You have read it in black and white: the economy is improving: Factories are hiring. Adding 200,000 jobs in December cut the unemployment rate to 8.5 percent. Consumer confidence is rising, and cars are selling again.

Meanwhile, corporate profits hit a record $2-trillion a year, and since the cataclysm in 2008, real gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services, has grown for more than two years.

These economic measures are broad, ubiquitous and reliable, but there are other ways to measure the economy. If you poke around, you’ll find economists — on Wall Street and Elm Street alike — with their own idiosyncratic economic indicators.

Like the GDP and unemployment rate, many are less forecasting tools than measures of the current economy. That may diminish their prognostic value, but not their human-humorous-interest value.

To stay or to vacate?

Vacations, however necessary, can be expensive, and so when the economy tanked in 2008, we began to hear about the cost-cutting “staycation.” By taking time off from work (assuming we had a job…) without leaving home, we could enjoy friends, family and local attractions: parks, museums, lakes and beaches.

We could, in other words, enjoy many of the benefits of a vacation while ducking the hefty price tag. Staycations can have pizazz: would you rather be taking off your shoes in a frenetic airport or building a tree house with the kids?

We failed to find anybody who studies staycations, so the best we can say about their merit as economic indicators is that past performance is no guarantee of future success; read the full prospectus before investing!

Vacant at home

It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to deduce from foreclosure stats or photos of abandoned houses that housing remains a black hole in the American economy. But like the staycation, a foreclosure boom follows a sour economy, and is more informative about the immediate past than about the immediate future.

We were, however, intrigued to learn that foreclosure could be a disease vector. Clouds of mosquitoes are breeding in abandoned ponds and swimming pools at foreclosed homes in Arizona.

That gives us another reason to hate skeeters, even if their whine is the sound of love.

Sports: No rush to the finish line

Pro-sport tickets are not cheap, so a full stadium must signify a healthy economy. But it ain’t necessarily so, says Andrew Billings, who studies broadcasting and sports at the University of Alabama. “People often get a flawed picture from simply going by attendance figures. It depends on the sport.”

In the National Football League, he notes, “the majority of stadiums sell out, and demand far exceeds supply.” Before a sick economy leads to empty seats, he says, it deflates ticket prices on resale markets, “but you will still see a full stadium, and may think the economy must not be too bad, even if the demand is cut in half.”

And don’t bother counting duffers at a private golf course, either, Billings says. A full golf course “is not always a straight-off indicator of prosperity,” because the major expense is the cost of membership. “For many people, once they have bought the membership, the costs are sunk, and golf becomes the cheap option for entertainment.”

When money is tight, he says, “They may be playing twice as frequently because it’s already paid for.”

Big screen, big sales, bogus economic indicator?

You might think sales of pricy electronic goods, including those “mine-is-bigger-than-yours” TVs, would closely track prosperity, but Billings says they “may be another misleading measure.”

Many of those giant video screens, more suited to aircraft hangers than living rooms, are bought to watch sports, and looking at the full economic picture reveals the folly of the sales = prosperity equation, he says.

Consider the cost of season tickets for big-league sports — up to $20,000 for a seat behind home plate at the New York Yankees. When times get bad, Billings says, “The buyer may think, ‘Why don’t I get a $2,000 TV and the major-league baseball package? Once you add in parking and food, sports can be very expensive, and that makes the flat screen look pretty cheap.”

Although another flat-screen sale may contribute to the image of prosperity, Billings says, this fan “has really cut their budget to avoid going to the stadium.”

Pretty Byzantine?

How do we get a measure of economic activity in the long, dark epoch before the invention of the GDP or the flat-screen television? In the 14th century, during the death throes of the Byzantine empire, the church was an economic engine and a wealth center. If you bought a marriage license, you paid the church, which also owned buildings, even entire communities.

Because churches hold some of the best documents from the period, some scholars have proposed using records of church wealth as a proxy for economic development — or decline — during this benighted epoch before the spreadsheet was envisioned.

Garbage everywhere

With the possible exception of unwrapped broccoli from a local farm, everything you buy creates garbage, and the garbage disposal system is always affected by economic slowdowns.

Duh.

But we were surprised to hear that garbage can offer almost a real-time economic readout. According to Edward Humes, author of the forthcoming book Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair with Trash, “Until the housing bubble burst, the largest landfill in the country, by intake, was Puente Hills in Los Angeles County, which was taking up to the legal limit, 13,000 tons per day. This was cut in half after the housing bubble burst. Home construction and demolition debris fell as construction stopped, and people started buying less stuff.”

Construction fell so quickly, Humes says, that “Landfill operators probably saw [bad economic] things coming ahead of a lot of the rest of us.”

Even “durable goods” can quickly start bulking up the garbage stream, he says. “So much of what we buy is pretty ephemeral, even the stuff defined as durable goods must last just one year. A lot of it is designed to be thrown away; not fixed. The age of the TV repairman is long behind us.”

Garbage tells us about more than just economics, Humes adds. “It’s a little scary, one of our greatest exports is trash. We used to make things, and now we make trash.”

Although high garbage flows correlate to prosperity, Humes says the linkage cannot last forever. “Every culture figures out” that wasting resources is not a long-term solution, he says. “Suddenly, when resources are scarce, humans get more conscious of how much they have wasted, but by then it’s too late.”

Night lights, big city

Can lights at night, as seen from space, measure a region’s economy? After all, lighting requires bulbs, generators, energy and wires, so the argument has face validity. But a 2011 study returned mixed results. Night lights were a useful gauge in 25 percent to 33 percent of counties in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). In India, night lights gave a useful picture of local GDP in a “very small number” of districts.

And in China, fewer than 10 percent of districts showed a significant correlation between night lights and GDP. One reason: light from the intense coastal urbanization overwhelmed the satellite’s sensors and could not be measured accurately.

Underwater underwear

Alan Greenspan, who ran the Federal Reserve for oh-so-many years, was said to favor sales of men’s underwear as an economic indicator. His theory: When times get tight, men decide to forgo the pleasure of a new pair of briefs or boxers.

We were unable to unearth evidence for this notion, but wish to ask two follow-up questions: Do sales of women’s underwear convey an economic message? And how do you know?

Stick with lipstick?

If men can withstand the urge to buy boxers and briefs, women apparently can’t cut back on “small indulgences” like lipstick. In 2001, the chair of Estee Lauder coined “lipstick index” to explain why lipstick sales rise during a bad economy.

Going to war

For some, the military is a job of last resort, and so the number and quality of new recruits offers a proxy for economic conditions.

But military recruiting ads may be just as telling as the numbers. In 2009, the New York Times described a new Marines ad showing “men crawling through mud and under barbed wire, being smacked in the head with padded fighting sticks, vomiting after inhaling tear gas and diving, boots and all, into a swimming pool.”

With so many potential recruits in the job market, the ad didn’t bother soft-selling the rigors of Marine life.

Recouping the coupons

When pressed for coins, why not cash in on those coupons that clutter mailboxes and newspapers? In hard times, coupon redemptions do rise, according to a company that processes them.

Skirting the economic reality?

If we can believe QI, a quiz show from the United Kingdom, long hair and short skirts are both signs of prosperity. Hey, we tried, but failed, to track this revelation back to a legit study, but still give thanks to reader “St Ga” for the suggestion, and for an elegant mix-mastering of cause and effect: “If the government makes short skirts & long hair compulsory for EVERYONE will the economy improve? :)”

We wish.

Forget that secret childhood crush, forget those teenage indiscretions you posted on Facebook and cannot escape.

Is this your deepest secret — that you actually look forward to the holidays?

Lucky you. For the rest of us, we’re stuck on those holiday-stress media fretlines: over-drinking, under-sleeping and indecent exposure to idiotic in-laws.

Not to mention getting mauled at the mall.

These “Beware: awful-holidays ahead” warnings make little sense to us. Sure, there’s relentless pressure to consume — material goods, foods and alcohol alike. And even if the buy! pressure has intensified (did 24/7 coverage of Black Friday mean it was more important than killing Osama Bin Laden?), those holiday-stress headlines are nothing new.

