…and it may depend on the inner ear. “…[T]here are well-documented differences in how men and women get from Point A to Point B — perhaps giving a scientific root to timeworn jokes about women being batty drivers and men never admitting (though committing) error. Studies over the past decade have shown that women are likelier to rely on landmarks and visual cues, and men on maps, cardinal directions (such as north and south) and gauges of distance.

“Women are more dependent on a surrounding frame,” says Luc Tremblay, an assistant professor of physical education and health at the University of Toronto, who has led studies on the matter. If landmarks change, women are more apt to notice and question their sense of orientation. “Men are capable of relying on another source of information alone,” Tremblay says.

While some scientists theorize that hormones account for navigational differences between the sexes, Tremblay thinks the answer may lie in the inner ear. There, a group of three semicircular canals — which are usually larger in men than in women — help track the body’s motion, speed and direction. Men, in other words, get stronger internal directional cues, Tremblay speculates.” (Washington Post)

“Surely all this happiness can’t be for real?? …American culture’s overemphasis on happiness misses an essential part of a full life.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Pass This Test? “Businesses Test Candidates With Logic Puzzles; Why Not Put Presidential Hopefuls to the Test?

…

The Puzzles

1. Scaling. Imagine a small state or city with, let’s say, a million people and an imaginative and efficient health care program. The program is not necessarily going to work in a vast country with a population that is 300 times as large. Similarly a flourishing small company that expands rapidly often becomes an unwieldy large one. Problems and surprises arise as we move from the small to the large since social phenomena generally do not scale upward in a regular or proportional manner.

A simple, yet abstract problem of this type? How about the following (answers on page 4): A model car, an exact replica of a real one in scale, weight, material, et cetera, is 6 inches (1/2 foot) long, and the real car is 15 feet long, 30 times as long. If the the circumference of a wheel on the model is 3 inches, what is the circumference of a wheel on the real car? If the hood of the model car has an area of 4 square inches, what is the area of the real car’s hood? If the model car weighs 4 pounds, what does the real car weigh?

2. Estimating. Proposing any sort of legislation or any action at all requires at least a rough estimate of quantity, costs, benefits, other effects. An ability to gauge them is critical (as is an ability to listen to others’ unbiased estimates).

A couple of simple, yet abstract problems of this type? How about the following (hint and answer on page 4): A classic problem: How many piano tuners are there in New York City? And how many times the death toll on Sept. 11 is the annual highway death toll?

3. Sequencing. A president must think about how to gain support for an idea or policy. Some things must be accomplished before other things can be attempted. Legislative backing, popular opinion, domestic and international issues must be dealt with in a reasonable order if an administration is going to be successful. Steps can’t be skipped with impunity.

A simple, yet abstract problem of this type? How about the following (answer on page 4): It’s very dark and four mountain climbers stand before a very rickety rope bridge that spans a wide chasm. They know the bridge can only safely hold two people and that they possess only one flashlight, which is needed to avoid the holes in the bridge. For various reasons one of the hikers can cross the bridge in 1 minute, another in 2 minutes, a third in 5 minutes and the fourth, who’s been injured, in 10 minutes. Alas, when two people walk across the bridge, they can only go as fast as the slower of the two hikers. How can they all cross the bridge in 17 minutes?

4. Calculation. Being able to solve a problem using a bit of algebra, it should go without saying (except to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen — link on page 4), can be useful to a politician, whether the issue is taxes, health policy or stock broker commissions.

A simple, yet abstract problem of this type? How about the following, which is not irrelevant to broker commissions (answer below): A 100-pound sack of potatoes is 99 percent water by weight. After staying outdoors for a while, it is found to be only 98 percent water. How much does it weigh now?

5. Deduction, Again, it should go without saying that the ability to make simple deductions is a prerequisite for good decision-making.

A simple, yet abstract problem of this type? How about the following (answer on page 4): Imagine there are three closed boxes, each full of marbles on a table before you. They’re labeled “all blue marbles,” “all red marbles,” and “blue and red marbles.” You’re told that the labels do describe the contents of the boxes, but all three labels are pasted on the wrong boxes. You may reach into only one box blindfolded and remove only one marble. Which box should you select from to enable you to correctly label the boxes?

Although these problems are much easier than those employers use when hiring entry-level programmers, it would be nice to know that the various candidates, who often are more given to bombast than to logic or evidence, could solve them with ease (although being able to solve them wouldn’t be a guarantee of anything). The venue for their solution would be a quiet study with no aides, no pundits, no hot lights, and no intense scrutiny.

What’s your guess about how the various candidates would fare with such puzzles? Mine is that a few would find most of the problems trivial, some would have difficulty with them, and the rest wouldn’t be sufficiently patient to even try them.” (ABC News)

“The reluctance among doctors and family members to initiate these talks runs so deep that, three decades after DNR orders were introduced, their use remains spotty. Now the Department of Public Health is exploring whether to adopt a new kind of form, used in six other states, that could make the process easier. Called POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), the document asks for a patient’s preferences on CPR, but also allows patients to make decisions about use of other life-sustaining interventions, such as intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and breathing machines.” (International Herald Tribune)

“…[R]ecent studies show that perceived racial differences are only skin deep, and that the concept of race is a baseless concoction. But if this is true, then why is there still a prevalent fear of the Other? Sure, these fears may not manifest in the same way that they used to, but nevertheless, some scientists believe that racism is a hardwired, instinctual function of the brain.” (Science A Go Go)

“What if our prejudices could be transformed into a force for good? Harvard social psychologist Todd Pittinsky believes that our reverence for tolerance may be misplaced. The tolerance agenda aims to improve society by eliminating negative attitudes, but has nothing to say about generating positive ones.

Pittinsky’s work focuses on what he has dubbed “allophilia,” borrowed from the Greek for “love of the other.” In survey studies that began in 2005, Pittinsky has found that high levels of allophilia for a particular group predict positive behaviors – such as donating to relevant charities and supporting sympathetic policies – significantly better than low levels of prejudice against the same group.

Pittinsky’s research suggests that negative and positive attitudes are not opposite ends of a spectrum, but at least partially independent – that all the tolerance training in the world would not instill affection for a group.” (Boston Globe)

“Stellar Group of Scientists Gathers to Mull Science, Atheism and Much Else: Last year’s wildly popular Beyond Belief 1.0 scientific conference primarily focused upon and championed irreligion. The Beyond Belief 2.0 conference held at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., this past November was wider in scope. Rather than aiming to be another undiluted atheist lovefest, it attempted to consider changes in the ideas of the Enlightenment that are necessary given advances in various disciplines since the 18th century.

At least that was the stated aim, but any gathering that included the diverse luminaries in attendance would be guaranteed to roam all over the intellectual landscape. Despite the roaming and the diversity, however, the conference remained — pardon the adolescent alliteration — an unbeliever’s utopia, a heathen’s heaven, a pagan’s paradise.” (ABC News)

“Here’s a prediction that’ll make you squirm: In the future, people will fall in love with robots. Not the cold, predictable machines, but actual lovers — precocious, sexy and remarkably humanlike. Humans will even marry robots in certain obliging jurisdictions. Now send the kids into the other room while we mention the obvious, bizarre implication: Someday, people will have sex with robots. And not just cold, mechanical sex that barely incites a feeble meep-meep-meep.” (Miami Herald )