Using Cigarettes to Explore why Smart Students do Dumb Things

About the Author

Dr. Peter Stromberg received a BS and BA at Purdue and then received his PhD from Stanford in 1981. He completed post-doc fellowships in psychiatry and human development. He now teaches several Anthropology classes at the University of Tulsa. Although he seems like a charismatic guy, I’m not 100% sure why he got a chile pepper on Rate my Professor.

Subtle Ironies

He starts off the chapter by pointing out how ironic it seems that the smartest kids are the ones that go to college, but that they also allow themselves to pick up these self-destructive habits in college. I’d like to expand that even further—I know everyone has done things that are widely considered bad for you while in college. Whether it’s an all-nighter before a big test you procrastinated on, pizza and ramen on the same day, or drinking to the point of blacking out. All the “best and brightest” at our University can absolutely tell you these behaviors are unhealthy, yet they continue to engage.

As he describes it, these behaviors come from a “lapse in agency”, or losing yourself in the moment. He does a great job breaking apart that terminology, but as I imagine it, the lapse in agency comes at around 2 am during your all-nighter, or after that 7th drink at the party, or anytime you’re around your friends just giggling about things you know no one else would find funny. Agency itself is the concept that we have control of our actions and can therefore be responsible for them. He also mentions that we can recognize others as independent agents who have their own thoughts, feelings, and motives as well. This is what truly sets us apart from other mammals and allows us to have free will—we gossip about each other, set each other up on dates, and play messenger between parties. We have the social capacity to recognize how others may react to our actions and we have to claim responsibility for those actions. Other animals don’t have this ability, and it’s this social manipulation that develops over a lifetime that allows us to become independent agents.

Small Scale Mob Mentality

Once Stromberg sets up this definition and clarifies that it is unique to humans, he begins to explain how, as independent agents, we sometimes don’t understand why we make the decisions we do. One explanation for this is Durkheim’s collective effervescence. Originally used in spiritual and religious practices, this term is applicable to so many other social interactions, as Randall Collins has pointed out and Stromberg adapts for his purposes. A great example of this phenomenon is during football games. You may be shouting things you don’t even understand just because thousands of people around you are also shouting. You’re swept by the feelings and emotions of others so much that it impacts your decision-making and behavior. By making associations between your feelings, the place, and the collective emotions you may make associations with the sport itself. I don’t think he does an excellent job explaining the flow of logic here, but this is how I imagine it: Your emotions → the emotions of the people around you → your emotions → the objects associated with the event + your behavior → how you behave the next time you’re reminded of the situation/ object. To me, it seems like it mixes in classical conditioning, but the author never specifically mentions that. I guess another way to explain it would be that when you’re excited in a social situation, you become conditioned to act that way in similar future situations.

Young, Dumb, and Broke (Khalid)

Once Stromberg sets the scene for our behavior as individuals (and that we are aware how it affects the collective) and for collective behavior (becoming excited and transferring that behavior to future situations) he can start to unravel why the smartest young adults might make thoughtless decisions, like smoking cigarettes. He groups these reason into three categories—imitation and rhythmic entrainment, pretend play, and emotional arousal.

Sorry Not Sorry (Demi Lovato)

As seems obvious to any college student, the first explanation is a social one. All those times in elementary school when you were reminded, “just say no!” were actually for now. In this explanation, smoking follows the classical conditioning model I laid out above, that smoking becomes associated with the social situation. According to Stromberg’s study, the most social people tend to give in to smoking more often than those who do not place value on parties and social gatherings. Just like so many things in Western Culture, cigarettes can be seen as a status symbol. While originally smokers were separated into a higher class, in light of all the negative health ramifications smoking has been transferred to a lower social class. This is another interesting irony in smoking because very few in the lowest social classes can afford to go to college yet smoking still holds that stigma. He also asserts in this argument for social imitation that mirror neurons are at play. Mirror neurons are well established to play a large role in development while a child is learning how to do coordinated movements, but they may also be active later while young adults are learning new activities with social implications (such as smoking).