And if the holidays are so horrid, why do we still have them?

In other words, what have Christmas, Hanukah and New Year’s and Kwanzaa done for us lately?

Maybe not so awful after all?

Because holidays are not (yet?) considered psychological disorders, they get less study than, say, post-traumatic stress disorder or autism. Still, The Why Files rounded up some experts — mainly positive psychologists — to discuss the upside of the holidays.

Holidays can be a spur to beneficial changes, says Robert McGrath, coordinator of student mind/body wellness services at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  ”The disruption to routine that they create can serve as an opportunity to change.  For example, if you’ve been meaning to catch up with a friend for months, the holidays may help bring that deeper priority to the surface.”

The tradition of cooking and distributing sweets can serve as an excuse to walk over to see neighbors we always intend to visit. And New Years resolutions can become a socially sanctioned reason to make beneficial changes to diet, exercise, social involvement or volunteerism.

Rituals, religious and otherwise

However, much of the power of holidays is embodied in things that don’t change, says Lee Ann de Reus, an associate professor of human development and family studies at Penn State University in Altoona. “One thing we know about healthy families is that they incorporate rituals, and that certainly comes with holidays, no matter what your tradition.”

Rituals, she says, can range all over the map, from attending religious services like midnight mass to holding ceremonial feasts at the same house, or eating the same foods, prepared by the same family cooks.

De Reus solicits examples from her students, and says, “Some open all their gifts on Christmas eve, some open one on Christmas eve and everything else next morning. Families may have traditions about who they invite for Hanukah or who takes part in ceremonies around the dinner table.”

Many traditions are unique and whimsical, de Reus adds. “In one family, everybody gets a new set of pajamas, and wears them to open gifts. They may watch a specific film or stay up all night playing Trivial Pursuit. And a lot of traditions revolve around food preparation.”

Reading ritual

Rituals are not just about repetition, de Reus says. “We know that ritual gives multiple things. It’s a way to transmit values, it’s a way to reconnect in a meaningful way, and it brings families together, even families that don’t necessarily get along outside the holidays.”

After a divorce, she says, tradition can temporarily trump animosity. “The parents may put their differences aside; they may come together for the sake of the children.”

College students from families that have split up “often can work it out, spending Christmas eve with one part of the family, and Christmas day with the other part,” says McGrath “But when it has not been worked out, they must choose to be with one parent, and the other one can feel very hurt.”

Ritual also provides a chance for a family to reconnect with its history, de Reus says. “If I ask college age students about their favorite memories about growing up, you can bet the majority are going to talk about some sort of event, memory, probably involving a ritual, often around a holiday or a birthday.”

Ritual, de Reus says, “tells us what are we about, helps a family to regain its center. Maybe they have strayed from these values, are too caught up in consumerism, materialism. It takes an assertive parent to push back against the larger societal pressures that exist around holidays: drinking, overindulgence, mass consumerism. I think we totally underestimate the value and importance of ritual in family life.”

Total togetherness

Holidays bring together many of the most important people in our lives, and, as McGrath points out, researchers regularly find a strong relationship between happiness and time with family and friends, “especially if the gathering is for positive reasons rather than to deal with problems. In terms of the positive experience, just being with people is the key. I don’t know that people come back from the holidays and say, ‘I did not get a good present.’”

The good-will that comes from these gatherings need not end with the holidays, McGrath says. “A positive note is to realize that you can enjoy those same activities daily: eat meals mindfully and enjoy them, have fun with friends and family, share stories, and practice giving often.”

What do you expect?

Part of the holiday-blues problem may exist in excessive expectations, says Leaf Van Boven, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Colorado. “There are very clear cultural stereotypes for what ought to happen at the holidays, for how people will behave, for gifts that will be exchanged. For most people, the holidays don’t meet that expectation, so there can be a sense of disappointment, but that is very different from saying we don’t actually enjoy ourselves.”

And while holidays can be times of reduced stress, “That’s not to say no stress, which is often the expectation,” says Van Boven. “For most people, holidays involve spending time with close others, family and friends.” Sure, those relationships can carry their own challenges, “but most people enjoy spending time with friends and family more than they do spending time at work.”

Money can’t buy me love

The pressure to buy, Buy! BUY!! can be a major source of holiday stress, but a growing body of evidence shows that ’tis truly “better to give than to receive.” In a 2008 study, Elizabeth Dunn, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, gave college students either $5 or $20, and directed them to spend it on themselves, or on a charitable donation or a gift by 5 p.m.

That night, the students who gave away the money reported a higher level of happiness, and the real kicker was being with the beneficiary, Dunn adds. “We did not say you have to give it and walk away. A lot of people took a friend for lunch or bought a toy for a younger sibling.”

The curious thing is that this preference does not operate at the conscious level, Dunn says. Most people think that it make them happier to receive $20 to spend on themselves, she says. “It’s not that they love to give, but when we give them those amounts to spend on someone else, they are more happy.”

For a 2010 study,¹ Dunn put players through a game that allowed them to donate money to another player, and found that the stingy players had less positive emotions, more negative emotions, and higher levels of both shame and stress hormones.

Not so bad after all?

If we’re getting the picture that giving reasonable gifts and hanging out with friends and family make the holidays less painful than medieval dentistry, that’s the message we got from a rare study of Christmas happiness. In 2002, Tim Kasser of Knox College (Illinois) found that a 57 percent of a small sample said Christmas was not stressful.

That, Kasser told us by email, is still a “reasonably high level of stress … around the midpoint of the scale.” Women and people who focused on spending had higher levels of stress.

Yet Christmas may still be “merry,” Kasser wrote. “While levels of life satisfaction and negative emotions were more or less the same as what people report at other times of the year, people do report somewhat higher levels of pleasant emotions during Xmas.”

The study² found more satisfaction among people who focused on family time and took part in religious activities, and less among those who focused on consumption.

“It seems that connecting with others and with something ‘bigger than yourself’ promotes higher levels of well-being; that’s consistent with past research, as is the finding the materialism undermines well-being,” Kasser wrote. “It is not much fun to be fighting the crowds and most research shows that shopping is rarely an inherently engaging and interesting activity.”

(You’ve got to) Accentuate the positive

All of these observations seem to explain why the winter holidays have survived the headlines about holiday horrors. “The big three holidays are good ways of maximizing those things that we tend find most enjoyable, and probably go a long way toward explaining why they are so powerful emotionally, why they persist,” says Van Boven.

One way to cut holiday stress, Van Boven says, “Is to think about what we value in the holidays, what really matters, and then try to behave in way that reflects those values. Often that kind of exercise can be extremely transformative, will get you out of the gift-giving rat race, and more toward the development of social engagement.”

Dunn adds that giving can be more emotionally satisfying when it involves personal contact. “When you have the opportunity to give so you can see the positive impact, that’s when the potential happiness benefit of Christmas giving is greatest. If your mother-in-law loves pedicures, you could buy her a gift certificate, but I think the research shows that it’s better to make the appointment and go with her. That’s the critical piece. If you can turn the gift into an opportunity for social connection, that’s going to maximize the benefit.”

Almost four years after the economy started sliding into the Great Recession, unemployment in the United States is still at 9.1 percent. On Sept. 1, the White House announced that it expected a 9 percent rate at least through the presidential election.

And on Sept. 13, the Labor Department revealed that the poverty rate had reached 15.1 percent, a rate not seen since 1993. A family of four must have income below $22,314 to qualify as poor.

Those numbers hide even more grievous problems: Among blacks, the rate is 16.7 percent, and among all Americans under age 24, it’s 18 percent.

And if you count discouraged workers, who have quit looking for a job, and part-time workers who would prefer full-time work, the rate soars to 16.2 percent — or 14 million Americans.

All this, and the average period of unemployment has stretched to 22.9 weeks.

