Comments on: A bad taste in your mouth – moral outrage has origins in physical disgust http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/ Dive into the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science news with award-winning writer Ed Yong. No previous experience required. Sat, 26 May 2012 10:52:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tom http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3100 Tom Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:23:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3100 if a cop said about another cops... he sure left a bad taste in your mouth.. what should i think? if a cop said about another cops… he sure left a bad taste in your mouth.. what should i think?

]]> By: Aenthropi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3099 Aenthropi Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:11:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3099 I should concede that I mistook the scatter graphs, but I should concede nothing of the testimony. I specifically labeled it as non science, an anecdote, something that occurred near me; whereas, I accused the author of labeling non science (or insignificant science) science. The panglosian I suppose is a bit of an obscure reference to a comment made on another article written by Ed Yong. Clearly a difference of circumstance between my petty report and this petty science exists. I should concede that I mistook the scatter graphs, but I should concede nothing of the testimony. I specifically labeled it as non science, an anecdote, something that occurred near me; whereas, I accused the author of labeling non science (or insignificant science) science. The panglosian I suppose is a bit of an obscure reference to a comment made on another article written by Ed Yong.
Clearly a difference of circumstance between my petty report and this petty science exists.

]]> By: Alex Deam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3098 Alex Deam Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:09:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3098 Aenthropi said: <blockquote>I think the study had too many variables, and the data was over fitted. E and F are useless scatter graphs. We can tell because it looks like someone hit it with a shot gun, and if there is a pattern, there are not yet enough samples to determine it.</blockquote> Er, that's exactly what graphs E and F are supposed to show. See the part where it says, <i>"As before, the more disgusted the players felt, the stronger the contractions of their levator labii muscles (D). Neither anger, contempt nor any other emotion was related to the activity of these muscles (E,F). And of all seven emotions, disgust was the only one whose strength could predict a player's odds of rejecting an unfair offer."</i> The point is that E and F do look "like someone hit it with a shot gun", so that shows that anger and sadness (see E and F's x-axes) aren't correlated with the movement of these muscles. The only thing that shows any sort of correlation is graph D, which is about disgust, the point of the whole paper. <blockquote>Testimonial: Recently, my friend and I were walking the hall when we passed someone I know my friend finds morally revolting. As we passed, the revolting person greeted us, and my friend smiled kindly. Why should she smile if the finding of this article is true? Panglossian indeed.</blockquote> Firstly, your friend is talking to someone they don't like morally, not seeing some immoral or disgusting action. The paper is about the responses to actions, not people. I mean if I saw Hitler I wouldn't be disgusted, but I would if I saw Auschwitz. You should be looking at your friend's reaction when this other person actually does something "immoral" or "disgusting". Secondly, the paper isn't talking about "smiling", it is talking about the movement of particular muscles. Until you measure the response of your friend's levator labii muscles, you can't say anything about her response to this person compared to this study. Also, your story is an anecdote. Not only is your story not scientific, but in it, you do exactly what you accuse this study of doing. Namely, using to small a statistical sample. You complain that there were only 27 people studied, yet you give n example of just a single person. You know full well that if what person doesn't fit a trend doesn't mean there's no correlation. As it happens, I agree with you that the sample size tested was probably too small in this study to be meaningful, but I don't agree with the rest of your points. Aenthropi said:

I think the study had too many variables, and the data was over fitted. E and F are useless scatter graphs. We can tell because it looks like someone hit it with a shot gun, and if there is a pattern, there are not yet enough samples to determine it.

Er, that’s exactly what graphs E and F are supposed to show. See the part where it says, “As before, the more disgusted the players felt, the stronger the contractions of their levator labii muscles (D). Neither anger, contempt nor any other emotion was related to the activity of these muscles (E,F). And of all seven emotions, disgust was the only one whose strength could predict a player’s odds of rejecting an unfair offer.” The point is that E and F do look “like someone hit it with a shot gun”, so that shows that anger and sadness (see E and F’s x-axes) aren’t correlated with the movement of these muscles. The only thing that shows any sort of correlation is graph D, which is about disgust, the point of the whole paper.

Testimonial: Recently, my friend and I were walking the hall when we passed someone I know my friend finds morally revolting. As we passed, the revolting person greeted us, and my friend smiled kindly. Why should she smile if the finding of this article is true?
Panglossian indeed.

