« | 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

    • Neil Kitson on Unwinnable War Two: There is no Chapter VII support for military action in Resolution 2249.
    • pinkycubin on Unwinnable War Two: Streetsj, It is obvious there is no clear 'solution'. That doesn't therefore mean that the use of ordnance dropped from height is part of the answ...
    • soadenubi on Being Lord Lugard: As a Nigerian normally resident in Lagos, I found the blog:Being Lord Lugard a most interesting read. This note is primarily a request that the Autho...
    • streetsj on Unwinnable War Two: Yes. So what's your solution? A negotiated settlement of peace for everyone. And who would disagree - but realistically what is the answer? One thing...
    • streetsj on What does Osborne want?: I have thought since 2010 that much of the most austere rhetoric has been directed at the financial markets. Meanwhile reality is very different as pu...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement