Active role in learning enhances memory

Another case of some research confirming what we already thought we knew, but valuable for that in strengthening the case by those of us wanting to encourage more participatory classrooms.
How taking an active role in learning enhances memory: "'Having active control over a learning situation is very powerful and we're beginning to understand why,' said University of Illinois psychology professor Neal Cohen, who led the study with postdoctoral researcher Joel Voss. 'Whole swaths of the brain not only turn on, but also get functionally connected when you're actively exploring the world.'"

Why married men tend to behave better

I was dimly aware of this: "Researchers have long argued that marriage generally reduces illegal and aggressive behaviors in men. It remained unclear, however, if that association was a function of matrimony itself or whether less 'antisocial' men were simply more likely to get married."

A good example of a proper question being developed out of the results of some research. I'd also want to add my question: whether legal marriage only produces these results or whether other kinds of 'household' partnership do this.

Anyway, with regard to the question as put (rather than mine), it seems that it is not either/or but both/and.

As to my question, there is one bit that seems to be tangential to it, at least. "Burt said her finding may differ from past studies because marital rates have declined significantly in recent years, whereas marriage was more of the norm in the 1950s, meaning selection likely wasn't much of a factor.

It seems that marriage 'proper' is what was studied, so no figures would be available, I would assume, to answer my question. Both the research as reported and as it would have to be to answer my question seem to be crying out for an explanatory hypothesis. What do you reckon would explain the phenomenon?

Anyway, it does seem to me that the 'why' in the title still remains to be substantiated. Without an explanatory hypothesis, it can't be.
Why married men tend to behave better

Demonic Faces in Twin Towers' smoke?

In the words of one of my fave sci-fi series: what the frell? I'd not come across this until a conversation I had today:

"You may have heard of the pictures taken of the World Trade Center while it was burning, in which the smoke formed the face of Satan."and if you go here, Devil's Face in Smoke 9-11, you'll see some of the pictures to support the idea.

Now there are two things that occur to me straight away with this, maybe three, depending on how you count them.

First off, this seems a bit like those stories about images of the BVM in slices of toast, or the face of Jesus in a piece of cut fruit, or even supposed satellite images of verses of the Qur'an in pictures of trees felled by storms. In all of these cases it seems to me that it's mostly about an image that lends itself to interpretations of those kinds by being vague enough to serve as a kind of suggestive ground/base to our projections of meaningfulness.

The second thing is the meaning that can then be assigned to such a 'seeing'. In this case it seems to be conducive to a hospitality towards a particular view of the world in which the goodies and baddies are well-defined in terms of a 'clash of civilisations'. -Maybe I'm being a little too harsh there, but maybe not. Certainly I'm intrigued that other 'readings' are not so possible in the discourse generated here: for example that demonic entities are /were part of those buildings and are forced out by the destruction. This latter reading could lead on to seeing the events potentially having a positive outcome in 'exorcising' the heart of NY of evil entities -though I hasten to point out this is not my interpretation and it should not be construed as in anyway justifying the violence or the deaths involved. Indeed it is an interpretation which could be seen as implicitly critical of global finance or capitalism. The fact that this way of interpreting what is thought to be seen is not anywhere in view, is in itself interesting and should give pause for thought even if (like me) one is rather skeptical of the thing.

And another thing occurs to me: the stock images that are referenced in making these interpretive leaps. They don't come from biblical imagery which, on the whole, is rather restrained about such things. Like the 'faces of Christ' and the 'images of Mary', they are drawn from conventional and largely medieval (or later) iconography. The speculative imagery of artists down the ages have, in a sense, become canonical and serve as interpretive resources for ... well ... stuff like this.

When Baghdad was centre of the scientific world

I sometimes point out in lectures on early Islam and Christianity that the Islamic empire seems to have expanded militarily so quickly that it outstripped the ability of the conquerors to supply elites and civil servants to run the societies they now ruled. Result? Christians -among others- were often holders of high office in early Islam. This of course nuances the claim you may sometimes hear Muslims make as to the civilisational credentials of Islam -sometimes it was Christians under Muslim patronage who were doing the 'heavy lifting': "The most famous of all the Baghdad translators, Hunayn ibn Ishāq, was born in the ancient Christian city of Hira and never converted to Islam. He would spend many years travelling around the world in his search for Greek manuscripts. It is the medical work of the physician Galen that is his most important legacy, for not only did it open up the Islamic world to this great treasure, in many cases it is only via these Arabic translations that much of Galen's work reaches us today."
The article (When Baghdad was centre of the scientific world) mentions the philosophical importance of Al Kindi. Interestingly there was another Al Kindi around who was a Christian and whose contribution was to offer apologetic arguments in relation to Islam.