Who is looking for work? It’s easier to ask who isn’t…. According to new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, men, single parents, young adults, and people with less education have been hit harder. Marybeth Mattingly, a research assistant professor of sociology who directs research on vulnerable families, says, “Jobs in manufacturing and construction have disappeared in the recession and they may or may not be coming back, and these tend to be jobs held by men and the less educated.”

Beyond the numbers

Unemployment is not just about economics. Psychologist Maria Jahoda argued in the 1930s that employment provides latent byproducts, hidden things,” says economist Arthur Goldsmith of Washington and Lee University. “She said people always see the explicit benefit — the wage — but employment also organizes your day, gives you a way to connect to other people, status; there are many other things associated with work. If all you do is say, ‘We have a lot of unemployment, the GNP is down 1.4 percent,’ you don’t capture the potential psychological and social costs.”

Goldsmith adds that developmental psychologist Erik Erikson said “your sense of self is undermined by an incapacity to become a self-sustaining member of society.”

In 2011, the psychological effects of unemployment are compounded by a devastating surge in foreclosures: Millions of families are confronting poverty and being forced to find a place to live. “Foreclosure has been an enormous part of this narrative that does not always happen with a wave of unemployment,” says Goldsmith.

And so we got to wondering. Beyond the obvious — and ominous — economic harm from unemployment, what does it do to self-esteem, psychological health, the willingness to get up and face the world with diminished prospects? In a time when so many people identify themselves by their occupation – what does it mean to be out of work?

Suffer the children

Being laid off, even when you are one of millions with the same problem, can lead to “why me?” questions, and to doubts about your self-worth, about your role and utility in society.

When the story ends with a well-paid, fulfilling job, these doubts usually answer themselves.

Otherwise, these doubts can easily lead to brooding, depression, despair, isolation and anxiety – even apparently to child abuse. A study presented in April¹ found that the incidence of shaken baby syndrome had doubled in the Great Recession (December 2007 through June 2010), compared to a prior period of prosperity.

Babies have weak neck muscles, so severe shaking can cause violent head movement and serious, even fatal brain injury. Shaking, often by angry, frustrated care-givers who cannot stop the baby’s crying, causes an estimated 1,300 such head injuries each year. Surviving children can have varying degrees of visual, motor or cognitive damage, or even end up in a permanent vegetative state — a coma.

Beyond a doubling of the rate of such abuse, the researchers also saw trends toward graver injury and a higher death rate, though they were not statistically significant.

Suffer the teachers!

In a study of school behavior among children of single mothers that started in the 1990s, Heather Hill, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, found a higher level of problems among children of mothers who had been out of work years earlier.

The study was intended to explore the effects of welfare reform, which mandated that welfare mothers find jobs, and was performed when their children were 8 to 10 years old, five years after some of their mothers had been unemployed for at least three months.

The teachers reported a rise in both “external” problem behavior, such as acting out or disobedience, and “internal” behaviors, such as seeming depressed or anxious. “Problem behavior captures how they are coping, processing, as they have to sit in class, pay attention, stay on task, and do what they are told,” Hill told us.

Both categories of behavior were much more prevalent among the children of mothers who had been unemployed years earlier. The delayed reaction reflects the fact that early childhood sets the stage for future achievement and adjustment, Hill says. “The early years, prior to starting school, are very important for the developmental process.”

Life on the line?

The stakes in unemployment may be even greater, however. A new analysis of 42 studies, mainly performed in western nations, found a 63 percent increase in deaths (78 percent for men) among those who had been unemployed.

Although this deadly impact probably reflects financial and physical roots, not just emotional ones, “Our study results clearly indicate that unemployment is not just bad for your pocketbook; it’s also bad for your health,” said Joseph E. Schwartz, professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at the Stony Brook University School of Medicine in New York, in a press release. “The results suggest a causal relationship between unemployment and higher risk of death, as well as the need to identify strategies to minimize the adverse health effects of unemployment.”

Map: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The analysis of unemployment and mortality data, which covered 20 million people, showed that a significant history of job loss raised the risk of death by 75 percent among people younger than 50. The elevated risk of mortality was 25 percent among older people.

Bright spots in a dark picture

Could the woes of unemployment be temporary? In a study of 774 Germans who lost their jobs between 1984 and 2003, psychiatrist Isaac Galatzer-Levy of the New York University School of Medicine found that most people had regained their emotional equilibrium within a year.

The participants were divided into four groups based on how satisfied they with their lives. The largest group, 69 percent, reported a relatively high and stable level of life satisfaction before job loss, and although they were affected more severely by unemployment, a year later their life satisfaction was restored to its pre-unemployment level.

Although life satisfaction scores were less positive among the other subjects, the results tend to refute the standard view of unemployment, says Galatzer-Levy. “There’s a real concern that [unemployment] will have long-term implications on the mental well-being of a large portion of the work force. But this analysis suggests that people are able to cope with a job loss relatively well over time.”

We tried to reach Galatzer-Levy to ask how well results from Germany, where unemployment is lower than in the United States, apply to the United States, but we could not connect. But by looking at the same people before and after they lost their jobs, the study sidestepped a basic pitfall in understanding the psychological outcome of unemployment: the problem of causation.

A word on method

In science, an experiment is the cleanest way to establish cause and effect, but this technique does not apply to studying the psychology of persistent unemployment. Instead, researchers try to correlate unemployment and health, behavior or psychological well-being.

They ask, are people with jobs healthier, happier, or more stable than those without?

But finding that two things go together — are correlated — cannot distinguish cause and effect. To take an obvious example, unemployment could cause psychological depression, or depression could cause unemployment.

The correlation between unemployment and psychological harm dates to the Great Depression of the 1930s, Goldsmith says. To get a better picture of causality, researchers began to follow individuals over time, as the German study did. Having evidence of mental-health and job status in 2010 and again in 2011 helps pinpoint cause and effect, Goldsmith says, but “Unfortunately, many things could also happen during this period,” and some could override employment status.

A grimmer picture

In an effort to refine the methodology, Goldsmith and colleagues are completing a study on the psychology of unemployment, using data from 2002 and ‘03. The first step was to exclude people with a history of psychological difficulties.

“We focused on people who have never had a psychological problem, or had a first bout of poor mental health in the past year,” Goldsmith says. “We all lose girlfriends, dogs, our surfboards get dented, but these are pretty tough people.”

Among subjects who were fully employed and then were unemployed, the researchers statistically controlled for education, work experience, marital status, having children, and church membership, all of which can buffer assaults on mental health.

The goal, Goldsmith says, was to tease out the psychological effects of unemployment from the other slings and arrows of unfortunate fortune. “Suppose you were unemployed last year, and had your first ever bout of poor emotional well-being. It’s hard to believe that caused your unemployment, because we know you are resilient.”

The study, which has not yet passed peer review, included contributions from Tim Diette, Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. The results, Goldsmith says, show that long-term joblessness has an especially severe emotional impact among those with more education. “This is not surprising, those are the kind of people who have an internal locus of control, a lot of self efficacy, have always had the sense that they could govern the things that happen to them.”

Similarly, a study of 9,570 people found that those who were conscientious — and likely to fulfill their obligations — had a 120 percent greater decrease in life satisfaction during unemployment. “Thus the positive relationship typically seen between conscientiousness and well-being is reversed: conscientiousness is therefore not always good for well-being,” the authors wrote².

Although Goldsmith found a small detriment following unemployment of less than 15 weeks, people with longer unemployment were almost twice as likely as employed people to evince depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder. “These are not trivial diagnoses, they are very serious, can be long lasting,” Goldsmith says. “They can spill over and have effects on people around you.”

Thus the emotional fallout is not restricted to the 16 percent of Americans who are unemployed, discouraged, or involuntarily working part time, Goldsmith contends. “These people have spouses, children, grandchildren, and former coworkers. This says to policy makers that the cost of joblessness is more than financial, there is a substantial social consequence, and while we are having this debate about budget deficits, we ought not to forget that putting people to work does not just produce output, but also greater well-being as a society.”