Firstly, your friend is talking to someone they don’t like morally, not seeing some immoral or disgusting action. The paper is about the responses to actions, not people. I mean if I saw Hitler I wouldn’t be disgusted, but I would if I saw Auschwitz. You should be looking at your friend’s reaction when this other person actually does something “immoral” or “disgusting”. Secondly, the paper isn’t talking about “smiling”, it is talking about the movement of particular muscles. Until you measure the response of your friend’s levator labii muscles, you can’t say anything about her response to this person compared to this study. Also, your story is an anecdote. Not only is your story not scientific, but in it, you do exactly what you accuse this study of doing. Namely, using to small a statistical sample. You complain that there were only 27 people studied, yet you give n example of just a single person. You know full well that if what person doesn’t fit a trend doesn’t mean there’s no correlation.
As it happens, I agree with you that the sample size tested was probably too small in this study to be meaningful, but I don’t agree with the rest of your points.

]]> By: Aenthropi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3097 Aenthropi Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:06:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3097 Maybe it is not the study that bothers me so much as the reporting. I could elaborate two trains: How I dislike the study, and how I dislike this story. No one should care in a substantive way what the implications of the theory are at this point; for it is basically untested or it needs much more and rigorous testing than this. The implications of The Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft, if verified, would pose an interesting link between man in the universe. So what? No testing; not science. I think the study had too many variables, and the data was over fitted. E and F are useless scatter graphs. We can tell because it looks like someone hit it with a shot gun, and if there is a pattern, there are not yet enough samples to determine it. D has pattern more along the line but again too few samples. I will roll two dice of six sides. They tallied five pips and six: a total of 11 pips; an average of 5.5 pips; therefore, six-sided dice average 5.5 pips. This is obviously wrong. Without the aid of mathematics to predict the average, I need to roll the dice many more times to establish a correct average of 3.5 pips in my samples. In truth, I fudged the test and rolled twice. My first attempt was two and four pips, which would demonstrate an average of three. Three is close to the average, but not on yet. Even if I got something exactly--say two and five--I could not know I had the correct average until I repeated the sample many more times, and I have nothing worth talking about until I did. Further related to the study in the above article: if we want to them make a claim about the human condition, we need to test all groups of humans to help shift out what is cultural and what is innate, and I think there are at least a few more than 20 cultures in the world. I think C is contaminated, but I am not sure to what extent. Did they leave the words on when they sampled the participants? Words are icons and stand for ideas, thus they would contaminate the results. Even facial expressions are icons for emotions, which are (I guess) well established as cultural artifacts. Take theater masks. Take this :). Is it not a face? Does it it not represent a smile and then some. If the Scientist who did this wants to make a convincing and serious argument, she should need to be more rigorous than this. If this is undergraduate work, then good job. She showed all her work, followed the method well enough and did the motions. As graduate work it is not acceptable to me. But maybe I am bothered more by the reporting of it. Why is this author lauding this so much as an accomplishment? I know I did not list everything I find wrong. My peers who reviewed this article with me at college agree it is pseudoscience with psychologists amongst us. It does not have predictive powers. It is not well executed. It is not even finished. This is not yet noteworthy, but it is presented as some kind of breakthrough. The author wrote this: "The wrinkled nose and pursed lips that accompany physical disgust could serve to close off our senses from offending tastes and smells - a theory that was confirmed just last year by Josh Susskind, who also worked on this study." The theory (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/06/15/fearful-facial-expressions-enhance-our-perception) gets the same glorification, but it is similarly feeble: To quote, "Suskind asked 20 students to make fearful or disgusted faces while looking at a large grid." Twenty? Only Twenty? And just made the faces. Humbug! We are testing a fear response linked to mortal danger. This is a strong response in humans, who for an irrational reason fear death and demise. They can not just make a face and open their eyes and claim they have got it; they have to scare the participants, shake them to the bone and put the fear of God into them, and then test them. Now this is my kind of testing. This finding strikes against my intuition. As I understand, people in mortal stress become hyper focused. Tunnel vision is a problem, as well as hyper fixation on specific details. People who train for positions that involve this sort of stress have to work hard to overcome the reflex. So, that people who are not scared see more when they open eyes wide is not a surprise at all. If we want to know how frightened people see, we need to test the frightened. This is sensationalism, and if this is typical of Ed Young's reporting, then he is a sensationalist. I understand how academics need to occasionally make things more accessible to the lay, but they is no excuse glorifying mimsy science or faulty results to the public, many of whom are easily duped (sorry lay people). It is even counter productive. It is misrepresentation. It is lying. Testimonial: Recently, my friend and I were walking the hall when we passed someone I know my friend finds morally revolting. As we passed, the revolting person greeted us, and my friend smiled kindly. Why should she smile if the finding of this article is true? Panglossian indeed. Maybe it is not the study that bothers me so much as the reporting. I could elaborate two trains: How I dislike the study, and how I dislike this story.
