The Ash Twins Blog

Curtis et al (2004) use the following matrix of images

to test the hypothesis that emotional disgust is an evolved psychological device for avoiding disease. From the abstract:

Over 40 000 individuals completed a web-based survey using photo stimuli. Images of objects holding a potential disease threat were reported as significantly more disgusting than similar images with little or no disease relevance. This pattern of response was found across all regions of the world. Females reported higher disgust sensitivity than males; there was a constant decline in disgust sensitivity over the life course; and the bodily fluids of strangers were found more disgusting than those of close relatives. These data provide evidence that the human disgust emotion may be an evolved response to objects in the environment that represent threats of infectious disease.

Wilson et al (1993) found that having to give reasons for one’s preferences seems to cause human subjects to violate their true preferences. In that study, they asked test subjects to evaluate a set of posters, some of which were paintings (van Gogh or Monet) and some of which were humorously themed. In the control group, subjects just gave a generalized rating of the posters. In the test group, subjects were asked to give reasons for why they preferred particular posters. Control-group subjects preferred the paintings, while test-group subjects preferred the joke posters. Apparently, explaining why one likes a humorous poster is easier than explaining why one likes art. At the end of the experiment, subjects selected a poster to take home with them, and again, control-group subjects mostly selected paintings while reasons-giving subjects mostly selected joke posters. Three weeks later, the experimenters contacted test subjects and inquired about the subjects’ contentment with their selected poster. Control-group subjects generally voiced contentment with their selection, while reasons-giving subjects generally expressed discontentment. The requirement of giving reasons for one’s choices served directly to reduce the benefits subjects accrued from participation in the experiment.

A new book on Winston Churchill throws new light on the lionized figure:

As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples.” In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, an instant of doubt. He realized that the local population was fighting back because of “the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own,” just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead that they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a “strong aboriginal propensity to kill.”

He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, writing: “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages.”

The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When the first concentration camps were built in South Africa, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering” possible. At least 115,000 people were swept into them and 14,000 died, but he wrote only of his “irritation that kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men.” …

As war secretary and then colonial secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tans on Ireland’s Catholics, to burn homes and beat civilians. When the Kurds rebelled against British rule in Iraq, he said: “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” It “would spread a lively terror.” (Strangely, Toye doesn’t quote this.)

Of course, it’s easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as anachronistic. Didn’t everybody in Britain think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye’s research is that they really didn’t: even at the time, Churchill was seen as standing at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Gandhi began his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” …

In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of thousands died.

From Baker and George, forthcoming:

We examine whether advertising increases household debt by studying the initial expansion of television in the 1950′s. Exploiting the idiosyncratic spread of television across markets, we use micro data from the Survey of Consumer Finances to test whether households with early access to television saw steeper debt increases than households with delayed access. Results indicate that exposure to television advertising increases the tendency to borrow for household goods and the tendency to carry debt. Television access is associated with higher debt levels for durable goods, but not with the total amount of non-mortgage debt.