— David J. Tenenbaum

In a world studded with intractable conflicts, none seems more nettlesome than he one between Israelis and Palestinians. In this and many other conflicts, people are often trained to believe the worst about the other side, who are variously stereotyped as immoral occupiers or immoral terrorists.

These conflicts, as history has shown, are not ideal for peacemaking based on compromise, and yet the conflicts in Northern Ireland and South Africa have come to peaceful resolutions.

But during the conflict, even mentioning the opposing side can backfire, says Eran Halperin, a professor of political psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya Israel. “When you try to tell an Israeli something positive about a Palestinian, or vice versa, the immediate reaction is defensive. In many cases, they are not willing to hear positive information about the other side.”

A sideways approach, however, may be more effective at changing attitudes and creating a willingness to compromise. In a study just published in Science¹, Halperin and co-authors demonstrated that simply reading a few sentences about the successful resolutions of historic conflicts elsewhere made Israelis and Palestinians more amenable to compromise.

“There are positive pieces of information that the parties could absorb, that could lead to a change in positions,” says Halperin, “but people in almost every group involved in a conflict are not willing to hear it. But if you try to go more indirectly … to talk in a general way, you hope they will apply these beliefs to the other group, and this is what our results show.”

Testing tolerance

In a series of experiments, Halperin and colleagues asked Palestinians and Jewish and Arab Israelis to read a few paragraphs in a supposed “reading comprehension” test. Then, as part of a supposedly different study, the same people were asked about their attitudes toward the opposing side.

The tested paragraphs that contained a more positive interpretation of history strongly affected willingness to compromise to resolve conflicts.

Instead of confronting the subjects by stressing that the other side could change its views, Halperin says, the test paragraphs “say that people in other conflicts went through meaningful change in their positions and behavior, and we expect people to understand by themselves that this can happen here.”

The study opens a crack in the despair aroused by prolonged conflicts, says Halperin. “We have now the first indication of what kind of message we should convey to people, to make them more open to the other side. And we already have preliminary data showing that the exact same pattern occurs in other long-term intractable conflicts around the world.”

Still to come, he acknowledges, is “the biggest challenge, using a larger scale intervention to make these changes.” Using the education system and mass media, he proposes a “simple message: Groups change, and behavior that is violent and immoral is a result of a specific situation, leaders and economics. They are not the result of a long-term culture with a fixed character.”

The intervention was focused on hope, Halperin says. “One of the biggest barriers to peace is because people don’t have hope, they don’t believe that the other group can change. If you don’t believe the other side can change its attitude, and as a result its behavior, there is no reason to offer a gesture or compromise, to take a risk in negotiation, and then you can’t make any progress in any intergroup conflict.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

El Niños, the global cycles of weather that are driven by a hot spot in the tropical Pacific Ocean, have been linked to drought, storms and famine in many parts of the tropics.

Today, a study in Nature finds that deadly conflicts have started twice as often during the el Niño years – but only in the many countries affected by el Niño.

Scientific interest in el Niño mushroomed during the 1980s, when climate experts began to correlate historic cycles of anchovy harvests along the west coast of South America with changes in weather thousands of kilometers distant, and eventually unraveled a planetary cycle driven by the appearance of huge pools of warm water in the western Pacific.

Because the warming seemed to coincide with Christmas, it was called el Niño, for the Christ Child.

El Niño is now recognized as the warm-water segment of the el Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which also includes a cold-water counterpart called la Nina. Now acknowledged as an engine of global climate, el Niño is linked to prolonged droughts, heat waves and crop failures.

Previous efforts to study whether weather and global warming could affect war have related past environmental changes with conflict and the decline of civilizations, says Solomon Hsiang, who completed the new study as a graduate student at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. But the studies tended to be case-by-case, he notes, and “even if every conflict or collapse happened at random, some would occur during a period of environmental change, so this isn’t compelling evidence.”

Looking carefully

To study the issue more systematically, Hsiang and collaborators Mark Cane and Kyle Meng:

The data showed that conflicts are twice as likely to start during an el Niño, says Hsiang, and that 21 percent of overall conflicts can be attributed to el Niño. The increase was only seen in countries strongly affected by el Niño.

Surprisingly, the average changes wrought by an el Niño are quite minor, Hsiang admits – about 0.05°C rise in temperature, and about 0.1 millimeter reduction in daily rainfall.

Small is … powerful?

How could such minor changes affect warfare?

A study that correlates data does not show why they are related, but there are many ways that seemingly small effects could change human behavior, says Hsiang, who is now at Princeton University, especially considering that averages can conceal major alterations in different locations:

However, Marshall Burke, who published an influential 2009 paper ¹ that found a significant increase in warfare during hot weather in sub-Saharan Africa, noted by email that the increase in conflict was seen only inside the el Niño region, and thus, “We might conclude that these global market mechanisms are not at work.”

Still, the new study adds something to the discussion, Burke says. “The [Hsiang] paper’s main innovation is in linking historical changes in the global climate to conflict risk, whereas past studies (including ours in PNAS) looked only at the effect of local weather variations on conflict.”

Burke, a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley department of agricultural and resources economics, added, “They provide very convincing evidence that ENSO-related changes in the global climate are strong drivers of conflict risk in the regions whose weather is affected by ENSO.”

Looking at limits

Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and a co-author of the new study, said weather does not equal destiny. “No one should take this to say that climate is our fate. Rather, this is compelling evidence that it has a measurable influence on how much people fight overall.”

Ultimately, the motivation for the new study was to peer through the keyhole of time and anticipate a warmed world, Hsiang says, but he admits that the predictive power is limited. “In relationship to global warming, we want to be careful. El Niño is very different … in terms of its spatial pattern, the changes on the ground, and the rate of change. Until we have a much better grasp of these, it’s very hard to take these results and produce any kind of projection for future climate change.”

Still, he adds, “The debate until now has been whether there is any reason to believe that a shift in climate can produce conflict.” Now, “The question is not whether it’s possible, but how much global climate will influence conflict.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

Humans and cats go way back. The relationship sprouted around 2000 BC in Egypt, where humans first domesticated felines. Today, more than 90 million cats in the United States alone enjoy the companionship of humans, while another estimated 90 million are stray or feral.

As in most relationships, there are still secrets between humans and their feline friends. But a recent study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management shed light on one secret that may have been nagging cat owners: what do outdoor cats, otherwise known as “free-roaming,” do all day?

Since there are several cat enthusiasts at The Why Files, we, too, wondered about the answer to that question. And the answer belies a few thorny predicaments peculiar to the cat-human relationship.

A day in the life of a free-roaming cat

Decked with radio collars that tracked their every move, 42 free-roaming cats (18 of them pets, 24 of them owner-less) were the stars of the two-year University of Illinois study. The researchers’ goals were to compare what owned versus un-owned cats did all day, where and how far they wandered, and how likely they were to survive in the often risky outdoors.

Certainly, to no cat owner’s surprise, the felines spent much of their time lounging or sleeping, just like their strictly-indoor counterparts. However, the amount of time pet cats versus owner-less cats spent snoozing differed significantly. Pet cats lazed about for 80 percent of their days, while un-owned cats loafed for “only” 62 percent of the time.

“That alone is very interesting. It could be associated with their requirements. It’s possible that the cats without owners have to spend more time looking for resources to take care of themselves,” speculated Nohra Mateus-Pinilla, study co-author and wildlife veterinary epidemiologist at the Illinois Natural History Survey.

Another important finding, according to Mateus-Pinilla, were the differences in the cats’ ranges. While, not surprisingly, un-owned cats roamed further afield than owned cats, Mateus-Pinilla and her co-authors were surprised by how far the stray cats strayed and by the diversity of habitats they skulked in, as compared to pet cats. While most of the pet cats stuck close to home, the most itinerant stray cat wandered around a 547-hectare (1,351-acre) area.

From original map by Jeff Horn

Despite range differences, un-owned and owned cats’ territories can overlap. The red outline shows the largest range tracked for an un-owned cat in the study, and the yellow dot indicates one pet cat’s range.

“Because of the large home range sizes in the evidence of both cats without ownership and cats that are owned, their home ranges are overlapping. And because of the mortality evidence, these animals could be facing a certain amount of risks that we are unable to measure,” said Mateus-Pinilla.

Indeed, the risks of being a free-range cat are much higher than those of indoor cats, and if the cat has no owner, its fate is almost always bleak. In their study, six stray cats died, while only one owned cat died.

Mateus-Pinilla said their study raises many new questions. To The Why Files, however, it seems that living in the company of humans has its advantages for cats. But keeping this relationship indoors may have advantages for wildlife and people too—-implications that drive the otherwise curious research on free-roaming cats.

Too many kitties on the range

While the indoor-outdoor debate lives on in the cat owner community, and regardless of whether or not cats enjoy the out-of-doors, their secret lives outside entail some dirty secrets that are alarming scientists and laypeople alike.

The sheer number of free-range cats, owned or not, has become a conservation and health concern, some scientists say. Like any species, too many can spell trouble.

Cats, by nature, are superb predators. A cat stalking a bird or squirrel is simply doing what cats do. However, their prowess as hunters, combined with their overpopulation, has wildlife biologists and enthusiasts biting their nails over the potential endangerment or extinction of some prey species.

“There are a growing number of landscapes in which free-ranging cats are not only the most abundant mid-sized mammalian predator, but they can outnumber all of the native mammalian mid-sized predators combined. So they really do become the dominant mid-sized predator in many landscapes,” said Stanley Temple, an emeritus professor of forest and wildlife ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was among the first to study the ecological impacts of free-roaming cats.

Because of their impacts on both native predators and prey, conservation scientists consider free-roaming cats invasive species. While not the greatest threat to wildlife, they add to the increasingly complex web of existing threats.

Species most at risk of death-by-kitty are birds that spend a lot of time on the ground, small mammals and reptiles, according to Temple. In fact, cats are second to habitat destruction as the cause of bird extinction. Thirty-three bird species have met their fate to the paws of cats since the 1600s.

The world’s ever-shrinking “islands” of wildlife habitat are hotspots of conservation concern over free-roaming cat populations, since the native species in these areas are the hardest hit by invading cats. For example, birds that live in America’s dwindling grasslands or on the increasingly crowded seashore are finding themselves in a precarious situation.

Open and fragmented landscapes, which also include forest outskirts and farmland, are the territories of choice for cats. And, except in subtropical locales, they tend to stick close to humans. Even if un-owned, most cats are still dependent on people for either food or shelter, or both.

“They are remarkably resourceful at taking advantages of the opportunities that we present,” said Temple, who clarified that free-roaming cats are only truly “feral” if they are completely independent of humans.

Their dependency on humans highlights another dilemma: free-range cats can easily spread diseases and parasites that can jump from cat to cat, cat to wildlife, and even cat to human. The list of contagions includes feline leukemia, feline immunodeficiency virus, worms, rabies and toxoplasmosis, a parasite-caused disease that can damage the developing brains of unborn human babies, if their mothers are infected.

Free-roaming cats’ close proximity to both humans and other animals thus creates a potentially strong reservoir for these diseases. While vaccinating both owned and un-owned cats can help reduce the spread of disease, vaccines are not 100 percent effective and the logistics of vaccinating every single cat may be impossible, especially since many vaccinations are annual.

Photo: Rodrigo Basaure

These street cats certainly benefit from a human handout, but do humans benefit from the cats’ potential disease threat?

It’s complicated

Indeed, solutions to these predicaments aren’t easy. While the science may seem to imply that rounding up every cat on the range may be the best solution, the ubiquity of free-roaming cats and the emotions wrapped up in some people’s relationship with felines complicate the matter.

Studies suggest that many free-range cats are people’s beloved pets that are allowed outside, said Temple. But, while keeping every pet cat indoors would significantly and immediately cut the number of free-range cats, not every cat owner agrees that indoor life is best for kitty.

To further complicate things, one of the often promoted “humane” methods of attempting to reduce un-owned cat populations — trap, treat, neuter, release — repeatedly fails. Not only are there always the cats that get away, but releasing the cats back into the “wild” still does not eliminate the risks to wildlife.

Temple believes that for a cat-control method to work, three criteria must be met: the strategy must actually control cat numbers over large areas, it can’t harm any other part of the ecosystem, and it is socially acceptable. The last criteria can be the trickiest to meet and often creates tension between humans.

Photo: Flickr

Is this outdoor kitty taunting his indoor pal? But who has the better life?

“The divide over how to deal with cat overpopulation, in one way, can be simplified as the group of people who are really concerned about ecological impacts of cats versus those that are really concerned about the welfare of individual animals,” said Temple, based on his years of experience conducting public outreach on the issue. He clarified that he likes cats and is actually the owner of a 21-year-old feline.

Temple believes solutions that meet both factions on common ground do exist. Keeping pet cats inside and trapping, treating, neutering and confining un-owned, free-roaming cats are two strategies that meet his criteria. Though, for some people, it will take some convincing.

Mateus-Pinilla was careful to emphasize that their study did not seek to evaluate management options. They were focused on adding to the science and remaining neutral in the debate about solutions to the issue of free-roaming cats.

– Jenny Seifert

No duh.

Year after year, the greeting card and flower industries goad us to honor our mothers, and we Whyfilers are glad to comply. This year, we celebrate by exploring what we learned about mothers at the February, 2011, meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science — the AAAS.

It may sound obvious, but understanding mothering helps us understand our world!

In early life, your mother is likely to be your most important person, emotionally, cognitively and behaviorally.
Photo: Din Jimenez

Mothers make us better people (Duh?)

More than 50 years ago, when University of Wisconsin psychologist Harry Harlow separated infant monkeys from their mothers, they grew up anxious, jittery, emotional wrecks. It’s amazing to think somebody needed to prove the value of mother’s love, but during Harlow’s time, behaviorism — a psychology rooted in the study of rats — was ascendant.

Academic psychologists focused on stimulus and response, not on the intricacies of the heart.

Today, Harlow’s findings seem like simple common sense, but they made him a rock star to the public — and eventually to his academic colleagues.

Stephen Suomi, one of Harlow’s last graduate students, has continued this line of research at the National Institute of Child Health and Development, again using rhesus macaque monkeys to model human behavior.

Genes don’t equate with destiny.

Back in Harlow’s day, genes were seen as destiny. Now, scientists like Suomi are finding a more interesting and flexible interaction among genes, environment, behavior, hormones and brain structure.

Suomi says that like people, “Between 5 and 10 percent of macaques are unusually impulsive; they do stupid things that most monkeys would not try. They will confront a dominant monkey. Most monkeys know how to back off, but when these monkeys are in an aggressive encounter, somebody can get hurt.”

Similarly, by age 2, some children “are identified as highly aggressive and likely to stay highly aggressive as they grow up,” Suomi says. “At school, they cause classroom disruptions. By their teens, many can be found in prison or the morgue.” In both monkeys and people, “these features show up very early and are remarkably stable.”

Aggression shows up early in some people, often leading to time behind bars.
Photo: Washington State Legislature

Stay close, my baby

Psychologically and physically, the infant monkey is reliant on its mother. Infant macaques “are almost always in physical contact or within arm’s length of their mother,” says Suomi, “which forms a strong, enduring attachment bond that is the functional equivalent of the one that human infants form with a caregiver.”

After a couple of months, that bond is established and the infant starts to explore, using mother as a “secure base,” Suomi says. “If they lose access to her, any motivation to explore will disappear; they get unhappy.” As these developing monkeys spend hours playing with peers, “every behavior pattern for normal functioning is established.”

Harlow raised infant monkeys with inanimate replacements for the mother and saw a range of deranged behavior. These days, Suomi removes young monkeys from mother and raises them with other youngsters. These “peer-reared” monkeys (are you thinking Lord of the Flies?) — develop what Suomi calls “hyper attachments. They spend excessive amounts of time clinging to each other when they should be exploring their world.”

Under these circumstances, play never reaches the normal “intensity and complexity,” Suomi adds.

Peer-reared monkeys spend more time clinging to one another than being Curious Georges.
Photo: Noneotuho

I’m afraid. Why aren’t you?

To understand why this is of more than theoretical interest, we need to meet serotonin, a key chemical for communication among neurons. Some variants of the serotonin genes are linked to high rates of suicide, depression and incarceration, and serotonin metabolism is affected by Prozac and other drugs.

In behavior, Suomi says, the peer-reared monkeys resemble the 5 to 10 percent of normal monkeys that are naturally fearful, anxious and aggressive. Both groups have a defective use of serotonin, but in the peer-reared monkeys, “this is not a product of genetics, it’s a product of social experience.”

Certain variants of the serotonin gene — and also certain experiences — are associated with increased desire for alcohol, Suomi says. When adolescent monkeys attend “the monkey version of a happy hour, some consume more than others, and the peer-reared ones consume considerably more.”

Early experience, in fact, affects the activity of one-fifth of monkey’s entire genome, Suomi says.

Suomi’s studies also show that drinking behavior is crucially dependent on upbringing: a good “childhood” can cancel out the effects of “negative” genes. “If the monkey has a good mother, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. It does not matter which alleles [variants] are present; you have normal serotonin metabolism. A good mother protects those who carry this allele, and it’s the same story in aggression, the same story with alcohol. With a good mother, you drink less.”¹

Why does momma matter?

The role of genetics has been a highly controversial area in development. A century ago, genes were destiny: people were essentially robots acting out immutable genetic instructions.

Then the focus shifted to external factors, and autism, for example, was blamed on a “cold” mother. Within a few decades, the advances in analyzing the structure of genes returned genetic determinism to vogue, and researchers began to search, for example, for an autism gene.

That approach quickly faded, W. Thomas Boyce of the University of British Columbia told the AAAS, in favor of a more sophisticated “behavioral genetics” focused on gene-environment interactions.

Genetics is getting more complicated, less deterministic, and more interesting. In the new genetics, mommas matter, even after birth!
Photo: Jen Watson

Now, in recognition that chemicals that are modified by experience affect the activity of genes, that picture is being enlarged in a discipline called epigenetics. In this new view, genes affect our environment, and environment affects whether and how genes act.

“The old metaphor of the genome being a blueprint for constructing the developing brain is faulty in certain ways,” says Boyce. “It may be more accurate to say that we begin with a blueprint, and partly build the house, then the family moves in and the blueprint gets modified. There is a feedback that alters the expression of the blueprint, based on the experience of the individual living in the house.”

The long shadow of poverty

How does this play out in the real world? Unstable and unmarried families tend to be poor, and social class correlates with higher rates of asthma, disease and injuries, says Boyce. At birth, physicians routinely record measures like weight and gestational age as a rough gauge of health, but Boyce thinks they ought to add social factors to the mix.

In fact, a study² that tracked health and education in 4,667 infants born in Winnipeg, Canada, for 19 years showed that the traditional biological measurements were less predictive than social factors related to health and education.

Growing up economically poor could mean growing up with poorer health, too.
Photo: Bread for the World

Since “half the world’s children grow up in poverty,” Boyce says it would make sense to look more closely at social risk factors, rather than focus on physical measures. Given that “15 to 20 percent of the overall population is responsible for over half of medical, psychiatric morbidity, and physician and health care use,” understanding social risk factors could be a key step to ameliorating poor health, he says.

The fragile family

As the American family has changed — some would say disintegrated — social scientists have shifted their focus from divorce, to the “fragile families” formed by unmarried couples. In some fragile families, the mother is single; in others she and the father are cohabiting.

“About 40 percent of American children are born into an unmarried family now,” says Jeanne Brooks-Gunn of Columbia University, a principal investigator on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study.

The study is looking at the environments in which children are being raised, and which factors are most harmful to their health, welfare and education. “Some situations are stable, while others are not,” says Brooks-Gunn.

The Fragile Families study has followed about 5,000 children for nine years, with a focus on “stability and chaos, how they affect resources and investments in child well-being” Brooks-Gunn says. “Nobody will ever do this again; getting approval at 75 hospitals was a nightmare.”

Study personnel interviewed the mother within 24 hours of birth, and also a rather surprising 75 percent of the unwed fathers, Brooks-Gunn said. “Babies are darling, and everybody comes to the hospital to see them.”

The researchers then observed the children at home at ages 3, 5 and 9, to gather data on physical, social and psychological development, and they found the original optimism fading.

While rates have declined a bit, one quarter of all children, and half of black children, live with a single parent. Researchers continue to find high rates of physical, social and economic difficulties in non-married families.
Graph: The State of our Unions 2010, The National Marriage Project

“At birth, everybody expects things will go well; 75 percent of the [unwed] mothers believe they will marry the father,” Brooks-Gunn says, “but by year five, the relationship with the biological dad has ended for two thirds of these mothers. There is a huge increase in new partners, and in having children with a new partner.”

As a rule, the fathers who spent time with their children were those who had not had a child with another woman, says Brooks-Gunn. “And when the mother has a new partner, the father is out of the picture.”

The Fragile Family study³ found that:

• At age 3, children in stable families (whether married, co-habiting or a single mother), had better vocabulary than children of married or cohabiting parents in an unstable relationship.
• Children’s cognitive scores improved when their unwed parents marry.
• Each additional change in family structure increases the odds of behavioral problems. With more family and residential transitions, the mother becomes more likely to report stress and hitting her children.
• Conflicts in the parental relationship intensify behavior problems in children, regardless of the stability of the family structure.
• Having a single mother raises the odds of obesity, asthma, hospitalization and accidents.

Children of stable married couples scored best on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, a standard intelligence test, implying better cognitive development. Beware: This does not prove that a stable marriage makes kids smarter; socioeconomic status and other factors still matter.
Data: FFCWS. Graph: J. Waldfogel et al, (2010). Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing. Future of Children, 20(2): 87-112.

This is not to say that simply being unmarried is the direct cause of all problems, given the many other factors in play, as Brooks-Gunn and colleagues noted. “While children born to unwed parents are at higher risk of low birth weight … women who are not married at the time of the birth are also more likely to smoke cigarettes and use illicit drugs during pregnancy, and less likely to receive prenatal care in the first trimester of their pregnancy, all of which are associated with low birth weight.”

Many factors may explain how a parental relationship affects children, Brooks-Gunn indicated:

• Parental resources: How much time, money and education?
• Parenting quality: How do the parents interact with the child?
• Father involvement: How present is he?
• Parental relationship: Are the parents stable and loving? Do they interact well with the child?
• Parental mental health: How well are the parents, psychologically?

Child-rearing outside of marriage is increasing among all women, especially among those with the least education.
Graph: The State of our Unions 2010, The National Marriage Project

The Fragile Family studies “add to a large body of earlier work that suggested that children who live with single or cohabiting parents fare worse as adolescents and young adults in terms of their educational outcomes, risk of teen birth, and attachment to school and the labor market than do children who grow up in married-couple families,” Brooks-Gunn and colleagues concluded.

Overall, the findings are distressing, Brooks-Gunn told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February. “Our findings are more negative than I would expect. There is a lot of instability, and that affects this incredible disparity in how children are doing. This has incredible consequences for society. Forty percent of all kids are born into a non-married household. We are talking about diverging destinies.”

Ecuadorian mother and child
Photo: paggre

– David J. Tenenbaum

For decades, one name has dominated discussion of the ancient New World: Clovis. Tools representing the characteristic Clovis technology, first found in Clovis, New Mexico, in 1929, have long been considered the product of the first inhabitants of the Americas. With a tool style that’s been found across much of North America, Clovis was the best-selling brand in “the first Americans” competition.

Clovis technology is apparently a home-grown phenomenon, as it’s never been found in Northeast Asia, the source of migrants into the New World.

The oldest solid date for Clovis people is 13,100 years ago, says Michael Waters, an archeologist at Texas A&M University. Now, in an article in Science on March 25, Waters and colleagues argue that tools have been found near Austin, Texas, that date to 15,500 years ago.

The researchers found 15,528 artifacts at a site called Buttermilk Creek. Most of their finds were flakes busted off while making stone tools, but the site also yielded 56 stone choppers, points and scrapers.

Using a technique that calculated when an object was last in direct sunlight, “We took the most conservative route to estimate the age,” says Waters, who directs the Center for the Study of the First Americans at A&M. The stone tools and flakes were probably made by a band of hunter-gatherers who paused at the creekside site.

Looking for a date

Because no organic remains were available for carbon-dating, the scientists relied for dating on optically stimulated luminescence, or OSL. “OSL has been around for a long time, has been employed in geology for 30-plus years” for dating windblown sand and silt, says Waters. “It’s been compared to radiocarbon dates, toe-to-toe, and in all cases, OSL ages have been determined to be comparable.”

The OSL dating, which essentially figures how long something has been buried, took place at the University of Illinois, in Chicago, under the direction of Steven Forman.

The find at Buttermilk Creek is the latest — and one of the better documented — archeological sites to break the Clovis barrier. Others pre-Clovis finds have been made in Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Chile.

The news got WhyFilers wondering:

How convincing?

To get the skinny on the Texas discovery, we phoned Steve Shackley, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. “Proof does not exist in science,” he told us, “but Mike [Waters] has made good, defensible arguments.”

Much of the discussion about the Buttermilk Creek site concerns the vertical position — the stratigraphy — of stone artifacts, and the Waters team went to great lengths to show that older material was under younger stuff, as expected in an undisturbed site. Undetected dislocations can confuse archeologists, who tend to think deeper is older and shallower is younger.

Buttermilk Creek actually offers a three-fer: Clovis artifacts are sandwiched above those now identified as pre-Clovis, but below artifacts are in a more modern style. “This site has all these time periods, superimposed, in the correct order,” says Shackley. Because Waters is “one of the foremost” experts in analyzing the geology of archeological sites, “I think it’s going to be difficult to defeat his stratigraphic work. He’s been very careful about it.”

Douglas Bamforth, an archeologist at the University of Colorado, says the Waters team has avoided three errors that often destabilize ancient archeological claims:

“They have absolutely dated the site, they absolutely have artifacts, and the article talks in great detail about how intact the sediment was, they have really addressed whether the artifacts are in place,” says Bamforth. “They have refitted the [stone] flakes to the tools; I am totally convinced they have an intact site” and solid dates.

But that does not prove, to Bamforth, that the artifacts are pre-Clovis — they may be early Clovis. “The deep levels at the site are certainly older than the oldest carbon-14 date on Clovis-style projectile points, which Waters very emphatically argues is the beginning of the Clovis period. But the first problem with seeing the deep levels as different from Clovis is that there seems to be exactly nothing in those levels that differs from Clovis [as the site does not contain arrow- or spear-points that would prove or disprove the case]. … So I do not see why the site is not just early Clovis.”

Not so fast!

Aware that the latest find may be seen as final vindication for the “Clovis was not first” viewpoint, we phoned Thomas Dillehay, professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University and the University of Southern Chile, who fought for decades to have Chile’s Monte Verde site recognized as pre-Clovis. Now that Monte Verde is finally accepted as one of the best-confirmed pre-Clovis sites, we figured the experience would make Dillehay receptive to the new find.

We were wrong. “I have a mixed opinion,” Dillehay told us, proceeding to list some shortcomings in the study. “It would be most convincing if there was standard radiocarbon dating, and even better if those dates were taken from features like hearths and food stains. OSL dating has become more reliable, but it’s still not as reliable as carbon-14, although the sequences do line up very nicely with sediment dating.”

Dillehay has questions about the three-layer sandwich of pre-Clovis, Clovis and post-Clovis material. “I’m not saying the materials are mixed. Geologists, to identify the strata, applied these excellent, meticulous sediment and particle analyses, but there was no clear visible stratigraphy to distinguish Clovis from pre-Clovis, and again this does not meet standard archeological criteria.”

Dillehay also points to the lack of “diagnostic, complete projectile points in either the Clovis and pre-Clovis material. In a discipline that has placed incredibly heavy emphasis on formal projectile points as the primary criteria for acceptance of a site, along with C-14 [radioactive carbon] dating, and geologic stratigraphy, I find this sort of acceptance, which seems to be uncritical, to be a major shift in the discipline.”

Still, Dillehay says “the interdisciplinary work is first rate, and I admire the multidisciplinary approach. But had there been C-14 dating and diagnostic projectile points, all this extraneous analysis would probably not be needed.”

It certainly would be nice to find arrow- or spear-points, says Waters, but “You can’t dictate what you will find. You have to roll with the punches.” Further excavation may or may not reveal a “smoking gun projectile point,” Waters adds. “We don’t know what kind of weaponry they used. In Siberia and Alaska, people were using a lot of bone, ivory and antler weaponry, and it might be that early folks in North America were using this as well.”

But due to heat and humidity, such organic material would not be preserved in the Texas site, he says.

Migration routes

The timing of human occupation of North America bears heavily on their migration route from Northeast Asia, which is accepted, for geographic and genetic reasons, as the source of the first Americans. The melting of the last ice age during the Clovis period, starting roughly 11,000 years ago, producing an ice-free corridor through Northwest Canada that would have allowed transit into the North American interior.

But the region was clogged with glaciers a few thousand years earlier, meaning that any early immigrants would have moved along the coast, either on foot, or via short hops in boats.

The possibility of coastal movement got a boost in a study¹ published March 4, which reported the discovery of stone tools dating from 11,400 to 12,200 years ago on the Channel Islands west of Los Angeles.

According to study leader Jon Erlandson, an archeologist at the University of Oregon, the ancient residents of these offshore islands made delicate stone tools to hunt in the ocean. “The points we are finding are extraordinary, the workmanship amazing. They are ultra thin, serrated and have incredible barbs on them. It’s a very sophisticated chipped-stone technology.”

The stone artifacts are quite different from the fluted points left throughout North America by Clovis and the later Folsom peoples, who hunted big game on land, said Erlandson. “This is among the earliest evidence of seafaring and maritime adaptations in the Americas, and another extension of the diversity of Paleoindian economies.”

The find is yet another reason to doubt that Clovis was first, says Shackley. “When you get dates to 11,000 or 12,000 years ago, out on islands, that makes it tough for the Clovis-firsters, who reject maritime entry. On the Channel Islands, they had get out there by boat,” and if they were already using boats, that means they could also have boated down the West Coast, he adds. “A lot of people accept that now.”

But even if people did move south along the coast rather than inland, Dillehay says they probably needed a long time to reach Chile. “There are hundreds if not thousands of rivers that descend the western slope of the mountain chain from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and every river, whether major or secondary, is a temptation to head upriver,” slowing the overall southward movement.

Photo: University of Oregon Northern Great Basin Field School

In Paisley caves in south-central Oregon, researchers uncovered pre-Clovis artifacts and the oldest human DNA discovered in the Americas. Radiocarbon dates show that people lived in the caves between 12,000 and 14,340 years ago.

And if Monte Verde was occupied by 14,500 years ago, this logic suggests that people reached North America much earlier than even the 15,500 pre-Clovis date in Texas.

Should we trademark the “pre-pre-Clovis” brand?