No one should care in a substantive way what the implications of the theory are at this point; for it is basically untested or it needs much more and rigorous testing than this. The implications of The Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft, if verified, would pose an interesting link between man in the universe. So what? No testing; not science.
I think the study had too many variables, and the data was over fitted. E and F are useless scatter graphs. We can tell because it looks like someone hit it with a shot gun, and if there is a pattern, there are not yet enough samples to determine it. D has pattern more along the line but again too few samples. I will roll two dice of six sides. They tallied five pips and six: a total of 11 pips; an average of 5.5 pips; therefore, six-sided dice average 5.5 pips. This is obviously wrong. Without the aid of mathematics to predict the average, I need to roll the dice many more times to establish a correct average of 3.5 pips in my samples.
In truth, I fudged the test and rolled twice. My first attempt was two and four pips, which would demonstrate an average of three. Three is close to the average, but not on yet. Even if I got something exactly–say two and five–I could not know I had the correct average until I repeated the sample many more times, and I have nothing worth talking about until I did. Further related to the study in the above article: if we want to them make a claim about the human condition, we need to test all groups of humans to help shift out what is cultural and what is innate, and I think there are at least a few more than 20 cultures in the world.
I think C is contaminated, but I am not sure to what extent. Did they leave the words on when they sampled the participants? Words are icons and stand for ideas, thus they would contaminate the results. Even facial expressions are icons for emotions, which are (I guess) well established as cultural artifacts. Take theater masks. Take this :) . Is it not a face? Does it it not represent a smile and then some.
If the Scientist who did this wants to make a convincing and serious argument, she should need to be more rigorous than this. If this is undergraduate work, then good job. She showed all her work, followed the method well enough and did the motions. As graduate work it is not acceptable to me.
But maybe I am bothered more by the reporting of it. Why is this author lauding this so much as an accomplishment? I know I did not list everything I find wrong. My peers who reviewed this article with me at college agree it is pseudoscience with psychologists amongst us. It does not have predictive powers. It is not well executed. It is not even finished. This is not yet noteworthy, but it is presented as some kind of breakthrough.
The author wrote this: “The wrinkled nose and pursed lips that accompany physical disgust could serve to close off our senses from offending tastes and smells – a theory that was confirmed just last year by Josh Susskind, who also worked on this study.” The theory (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/06/15/fearful-facial-expressions-enhance-our-perception) gets the same glorification, but it is similarly feeble: To quote, “Suskind asked 20 students to make fearful or disgusted faces while looking at a large grid.” Twenty? Only Twenty? And just made the faces. Humbug! We are testing a fear response linked to mortal danger. This is a strong response in humans, who for an irrational reason fear death and demise. They can not just make a face and open their eyes and claim they have got it; they have to scare the participants, shake them to the bone and put the fear of God into them, and then test them. Now this is my kind of testing.
This finding strikes against my intuition. As I understand, people in mortal stress become hyper focused. Tunnel vision is a problem, as well as hyper fixation on specific details. People who train for positions that involve this sort of stress have to work hard to overcome the reflex.
So, that people who are not scared see more when they open eyes wide is not a surprise at all. If we want to know how frightened people see, we need to test the frightened.
This is sensationalism, and if this is typical of Ed Young’s reporting, then he is a sensationalist. I understand how academics need to occasionally make things more accessible to the lay, but they is no excuse glorifying mimsy science or faulty results to the public, many of whom are easily duped (sorry lay people). It is even counter productive. It is misrepresentation. It is lying.
Testimonial: Recently, my friend and I were walking the hall when we passed someone I know my friend finds morally revolting. As we passed, the revolting person greeted us, and my friend smiled kindly. Why should she smile if the finding of this article is true?
Panglossian indeed.

]]> By: UlrikP http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3096 UlrikP Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:14:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3096 Ed, thanks for a thought-provoking article. Edwin, thank you for the Sam Harris link; he is one of my heroes. @ms. Aenthropi: I don't quite understand your attitude towards the idea behind the study (even though your choice of words are somewhat revealing). Sure, it's a small study in terms of the number of volunteers, but you must agree that if verified, this poses an interesting link between man's biology and psyche. No? In that case, let me ask you if you recall your facial expression at the time you read the article or when you commented it? - joking apart, I think the idea sounds plausible enough to deserve further scrutiny. Ed, thanks for a thought-provoking article.
Edwin, thank you for the Sam Harris link; he is one of my heroes.
@ms. Aenthropi: I don’t quite understand your attitude towards the idea behind the study (even though your choice of words are somewhat revealing). Sure, it’s a small study in terms of the number of volunteers, but you must agree that if verified, this poses an interesting link between man’s biology and psyche. No? In that case, let me ask you if you recall your facial expression at the time you read the article or when you commented it? – joking apart, I think the idea sounds plausible enough to deserve further scrutiny.

]]> By: Shaun Sperl http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3095 Shaun Sperl Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:57:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3095 If you are further interested in this topic read Jonah Lehrer's first chapter in his first book - Proust Was A Neuroscientist. It is a thought-provoking, superbly written book overall, but his first chapter on Walt Whitman, subtitled The Substance of Feeling, addresses this idea directly. Our feelings begin in our flesh. Not to mention his excellent blog - The Frontal Cortex - also on ScienceBlogs. I sing the body electric. If you are further interested in this topic read Jonah Lehrer’s first chapter in his first book – Proust Was A Neuroscientist. It is a thought-provoking, superbly written book overall, but his first chapter on Walt Whitman, subtitled The Substance of Feeling, addresses this idea directly. Our feelings begin in our flesh. Not to mention his excellent blog – The Frontal Cortex – also on ScienceBlogs. I sing the body electric.

]]> By: Phil Goetz http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3094 Phil Goetz Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:20:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3094 Could causation run the other way - from shared language terms, to shared expressions? Could causation run the other way – from shared language terms, to shared expressions?

]]> By: Ms. Aenthropi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3093 Ms. Aenthropi Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:55:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3093 Is this undergraduate work or something? 27 volunteers; 16 volunteers; at least when I did my work in pseudo-science, I had the self-respect to admit my findings were more likely a statistical anomaly than anything finding. Tut tut. Is this undergraduate work or something? 27 volunteers; 16 volunteers; at least when I did my work in pseudo-science, I had the self-respect to admit my findings were more likely a statistical anomaly than anything finding.
Tut tut.

]]> By: Edwin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3092 Edwin Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:28:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3092 Eh, <a href="http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Harris_Sheth_Cohen.pdf" rel="nofollow">Harris et al</a> put forward the very same idea last year. Why is there no mention? Is Harris too politically incorrect for (so-called) Scienceblogs? Eh, Harris et al put forward the very same idea last year. Why is there no mention? Is Harris too politically incorrect for (so-called) Scienceblogs?

]]> By: Sam K. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/comment-page-1/#comment-3091 Sam K. Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:50:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/27/a-bad-taste-in-your-mouth-moral-outrage-has-origins-in-physical-disgust/#comment-3091 This reminds me a lot of Paul Ekman's research; this brings up the bigger question of whether facial expressions are signals or part of our actual hard-wired reaction, i.e. our facial expression *is* our emotion to some extent. Also, in light of Abie's comment, I wonder how the reaction time of the muscles varied? This reminds me a lot of Paul Ekman’s research; this brings up the bigger question of whether facial expressions are signals or part of our actual hard-wired reaction, i.e. our facial expression *is* our emotion to some extent. Also, in light of Abie’s comment, I wonder how the reaction time of the muscles varied?

]]>