 

Cool Kids (Echosmith)

His next explanation includes something that I’ve never heard used to describe social situations after about 11-years-old: Pretend play (although I understand the concept continues throughout life, that terminology is typically used in describing children). As I understand it, because smoking is something most of these students would not normally do, they are playing the part of a much “cooler” version of themselves, imitating others they see as cool. A cigarette is just a prop in that game, much like my mom’s makeup was a prop when I pretended to be a princess when I was five. The lapse in agency occurs when students take on this new role and are no longer playing the part of their self, the rational being who knows smoking is bad. This also reminds me of the multiple selves theory, which states that there are actually three selves, a theater of consciousness, the narrator, and the public self, which would be the one who finds it more attractive to smoke in social situations.

Look What You Made Me Do (Taylor Swift)

The third explanation Stromberg gives is one of emotional arousal, which centralizes around Durkheim’s Collective Effervescence. Using mimicry and rhythmic entrainment the collective group involved in the social gathering will collectively feel an amplified emotional state. The agency then shifts from the individual to the group, who are all feeling highly emotionally aroused. This can also translate to a sort of amnesia, where memories become foggy. Through this loss of agency is another time when people may lose their ability to inhibit behaviors they normally would not take part in. By associating this state with smoking, first-year students are probably more likely to continue it into the future, they may seek this dissociated pleasure every time they smoke.

Questions for Conversation:

  1. Mirror neurons are usually studied using fMRIs. Using that, could we develop a procedure to see mirror neurons active in more intricate social situations such as smoking?
  2. Even though nicotine is highly addictive, Stromberg never actually mentions addiction, why do you think that is?
  3. Could smoking in this context be considered a behavioral addiction rather than a physical dependence?
  4. Do you agree with the assertion he made that college students find smoking to hold an “erotic prestige”?

Breaking Down Addiction Into Its Constituent Parts: Neuroscience, Incentive Salience, Environment, and Habits

Dr. Daniel H. Lende

Daniel Lende is an associate professor from the department of anthropology at The University of South Florida. He was trained in medical, psychological, and biological anthropology and public health at Emory University in Georgia. His research interests revolve around substance use and abuse, behavioral health, stress, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, embodiment, interventions in behavioral health, and risk-factor epidemiology. He has done fieldwork research in both Colombia and the United States. Dr. Lende and Dr. Downey (the other author of our class book) started Neuroanthropology, which is one of The Public Library of Science (PLOS) Blogs.

Addiction and Neuroanthropology

“Addiction and Neuroanthropology” by Daniel H. Lende is a multifaceted explanation of the neural and cultural processes intertwined in drug seeking behavior and addiction. A difference between Colombian ideologies of addiction and North American ideologies is that in Columbia, the problem of addiction doesn’t revolve around pleasure. In Columbia, addiction defies their basic social value, which is protecting family, friends, and the community. In this context, addiction is problematic because drug seeking and using surpasses basic social values. In the United States, however, pleasure is one of the main concerns about addiction. It is viewed as a disease that develops due to one’s biology and self-control. Lende uses both a combination of previous neuroscientific evidence in conjunction with his ethnographic fieldwork to explain how addiction is not a problem of pleasure or the self, but a neuroanthropological conglomerate of a host of factors.

Lende states that addiction is composed of two parts, the compulsive desire for a drug and the drug habit that is formed. Addiction, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) consists of four parts. The first criteria are that addiction involves the experiencing of tolerance and withdrawal. The second discusses how addiction also involves continued drug use despite their impact on health and one’s social life. The third further explains addiction as the persistent desire to use drugs after multiple failed attempts at controlling use. Lastly, the fourth criteria are about how drug use interferes with daily life and roles and obligations are neglected.

