This Week's Headcase Etcetera

The first of what the Headcase hopes is a weekly collection of links and briefs, operating under the working title of Headcase Etcetera. Without further introduction...

Filed Under: Agnostics Rule
Religious Racism

An article in Personality and Social Psychology Review reports a strong correlation between being highly religious and harboring racist sentiments. The authors analyzed 55 studies linking religiosity and racism conducted since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. They found that "greater religious identification, greater extrinsic religiosity, and greater religious fundamentalism were all positively related to racism."

Study Breakdown:

• 22,075 subjects
• 57% female
• Primarily white and Christian
• Primarily racist toward blacks
• Pooled from the United States

The authors' concluding thoughts:

Although religious people might be expected to express humanitarian acceptance of others, their humanitarianism is expressed primarily toward in-group members. Thus, we found little evidence that religiosity motivated racial tolerance. ... Only those individuals with an agnostic, questioning orientation toward religion (i.e., quest) proved racially tolerant.

I'm rather curious how—if?—the conclusion would have differed in other populations from around the world.

(Hat tip: Sullivan)

Filed Under: Excruciating Minutiae
Take That, Small Talk

A new study to be published in Psychological Science reports a negative correlation between small talk and well-being. The authors followed 79 subjects fitted with recorders that clicked on for 30 seconds every 12.5 minutes for four days, then coded the chatter into discussions that were serious and those that were mindless.

Study Breakdown:

• 23,689 conversations were coded
• The happiest subjects spent 25% less time alone than the unhappiest
• The happiest subjects engaged in 1/3 as much small talk as the unhappiest
• Yet the happiest subjects spent 70% more time talking overall

The authors conclude:

Together, the present findings demonstrate that the happy life is social rather than solitary, and conversationally deep rather than superficial.

My biggest problem with the study was its model of classification. The paper's example of small talk was What do you have there? Popcorn? while the so-called "substantive" talk was She fell in love with your dad? So, did they get divorced soon after? Maybe I was wrong to think the serious conversations would summon the spirit of Cicero, but this sounds more like gossip to me. If that's what passes for deep thoughts these days, I prefer popcorn and misery.

(Hat tip: 60-second Psych)

Filed Under: Speaking of Misery
Debate on Depression, Con't

In light of recent Headcase musings on articles about depression's upside by Louis Menand and Jonah Lehrer, I point readers to a comprehensive blog post on the subject by science writer David Dobbs.

Dobbs's conclusion that the topic is "complicated" is probably a given, but he adds that merely "thinking a bit" about the positions can "produce some useful insights," to which I give a hearty (and agnostic), Amen.

Filed Under: I Respect Wood
Begin Your Enthusiasm

Nothing cures a bout of sadness like Larry David announcing that a new season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" is in the works, even if he does so about as grumpily as anyone can announce something so wonderful:

It's not definite yet, but we're working on some stuff.

The announcement came during a moderated talk with other members of the cast and crew that was apparently a grand roundtable of negativity. Words like "icily," "all-but-sneered," and "frostily" are used to describe L.D.'s responses. Jeff Garlin, in mentioning how sick he is of people pitching him show ideas, said: "I've never heard one funny one." And you can imagine what happened when the moderator brought up Seinfeld.

The article prompted the Lil' Headcase to pose an interesting question: Did this group of delightful curmudgeons find each other because they're all bitter, or does King David's essential bitterness rub off on his loyal subjects? The answer is far less important than the news that Leon, played by J.B. Smoove, is also set to return.

Depression Essential Reads

Can Sound Waves Treat Depression?

How Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Could Ease Depression

Filed Under: Ah, Alliteration
The Science of March Madness

And finally, apropos of nothing but March, a study by psychologists on how people choose winners of the NCAA Tournament appeared in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology this week. (What fortunate timing!) The authors examined tourney results from 1985-2005 and 3 million first-round brackets from the ESPN Tournament Challenge only to conclude, in the words of coauthor Ed Hirt of Indiana:

The upsets people pick are no better than chance. ... They pick upsets but not the right ones and end up sabotaging their efforts.

Despite being a great fan of college basketball, I stopped entering NCAA pools years ago. (I've never understood the notion of needing incentive to watch a form of entertainment that's designed to be watched without need for incentive.) But I recall a stark refutation of the above finding that occurred in my youth, when I presented my bracket to my father having chosen Ball State to upset Pittsburgh in the first round. The error of my choice was explained to me—Ball State, despite having only 2 losses on the season, played inferior opponents—and so, like a good son, I changed the selection.

Ball State won.

(Hat tip: Cardiff Garcia)