At any rate, the increasing number of solid pre-Clovis finds answers a riddle: How did Clovis artifacts appear in so many places at roughly the same time? According to the Waters report, “These data are evidence that by 15.5 ka [thousand years ago], human populations occupied the continental United States… . The sites of Cactus Hill, Virginia, and Miles Point, Maryland, hint that these [pre-Clovis] technologies may have been present a few millennia earlier. This early occupation of North America provides ample time for people to settle into the environments of North America, colonize South America by at least about 14.1 to 14.6 ka (Monte Verde, Chile), develop the Clovis tool kit, and create a base population through which Clovis technology could spread.” ²

When science gets ossified

Although we’ve covered the Texas discovery as a bit of gee-whiz archeology, it’s more accurate to say that the discipline proceeds by stacking study atop study, says Sissel Schroeder, a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and expert on ancient peoples of the Americas. Although most of the signs left by people who lived in North America will never be found, if they even still exist, “We work with the best information we have. The very small samples of data can make some of our interpretations less robust. Archeology is a cumulative science, so future finds can potentially add confirmatory evidence, or can disconfirm earlier conclusions; you just have to be open to recognizing that your interpretations could change.”

But scientists, like other people, can get stuck, she adds. “It seems easy for certain interpretive frameworks to become quite entrenched, and repeated over and over again. Into the 1920s, it was hugely debated that there were even people in the Americas” at the end of the last ice age. “There were a number of very provocative finds that led scholars to suggest that people had been here at the end of the Pleistocene [about 12,000 years ago], but wasn’t until the find at Folsom, New Mexico [in 1926] that scholarly acceptance began to develop.”

The Folsom find, soon followed by the discovery of those distinctive fluted points near Clovis, New Mexico, sparked “a transformative intellectual step for archeologists,” says Schroeder. “This was a radical shift in thinking.”

“You build a reputation based on a particular perspective,” says Bamforth, “and it’s hard to see evidence that is in opposition; we all believe we are really good at what we do.” Those who gain fame for overturning the conventional wisdom can wind up in the opposite corner, defending their own views long after contradictory evidence arises.

Some early claims for pre-Clovis sites were based on faulty excavation or inaccurate dating, which left a tradition of doubt, Bamforth says. For example, erroneous radiocarbon dates arose after dig sites were contaminated with groundwater. And European-style artifacts unearthed in the Hudson River valley, once interpreted as evidence for ancient European immigration, actually came from ship’s ballast that was dumped into the river, Bamforth told us.

Once archeologists got used to refuting claims, that skeptical attitude itself became entrenched, says Bamforth. “Because people were making such poor claims, very powerful people in the field clamped down on any claims for antiquity, and often the rejected claims turned out to be correct. People at the Smithsonian famously had nothing to do with Folsom until finally the evidence carried the day. There’s a famous photo showing a Folsom spearpoint between the ribs of an extinct bison. That’s proof you can’t argue with.”

Clovis-first is dead, at long last!

After 40 years of assault, Clovis-first seems dead at last. The Texas find “anchors the fact that people were here in the 14,000 or 15,000 year range, there is no longer an argument with that,” says Bamforth.

As the technology of archeology improves, Waters expects some of the most interesting finds to emerge from South America. “We have this North American bias. I’ve heard a lot about early sites in South America of the same age [as the Texas site] or older that nobody hears about. If you think about the immensity of South America, there is no way Clovis was first. There are going to be some amazing finds in the next 10 years, given the South American evidence, the work with genetics and DNA. The story of the first Americans is going to stay exciting.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

They are the ear-wrenching, jaw-jangling junk of the scientific world, the poly-syllabic, hexa-enjargonated children of the refereed journal. Cobbled higgledy-piggledy, these stacks of Greek and Latin roots are primed with prefixii and capped with suffixii.

Some of these mongrelized mutants say the uber-obvious: Does “biomedicine” not equal “medicine”?

More of them seem to say the obscure, redundant or ridiculous, like “biomolecular medicine.” Eh?

Did ancient civilizations follow astrolacism to find their way around? Photo: Gerard Mercator

You don’t need much experience reading science to adopt a love-hate relationship with the incessant onslaught of obscurity: Some of these terms, like “decadal mean,” (average temperature during a specific 10-year period) have real utility and no synonyms, and you’d best learn them and soldier on.

Others seem mainly designed to serve as scientific ownership flags staked by the first to discover a phenomenon — whether it’s actually new or not.

Evidence of early-onset electrostatic compulsion? Photo: Steve Paine

And at a time when record numbers of people communicate in English, and that well-known tongue is the standard language for many scientific papers, why must every new hunk of jargon originate in Greek or Latin — or preferably both?

We could go on to decry the esthetic obnoxion of fabrications like “pharmacological,” which often could be replaced by the rather simpler “drug.”

Enough whining. We must move to today’s challenge:

Below, we’ve briefly defined some scientific jargon. Please tell us which are real, and which we concocted.

Positive “JargoPro” points are awarded for obscurity, over-reliance on Greek and Latin, length (measured in syllables), a grating quality on the ear, and esthetic points for excessive use of linguistic force.

Negative “JargoCon” points go to ease of pronunciation and a heightened chance that mere mortals may comprehend and even pronounce the term.

Pharmaco-optimalic (concerning the visual presentation of drugs)

JargoPro: Nice use of multiple obscure roots; ambiguity (does “optimalic” refer to a state of mind, or to optics)?

JargoCon: Rather straightforward pronunciation.

Phyto-viability: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Real, solid jargon!

Phyto-viability (ability of soils to promote plant survival)

JargoPro: Incorporates the Greek “Ph” phoneme instead of the more familiar Anglo-Saxon “f”; also grating on the ear.

JargoCon: Use of hyphen fosters understanding; perilously comprehensible to the one percent who recognize “phyt” as the Greek root for “plant.”

Did this plant succumb to poor phyto-viability or just neglect? Photo: pete_pick

Electrostatic compulsion: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Fake: April Fool’s!

Electrostatic compulsion (gravitational pull between silicon-powered screens and human minds)

JargoPro: The adjective seems familiar, but is tantalizingly obscure.

JargoCon: Condition is so common that readers may jump to the correct conclusion about meaning, always a negative to a jargoneer!

Stoichiometry: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Real, solid jargon!

Stoichiometry (related to the proportions of chemical elements in a chemical reaction)

JargoPro: Symmetrical, reverse-reiteration of “oi” as “io”; essentially unpronounceable.

JargoCon: Fundamental concept, so the term may be necessary.

Polymorphism: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Real, solid jargon!

Polymorphism (taking several different shapes)

JargoPro: Elegant concatenation of the Greeks: “poly” (many) and “morph” (shape).

JargoCon: At four syllables, syllabically deficient, thus impairing incomprehensibility.

Are the differently colored heads of these gouldian finches an example of polymorphism or did one just get into the hair dye? Nigel Jacques

Astrolacism: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Fake: April Fool’s!

Astrolacism (use of stars as fixed points in geography)

JargoPro: Suffic-ates with the opaque “-ism”; exploits confusion between astronomy and astrology.

JargoCon: Some people will understand “astro” as related to astronomy, and therefore stars.

Longitudinal: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Real, solid jargon!

Longitudinal (variations over time)

JargoPro: Easily dropped into an otherwise-comprehensible sentence; also may confuse geographers who think it refers to imaginary, north-south lines on maps.

JargoCon: Easy to pronounce, so long as you catch the soft “g”

Gastrophrenology: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Fake: April Fool’s!

Gastrophrenology (study of the correlation between microstructures in the small intestine and surface of the cranium)

JargoPro: Strong reliance on dead languages for roots; induces guilt — is this something your doctor warned about last year?

JargoCon: Although “phren” is satisfyingly opaque, “gastro” may give away at least part of meaning.

Etiological: Real Or Fake?	SelectShow
Real, solid jargon!

Etiological (related to causes)

JargoPro: Enviable compression of six syllables in 11 letters; tricky pronunciation leads with a long “E” where a short “e” is expected.

JargoCon: Basic meaning is accessible to all; streamlined American spelling avoids the “we’re Brits so we can add letters whenever we want” blighted spelling “aetiological.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

]]> http://whyfiles.org/2011/english-is-optional-dept/feed/ 0