« | Home | »

Sugar Rush

Tags: | | | |

It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that rats gamble, since everything that lives and moves gambles. Getting out of bed in the morning is a gamble that the day and life won’t end when a hammer that has slipped out of the hand of a roofer two doors down from the newsagent where you get your paper every morning doesn’t land on your cranium as you pass. You bet it won’t happen, or you stay in bed and sod the crossword. Foxes gamble when they rummage through your rubbish bin that the local hunt isn’t about to come round the corner and tear them to pieces (no one having told them about the recent legislation). The pigeon in my garden gambles that the cat won’t sneak up behind it as it hoovers up the spilt seeds under the bird feeder. It knows the cat’s around, knows the food’s around. Doesn’t want to die, wants to eat. Takes a risk, on whatever basis pigeons work these things out. Living things gamble or they stay absolutely still and die of starvation.

But here’s the clever and the not so clever thing about science: unless all this risky living is taking place in a laboratory, it can’t be measured, and if it can’t be measured it’s just what they call, contemptuously, ‘folk psychology’. So they stick rats in a cage, give them four holes to poke into, and see if they go the ‘good’ route and choose sweeties in smaller quantities but more reliably, or the ‘bad’ route and choose less reliability in higher doses. Like patients with frontal lobe damage, says the Professor, the rats ‘just don’t learn from their experiences. They continue to choose from the “bad decks”.’ According to him the regular reward is the ‘optimal strategy’. Well, according to me and my frontal lobes, and the rats in his lab, we like lots and lots of sugar and we’re prepared to wait out a drought in order to get it. In the long run apparently we get less sugar, but that’s the Professor’s long run. Me and the rats like a little excitement in our lives. So sue us.

The optimum world of neuropsychologists where everything behaves according to a balanced formula of energy and risk versus food and reproductive gain is as neat and boring as living at the end of the Tube line. Even rats bred to live in a cage, while neuroscientists do or don’t give them what they never knew they did or didn’t want in the first place, can take the unreasonable route. Right on, the rats.

Comments on “Sugar Rush”

  1. adam says:

    Commenting wasn’t working yesterday, so I wrote a blog post about this instead, but let me sum it up:

    I think there’s three problems here. First, you’re mischaracterizing the study (it’s studying the effects of dopamine, serotonin and other neuromodulators on risk-taking).

    Second, you seem to have something against scientists with respect to your ‘folk psychology’ argument? But scientists only use ‘folk psychology’ when talking about phenomena that are scientifically unlikely; believe me, we love trying to come up with experiments to test things that are hard, and we still believe that they can happen even if they haven’t been studied. Oh, some of us also do fieldwork, so it doesn’t have to be in a lab to be believed…

    Finally, even if this study *were* just looking at rat gambling, they’d presumably be studying more than whether or not they simply gambled (because that would never be published, believe me). They’d be looking at HOW they gambled, and that’s interesting, yeah? Because surely rats wouldn’t be gambling in the way we do.

    Maybe I’m taking this too seriously, but it’s frustrating seeing scientific work repeatedly misunderstood by the public.

  2. pat.rosier says:

    a word to adam: i-r-o-n-y

  3. adam says:

    I suppose maybe I don’t have a good irony detector. I understand the humor? But I still don’t understand how this is ironic; it just seems like a ‘humorous’ critique of science.

    But if you say it’s ironic, I believe you! I take things too seriously sometimes, I’ll work on that…

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...
    • pgillott on Wishful Thinking about Climate Change: Phrases like “monumental triumph” and (particularly) “renaissance for humankind” are overdoing it, but to suggest that there is no chance of ...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement