worst form of academic misconduct." As he says, it's not quite a smoking gun: maybe tapes of Y did exist, but they got lost somehow. However, this seems implausible. If so, Hauser would presumably have told Harvard so in his defence. Yet they found him guilty - and Hauser retracted the paper.

So it seems that either Hauser never tested the monkeys on condition B at all, and just made up the data, or he did test them, saw that they weren't behaving the "right" way, deleted the videos... and just made up the data. Either way it's fraud.

Was this a one-off? The Cognition paper is the only one that's been retracted. But another 2007 paper was "replicated", with Hauser & a colleague recently writing:

In the original [2007] study by Hauser et al., we reported videotaped experiments on action perception with free ranging rhesus macaques living on the island of Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. It has been discovered that the video records and field notes collected by the researcher who performed the experiments (D. Glynn) are incomplete for two of the conditions.

Luckily, Hauser said, when he and a colleague went back to Puerto Rico and repeated the experiment, they found "the exact same pattern of results" as originally reported. Phew.

This note, however, was sent to the journal in July, several weeks before the scandal broke - back when Hauser's reputation was intact. Was this an attempt by Hauser to pin the blame on someone else - David Glynn, who worked as a research assistant in Hauser's lab for three years, and has since left academia?

As I wrote in my previous post:

Glynn was not an author on the only paper which has actually been retracted [the Cognition 2002 paper that Altmann refers to]... according to his resume, he didn't arrive in Hauser's lab until 2005.

Glynn cannot possibly have been involved in the retracted 2002 paper. And Harvard's investigation concluded that Hauser was "solely responsible", remember. So we're to believe that Hauser, guilty of misconduct, was himself an innocent victim of some entirely unrelated mischief in 2007 - but that it was all OK in the end, because when Hauser checked the data, it was fine.

Maybe that's what happened. I am not convinced.

Personally, if I were David Glynn, I would want to clear my name. He's left science, but still, a letter to a peer reviewed journal accuses him of having produced "incomplete video records and field notes", which is not a nice thing to say about someone.

Hmm. On August 19th, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article about the case, based on a leaked Harvard document. They say that "A copy of the document was provided to The Chronicle by a former research assistant in the lab who has since left psychology."

Hmm. Who could blame them for leaking it? It's worth remembering that it was a research assistant in Hauser's lab who originally blew the whistle on the whole deal, according to the Chronicle.

Apparently, what originally rang alarm bells was that Hauser appeared to be reporting monkey behaviours which had never happened, according to the video evidence. So at least in that case, there were videos, and it was the inconsistency between Hauser's data and the videos that drew attention. This is what makes me suspect that maybe there were videos and field notes in every case, and the "inconvenient" ones were deleted to try to hide the smoking gun. But that's just speculation.

What's clear is that science owes the whistle-blowing research assistant, whoever it is, a huge debt.

Marc Hauser's Scapegoat?

The dust is starting to settle after the Hauser-gate scandal which rocked psychology a couple of weeks back.

Harvard Professor Marc Hauser has been investigated by a faculty committee and the verdict was released on the 20th August: Hauser was "found solely responsible... for eight instances of scientific misconduct." He's taking a year's "leave", his future uncertain.

Unfortunately, there has been no official news on what exactly the misconduct was, and how much of Hauser's work is suspect. According to Harvard, only three publications were affected: a 2002 paper in Cognition, which has been retracted; a 2007 paper which has been "corrected" (see below), and another 2007 Science paper, which is still under discussion.

But what happened? Cognition editor Gerry Altmann writes that he was given access to some of the Harvard internal investigation. He concludes that Hauser simply invented some of the crucial data in the retracted 2002 paper.

Essentially, some monkeys were supposed to have been tested on two conditions, X and Y, and their responses were videotaped. The difference in the monkey's behaviour between the two conditions was the scientifically interesting outcome.

In fact, the videos of the experiment showed them being tested only on condition X. There was no video evidence that condition Y was even tested. The "data" from condition Y, and by extension the differences, were, apparently, simply made up.

If this is true, it is, in Altmann's words, "the worst form of academic misconduct." As he says, it's not quite a smoking gun: maybe tapes of Y did exist, but they got lost somehow. However, this seems implausible. If so, Hauser would presumably have told Harvard so in his defence. Yet they found him guilty - and Hauser retracted the paper.

So it seems that either Hauser never tested the monkeys on condition B at all, and just made up the data, or he did test them, saw that they weren't behaving the "right" way, deleted the videos... and just made up the data. Either way it's fraud.

Was this a one-off? The Cognition paper is the only one that's been retracted. But another 2007 paper was "replicated", with Hauser & a colleague recently writing:

In the original [2007] study by Hauser et al., we reported videotaped experiments on action perception with free ranging rhesus macaques living on the island of Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. It has been discovered that the video records and field notes collected by the researcher who performed the experiments (D. Glynn) are incomplete for two of the conditions.

Luckily, Hauser said, when he and a colleague went back to Puerto Rico and repeated the experiment, they found "the exact same pattern of results" as originally reported. Phew.

This note, however, was sent to the journal in July, several weeks before the scandal broke - back when Hauser's reputation was intact. Was this an attempt by Hauser to pin the blame on someone else - David Glynn, who worked as a research assistant in Hauser's lab for three years, and has since left academia?

As I wrote in my previous post:

Glynn was not an author on the only paper which has actually been retracted [the Cognition 2002 paper that Altmann refers to]... according to his resume, he didn't arrive in Hauser's lab until 2005.

Glynn cannot possibly have been involved in the retracted 2002 paper. And Harvard's investigation concluded that Hauser was "solely responsible", remember. So we're to believe that Hauser, guilty of misconduct, was himself an innocent victim of some entirely unrelated mischief in 2007 - but that it was all OK in the end, because when Hauser checked the data, it was fine.

Maybe that's what happened. I am not convinced.

Personally, if I were David Glynn, I would want to clear my name. He's left science, but still, a letter to a peer reviewed journal accuses him of having produced "incomplete video records and field notes", which is not a nice thing to say about someone.

Hmm. On August 19th, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article about the case, based on a leaked Harvard document. They say that "A copy of the document was provided to The Chronicle by a former research assistant in the lab who has since left psychology."

Hmm. Who could blame them for leaking it? It's worth remembering that it was a research assistant in Hauser's lab who originally blew the whistle on the whole deal, according to the Chronicle.

Apparently, what originally rang alarm bells was that Hauser appeared to be reporting monkey behaviours which had never happened, according to the video evidence. So at least in that case, there were videos, and it was the inconsistency between Hauser's data and the videos that drew attention. This is what makes me suspect that maybe there were videos and field notes in every case, and the "inconvenient" ones were deleted to try to hide the smoking gun. But that's just speculation.

What's clear is that science owes the whistle-blowing research assistant, whoever it is, a huge debt.

Hauser Of Cards

Update: Lots of stuff has happened since I wrote this post: see here for more.

A major scandal looks to be in progress involving Harvard Professor Marc Hauser, a psychologist and popular author whose research on the minds of chimpanzees and other primates is well-known and highly respected. The Boston Globe has the scoop and it's well worth a read (though you should avoid reading the comments if you react badly to stupid.)

Hauser's built his career on detailed studies of the cognitive abilities of non-human primates. He's generally argued that our closest relatives are smarter than people had previously believed, with major implications for evolutionary psychology. Now one of his papers has been retracted, another has been "corrected" and a third is under scrutiny. Hauser has also announced that he's taking a year off from his position at Harvard.

It's not clear what exactly is going on, but the problems seem to centre around videotapes of the monkeys that took part in Hauser's experiments. The story begins with a 2007 paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. That paper has just been amended in a statement that appeared in the same journal last month:

In the original study by Hauser et al., we reported videotaped experiments on action perception with free ranging rhesus macaques living on the island of Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. It has been discovered that the video records and field notes collected by the researcher who performed the experiments (D. Glynn) are incomplete for two of the conditions.

The authors of the original paper were Hauser, David Glynn and Justin Wood. In the amendment, which is authored by Hauser and Wood i.e. not Glynn, they say that upon discovering the issues with Glynn's data, they went back to Puerto Rico, did the studies again, and confirmed that the original results were valid. Glynn left academia in 2007, to work for a Boston company, Innerscope Research, according to this online resume.

If that was the whole of the scandal it wouldn't be such a big deal, but according to the Boston Globe, that was just the start. David Glynn was also an author on a second paper which is now under scrutiny. It was published in Science 2007, with the authors listed as Wood, Glynn, Brenda Phillips and Hauser.

