
Bullies Like BullyingHow did a nonstory based on an iffy study end up in a New York Times blog?
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008, at 6:21 PM ET
A year ago this month, the New York Times published one of the most notorious pieces of neuromarketing propaganda ever to show up in a major daily. Two Novembers ago, the Times science pages hawked a witless brain-imaging study of speaking in tongues. (In that case, converging evidence from scientists and journalists revealed a useful fact: If you think you're babbling incoherently, then you probably are.)
And now here we are, just a week shy of Thanksgiving. How's the venerable paper going to celebrate Bad Neuroscience Journalism Awareness Month this time around?
Thank goodness for Tara Parker-Pope, the Times' personal-health blogger. Last Wednesday, she posted about a team of neuroscientists from the University of Chicago who had shoved a handful of bullying teenagers into an fMRI scanner to see what was going on inside their heads. "In a chilling finding," she wrote, "the researchers found aggressive youths appear to enjoy inflicting pain on others."
Bullies like bullying? I just felt a shiver run up my spine. Next we'll find out that alcoholics like alcohol. Or that overeaters like to overeat. Hey, I've got an idea for a brain-imaging study of child-molesters that'll just make your skin crawl!
Let's pretend there were some good reason to wonder how much fulfillment a bully finds in his daily wedgies. The University of Chicago research wouldn't help, even if we cared to know.
First, to call these kids bullies—as did Parker-Pope and just about every other science journalist on the scene—is a bit of an understatement. According to the authors of the study, the eight teenagers selected for the experimental group each displayed up to 18 "aggression symptoms," including a propensity for "physical cruelty to people," "cruelty to animals," and "forced sex." Grand-theft lunch money is the least of these kids' crimes. They're more than bullies; sociopaths might be a better descriptor. Or rapists.
Second, the "aggressive youths" never inflicted any pain (real or imagined) on other people during the experiment. Whatever enjoyment or dismay they felt came from viewing a set of photographs depicting, for example, someone stepping on somebody else's toe. So the brain-imaging data may tell us what it's like to watch a bully but not necessarily what it's like to be a bully.
Third, the brain scans themselves are open to interpretation. Compared with the controls, the bad kids showed activity in a pair of brain structures called the amygdala and the ventral striatum. The study's lead author takes that to mean they were getting off on toe-stomping. But neuropunditry watchers may remember that increased blood flow to the amygdala can be tricky to interpret, as it's been associated with a wide range of emotions. In practice, an fMRI signal in that nutty brain area is more often taken as a sign of anxiety than enjoyment.
The astute blogger Neurocritic points out that the teenagers in the study showed other responses that don't quite fit with the theory that bullies like bullying. A look at the original research paper reveals the "bullies" also showed activity in areas related to the sensation of pain, like the anterior insula and somatosensory cortex. So if the aggressive youths appeared to be experiencing more pleasure than the control group, they may have been feeling more empathy, too.
OK, OK: Why am I wasting time on a study so lame that it got a write-up in the Onion? Hasn't this whole fMRI backlash routine gotten a bit passé?
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?












Pot.com refers to lack of reflected light from NYT Kettle.
--gilker
(Find this post here)
It's a blog. They didn't put it on A1 above the fold.
I hate science for the sake of science, when researchers slap each other on the back for proving common knowledge, oblivious to the fact they've contributed nothing to solving the problem at hand. That said, you don't know how a study is going to turn out when you start it (what if there'd been some surprising results like the bullies were repulsed by images of pain, for example?) and it is work from a major university. To me, it seems perfectly appropriate to include in a blog...even if it is one of the official blogs of (gasp) the New York Times.
--Sundown
(Find this post here)
Anyone else find that kinda scary? In the print world, say a daily paper, I presume an article has to be in by (I really don't know and am guessing) 11pm? 10pm? to make the next day's edition...online the 11am edition needs to have the article in by 10:59am...if anything, the standards for the web should be higher given the ease at which an item is published.
I read a great deal online and am constantly amazed (although I shouldn't be) at what passes for "fact" or even research...I've had people claim something to me (from wikipedia of course) and then gone to check and find "needs citation"...
With budget cutbacks, 24 hour reporting comes laziness...far too few well thought out or researched ideas...it's simply easier to produce something based on hearsay, press releases or simply what sounds reasonable enough to be true....
--mustireallyweighin
(Find this post here)
(11/19)