The Art of Now

Race and Retardation?

Society is built upon assumption, and it is our responsibility to get it right.

Mental retardation is a condition including below-average intellectual function, and a lack of skills necessary for daily living according to New York Times Health.

My question is why black people are diagnosed with metal retardation nearly twice as often as their white counterparts.

According to one study published by the American Journal for Public Health, the black-white ratio amidst ten year olds in Atlanta diagnosed with mild mental retardation is 1.8:1.  For additional information: http://tinyurl.com/6nl8s8a

While mental retardation could be cause by a plethora of health and environmental factors, within at least 30 to 50 percent of cases, physicians are unable to determine an exact cause according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.  For additional information: http://tinyurl.com/cpubdb2

We are guessing.

As a back-up plan, doctors use IQ tests, and individuals scoring below 70 are then labeled retarded.

In retrospect, the validity of a test is based upon a series assumptions.

Do the test takers speak the exact language? Within what cultural context are the questions formulated?  Who determines the correct answer?

If we are to assume anything, it should be that race does not affect one’s intelligence.  While a test may be imperfect and unavoidable as an absolute last case scenario, we could better interpret results.

My solution is to compare IQ results to peers within similar societal categorizations including race, socioeconomic level, gender, region etc.  While admittedly this idea is still significantly flawed, the presumption IQ test takers are a homogenous group is actually retarded.  With access to background information, results could be individually scored against an increasing similar constituency to remove cultural bias.  I would rather believe in intellectual equality (whether true or not) than assume one test could properly serve the variety of humanity.

Obesity

Great News!

So we’re fat, but we can’t get any fatter!

While the National Center of Health Statistics reports that the American obesity epidemic has plateaued sounds like a major victory for granola eating moms everywhere, there are alternative explanations for the phenomenon.  According to the Harvard researcher David Ludwig, we may have reached a new “biological equilibrium.”  As in, if you are genetically predisposed to gain weight, you already have.  As in, we will never become the morbidly obese space station dwelling species proposed within Pixar’s Wall-e.  As in, go ahead and eat that cup cake because your cankles couldn’t possibly get any bigger.

(Source: NPR)

dissection of attraction

So everyone knows the basics behind the science of beauty including symmetry, bodily ratios, and indications of health or fertility.

But most of that garbage we’re stuck with …

Luckily the free online dating website OkCupid publishes their original research and findings from actual user data on their fantastic OkTrends blog.

One post in particular, The Mathematics of Beauty, sheds some real wisdom.

Comparing data from user ratings of attractiveness verses number of messages received monthly, OkTrends sought to explain why women within the above-average category of attractiveness receive more or less attention.

With some magical number crunching, the information exposed men provide more attention to women that are not quite as universally accepted as above-average.  More messages were received by women whose looks caused greater disagreement amongst men.

It’s game theory. No surprises there.

But these results could apply to anyone.  It means you should show off what makes you different and not mind if some people don’t appreciate it.  The data provides evidence that within your next profile picture, instead of minimizing flaws, you should embellish them. Someone will love you for them.

(Source: blog.okcupid.com)

Creativity bias

While perusing the majority mind numbing health and science news online, I was introduced to a compelling and surprisingly new concept.

Defined as the phenomenon in which individuals reject creative ideas despite espousing the goal of creativity, creativity bias seems almost bland, but its implications are massive.

Universities and bussinesses world wide are consistently exploring and promoting the illusive use of creativity. Whether or not these efforts are effective seems inconclusive, but what makes creativity so difficult to extract or implant?

I’m one of those pathetically optimistic “I believe we are all creative” people. And I know uncertainty and fear are often associated with new ideas, but could our inability to teach creativity be associated with our inability to recognize it?

A recent psychological study published through Cornell provides an ounce of evidence that creativity bias hinders one’s ability to recognize other creative ideas. The challenge of creativity may not be the creation of ideas but the process of acceptance. You can leave your sketch pad and your stress ball at home. They won’t help fear of the unknown.

(Source: digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu)

try not to stare

As basically everyone knows, you can go blind staring at the sun.  The cornea absorbs UV radiation like anywhere else, and it gets burned creating ultraviolet keratitis.  Although to me it seems stranger that no one has to be told not to look directly into the sun.  I mean we seem attracted to light in any other context.  If a bright object moves in our peripheral vision, we immediately look to identify the source.  If an object is too bright for comfortable viewing, we don’t just ignore it.  And yet, the one bright object that provides life itself doesn’t attract our instinctive attention at all.  Even similar further celestial objects creeping equally slowly across the night sky cause us to stare up in wonderment.

Am I just exaggerating some internalized life lesson, or is this an example of an evolutionary behavioral adaption?

(Source: emedicine.medscape.com)