However, crucially, Glynn was not an author on the only paper which has actually been retracted, "Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins". This appeared in the journal Cognition in 2002. The three authors were Hauser, Daniel Weiss and Gary Marcus. David Glynn wasn't mentioned in the acknowledgements section either, and according to his resume, he didn't arrive in Hauser's lab until 2005.

So the problem, whatever it is, is not limited to Glynn.

Not was Glynn an author on the final paper mentioned in the Boston Globe, a 1995 article by Hauser, Kralik, Botto-Mahan, Garrett, and Oser. Note that the Globe doesn't say that this paper is formally under investigation, but rather, that it was mentioned in an interview by researcher Gordon G. Gallup who says that when he viewed the videotapes of the monkeys from that study, he didn't observe the behaviours which Hauser et al. said were present. Gallup is famous for his paper "Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?" in which he examined the question of whether semen... oh, guess.

The crucial issue for scientists is whether the problems are limited to the three papers that have so far been officially investigated or whether it goes further: that's an entirely open question right now.

In Summary: We don't know what is going on here and it would be premature to jump to conclusions. However, the only author who appears on all of the papers known to be under scrutiny, is Marc Hauser himself.

Hauser MD, Weiss D, & Marcus G (2002). Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 86 (1) PMID: 12208654

Hauser MD, Glynn D, & Wood J (2007). Rhesus monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 274 (1620), 1913-8 PMID: 17540661

Wood JN, Glynn DD, Phillips BC, & Hauser MD (2007). The perception of rational, goal-directed action in nonhuman primates. Science (New York, N.Y.), 317 (5843), 1402-5 PMID: 17823353

Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C, Garrett M, & Oser J (1995). Self-recognition in primates: phylogeny and the salience of species-typical features. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92 (23), 10811-14 PMID: 7479889

Hauser Of Cards

Update: Lots of stuff has happened since I wrote this post: see here for more.

A major scandal looks to be in progress involving Harvard Professor Marc Hauser, a psychologist and popular author whose research on the minds of chimpanzees and other primates is well-known and highly respected. The Boston Globe has the scoop and it's well worth a read (though you should avoid reading the comments if you react badly to stupid.)

Hauser's built his career on detailed studies of the cognitive abilities of non-human primates. He's generally argued that our closest relatives are smarter than people had previously believed, with major implications for evolutionary psychology. Now one of his papers has been retracted, another has been "corrected" and a third is under scrutiny. Hauser has also announced that he's taking a year off from his position at Harvard.

It's not clear what exactly is going on, but the problems seem to centre around videotapes of the monkeys that took part in Hauser's experiments. The story begins with a 2007 paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. That paper has just been amended in a statement that appeared in the same journal last month:

In the original study by Hauser et al., we reported videotaped experiments on action perception with free ranging rhesus macaques living on the island of Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. It has been discovered that the video records and field notes collected by the researcher who performed the experiments (D. Glynn) are incomplete for two of the conditions.

The authors of the original paper were Hauser, David Glynn and Justin Wood. In the amendment, which is authored by Hauser and Wood i.e. not Glynn, they say that upon discovering the issues with Glynn's data, they went back to Puerto Rico, did the studies again, and confirmed that the original results were valid. Glynn left academia in 2007, to work for a Boston company, Innerscope Research, according to this online resume.

If that was the whole of the scandal it wouldn't be such a big deal, but according to the Boston Globe, that was just the start. David Glynn was also an author on a second paper which is now under scrutiny. It was published in Science 2007, with the authors listed as Wood, Glynn, Brenda Phillips and Hauser.

However, crucially, Glynn was not an author on the only paper which has actually been retracted, "Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins". This appeared in the journal Cognition in 2002. The three authors were Hauser, Daniel Weiss and Gary Marcus. David Glynn wasn't mentioned in the acknowledgements section either, and according to his resume, he didn't arrive in Hauser's lab until 2005.

So the problem, whatever it is, is not limited to Glynn.

Not was Glynn an author on the final paper mentioned in the Boston Globe, a 1995 article by Hauser, Kralik, Botto-Mahan, Garrett, and Oser. Note that the Globe doesn't say that this paper is formally under investigation, but rather, that it was mentioned in an interview by researcher Gordon G. Gallup who says that when he viewed the videotapes of the monkeys from that study, he didn't observe the behaviours which Hauser et al. said were present. Gallup is famous for his paper "Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?" in which he examined the question of whether semen... oh, guess.