Anyway, worth looking at the article to get a sense of an Islam that was not (is not) obscurantist but rather a progressive partner in human flourishing.

Departures

On a recommendation from one of our students, I've -just yesterday- watched the Japanese film Departures (2008) this description only just does it justice "A newly unemployed cellist takes a job preparing the dead for funerals". It was an emotional experience for me not because it was sad (though it is at points) but because it was beautiful: seeing the comfort that could be brought by caringly performed ritual actions. It is also a story of reconciliations and of growth, of the breakdown of prejudices and a film that reminds us of the humanity that actually reminds us of the image of God, I think. It's long, but I didn't actually feel it to be long; the pace seems about right for the content and the dignity of the film.

For me it was a reminder of the value of the simple ministries of being there, doing things with simple dignity and acting with compassion. It was also a reminder of the value of ritual acts in giving a framework for important human transitions to be begun, continued or brought to a close. It made me aware how impoverished our cultural and ritual language has become particularly in relation to death and dying. Though perhaps it should be a case of looking carefully enough to see what people are pressing into service in actuality ... and what priorities and thinking is revealed, but that's another posting or several ...

Two-tribe politics is over -or it can be

What I liked about this article Two-tribe politics is over. But the likes of John Prescott can't see it is the brief rehearsal of the pros and cons of AV:

Proponents of change will contend that first past the post awards parliamentary seats in a way which is wildly out of proportion with votes cast and that weakness has become so pronounced in recent years that MPs can now get elected with the support of fewer than three out of 10 voters. (They will be right.) Opponents of reform will say that AV can also distort the will of the electorate. (They will be right too.) Supporters of the status quo will insist that the current voting system has the great merit of producing reliable parliamentary majorities for single party governments. (That it does – except on those quite frequent occasions when it doesn't, as it didn't at the last election.)
Campaigners for change will say that AV gets rid of tactical voting, forces candidates to seek support from at least half their electorate and gives everyone the chance of their vote counting for something. (That it does.) Those hostile to AV will say that preferential voting privileges the supporters of smaller and fringe parties over mainstream parties. (This may be their best argument.)

So how would we decide in the referendum? Well, we really do have to recognise that any voting system is a judgement of balance between competing desirable characteristics. But what we have to bear in mind, I believe, is that our political culture has decisively changed and is now ill-served by a two-party system:

The alternative vote is not a perfect adjustment to this transformation, but it does at least recognise that, for millions of voters, their first choice is neither Conservative nor Labour. AV also has the merit of tending to reward politicians who try to reach out to as many of their constituents as possible. It better aligns how we vote with how most of us now think about politics. A declining minority of people identify wholly with one party. For the majority, any choice is a compromise, there are more colours in the rainbow than just red and blue, and cave-dwelling tribesmen belong in TV documentaries not modern British politics.

And the point therefore is to start moving our political system to a less-adversarial more plural-recognising one. AV isn't the best solution, but it is a step in the right direction especially of a system that encourages politicians to seek to work with a range of people and constituencies (note small 'c': I'm not meaning simply parliamentary constituencies here). That is so much better, surely, than knowing that the governing party is enjoying an absolute and terrifying majority with less than 40% of the popular vote: that scarcely counts as democratic.

Resist the argument to vote as if this is a referendum on how you're feeling about the coalition policies at the moment. Something much more important in the long-term is at stake. Tactical voting is less than transparent in conveying intentions -as we already know because for so many of us elections have been an invidious choice between two or more 'evils' and the unelectable.

Hitch, Blair, and the non-event debate on “religion”

A hat-tip to Doug in a comment in his post: Hitch, Blair, and the non-event debate on “religion”. The hats-off-in-respect is for this paragraph:

“Religion” is not only a slippery concept, but in this particular modern use is fundamentally also a secular one that assumes “religion” is one of a variety of activities or behaviours that humans can choose to engage in. That definition begs the question of the presumption of a neutral place to stand, it flattens to the point of absurdity the differences, say, between Islam and Buddhism, and it ignores the long-standing traditions of polemic against false “religion” in many major “religious” traditions

I've been trying to express all of that succinctly in a variety of fora for a good while, so I wanted to make sure I could find that bit again for future use. The only thing I'd want to do with it as of this moment is perhaps to expand a tad the 'neutral place to stand' bit to make explicit that the secular standpoints are themselves philosophical actors on a par with 'religion' in the public space.