The crucial issue for scientists is whether the problems are limited to the three papers that have so far been officially investigated or whether it goes further: that's an entirely open question right now.

In Summary: We don't know what is going on here and it would be premature to jump to conclusions. However, the only author who appears on all of the papers known to be under scrutiny, is Marc Hauser himself.

Hauser MD, Weiss D, & Marcus G (2002). Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 86 (1) PMID: 12208654

Hauser MD, Glynn D, & Wood J (2007). Rhesus monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 274 (1620), 1913-8 PMID: 17540661

Wood JN, Glynn DD, Phillips BC, & Hauser MD (2007). The perception of rational, goal-directed action in nonhuman primates. Science (New York, N.Y.), 317 (5843), 1402-5 PMID: 17823353

Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C, Garrett M, & Oser J (1995). Self-recognition in primates: phylogeny and the salience of species-typical features. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92 (23), 10811-14 PMID: 7479889

Meowvolutionary Psychology

You know that thing cats do when they rub up against your legs? Did they evolve to do that?

The most sensible answer is probably "who cares, it's cute", but bear with me; a closer examination of this adorable behaviour sheds light on some more serious questions.

On one level, they obviously didn't. Cats have only been domesticated since maybe 8,000 BC. For millions of years prior, they evolved to live and hunt on their own, never interacting with humans. Domestication has led to some changes in the cat's behaviour - compared to wildcats they are generally tamer around humans, unsurprisingly - but no-one bred cats to rub up against our legs.

But on another level, evolution must be responsible. Cats all around the world do it, and we don't teach them to do it, they just decide to spontaneously. Maybe we sometimes teach them that it works for getting food, thus making them do it more often, but we don't give them the idea originally. It's an "innate" behaviour.

As I see it, leg-rubbing is based on the cat's instinct for scent-marking objects by rubbing the side of their heads against them (they have glands there although we humans can't smell them). My cats love doing this to chairs, table legs, etc. This behaviour evolved as a way for wildcats to mark out territories etc. They also like to rub up against other friendly cats as a social behaviour, probably as a way of making the whole "herd" smell the same. They do it to your legs, because in their minds you're a member of their herd... or maybe just because your legs are a bit like a chair.

Either way, leg-rubbing is an evolved behaviour, but cats didn't evolve to do it; they do it because of the interaction between their natural instincts and their artificial environment. This goes for a lot of other things too. Cats didn't evolve to drink cow's milk from bowls, they evolved to drink water from puddles, but they drink milk from bowls because evolution decided to make them like (cat's) milk (much like cow's milk), and to drink from wherever they need to. They didn't evolve to play with string, they evolved to catch mice, but... and so on.

How about us? I think the same, broadly speaking, applies. Of course we are unique amongst the animals in having human intelligence, language, conceptual thinking, etc. We are not just domesticated chimps, right? But this doesn't mean we're entirely unique. We have the same drives and emotions as other animals (maybe more, but surely not less), and the same brain mechanisms underly them. This is why if you give a mouse anti-obesity drugs they lose weight, and if you give them Valium they chill out.

One way of thinking about the human situation is that we are indeed just domesticated chimps, but with the catch that in the process of "domestication" we found ourselves transported into an entirely new environment: a more complex world. That's what having a more intelligent brain does for you, really - it expands your world. Compared to a chimp, still less a cat, we inhabit another planet entirely. But the old drives are still operating: we just have new ways of trying to satisfy them.

Here's an example. Few things are more uniquely human than modern surgery - animals can't do it (although my cat is quite good at cutting things open, his patients rarely survive), and it requires a huge amount of forward planning and accumulated knowledge. Of course we didn't evolve to perform operations.

But when a surgeon does cosmetic surgery, they're nevertheless obeying evolution. We find certain patterns of facial shape more attractive than others, e.g. we generally like symmetry, youthfulness, sexual dimorphism, and these preferences are largely innate. Presumably, these preferences evolved to make us want to have babies with people carrying "good genes" of the correct reproductive age. We didn't evolve to modify faces surgically, but cats didn't evolve to rub our legs. The same preferences that have guided the eye of eager singles for millennia now guide the surgeon's hand.

Does the whole of human culture consists of us trying to satisfy our primitive desires with our newly intelligent brains? I don't know. It certainly seems a big stretch to say that all art, politics and music are based on "primitive" preferences. But maybe it'll always take a big stretch to explain all that.