So, what drives the actual behaviors associated with addiction? The 1993 theory of addiction proposed by Robinson and Berridge claims that incentive salience is the reason for addiction. This theory led to widespread belief that the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway was singlehandedly responsible. Lende proposes that this view of addiction is problematic and desire and involvement, or the cultural aspects of drug use, are a couple of the components missing from this explanation.

Neuroscience and Addiction

Previous studies have shown us that addiction involves many interconnected brain areas such as emotion, memory, and choice. Addiction encompasses the basal brain, which is involved in body regulation and activation, limbic circuits associated with emotions and environmental processing, and frontal cortices, which are associated with executive functions such as control, planning, and organization. The neuroscientific aspect of the pursuit of drugs and the repeated use of drugs involves two parts of the mesolimbic pathway, the ventral and dorsal striatum and the ventral tegmental area.

Incentive Salience and Addiction

Reward theory states that environmental stimuli shape animal responses. Berridge and Robinson believe that there are three facets to the reward process. The first is liking, or the hedonic impact, learning, or making predictive associations, and lastly, wanting, or incentive salience. Incentive salience is a type of “wanting” that involves goals, expectations, and future outcomes. Salience, however, is still not the complete picture because desire and involvement are both biological and cultural. Incentive salience is mediated by both the nucleus accumbens and the ventral pallidum. Furthermore, individual experiences, the presence of cues, social contexts, and environmental influences all produce different patterns of firing resulting in differences in salience signaling.

An example that provides a better understanding of the behavioral side of the explanation is adolescent drug use. Students with problems in their home life and academic problems at school see few options for fun, success, or a sense of involvement in either of these settings. When rewards from school and family are absent, these two contexts become irrelevant and lose their incentive salience, therefore, students seek other options and other realms where rewards are provided and incentive salience is present. As Berridge et al. (2009) would sum it up, incentive salience is about a subjective sense of “this matters,” rather than conscious desire. Incentive salience is about the motivation of drug seeking rather than the appreciation of wanting or desiring drugs.

Neuroscience and The Formation of Habits

Habits, as defined by Graybiel (2008), are “learned, repetitive, sequential, context-triggered behaviors performed not in relation to a current or future goal but rather in relation to a pervious goal and the antecedent behavior that most successfully led to achieving that goal.” Habits are a product of both behaviors and neurobiology.

Neurologically, learning about the rewards associated with drug use activates the ventral striatum. As drug use becomes persistent and repetitive, a neural activation shift takes place from the ventral striatum to the dorsal striatum, where activation here serves to maintain drug seeking and drug using habits. Due to this shift, the ventral striatum, which serves to evaluate outcomes and consequence of behaviors, no longer serves its function and behaviors are mechanically produced. Despite increased tolerance, habits mediated by the dorsal striatum become resistant to change regardless of the rewards reaped by that behavior.

An example of this is extinction training in lab rats. Rats trained to press a lever that delivers drugs exhibit neurobiologically mediated behaviors associated with the dorsal striatum. When placed in a different context where lever pressing does not yield drugs, rats continuously lever press although no drugs are administered. Only when the dorsal striatum or nucleus accumbens are lesioned do rat lever pressing behaviors cease.

Behavior and The Formation of Habits

This neurological explanation leads people to believe that addicts find little pleasure in continued drug use. However, behaviorally, drug use may still be a rewarding activity. The social interactions associated with drug use are rewarding despite the blunting of the pharmalogical effects of the drug. Once addiction sets in, oftentimes familial relationships and community involvement decreases and strong social bonds develop between drug users. Even without the same extent of high, the social networks formed with drug users become a major source of social interaction. Additionally, stress increases dorsal striatum activation which further reinforces habitual behaviors.

Summary

Drug use has more incentive salience than other areas of one’s life and becomes habitual. Increased drug use is reinforced because of social bonds between drug users, the neurological rewards associated with the high of the drug, and the activation of habit solidifying brain regions. The more involvement in drug social groups, the more incentive salience signaling increases and drug users seek drugs out even more. This complicated picture of drug use shows how addiction is both neurological and anthropological.

Similar Research

This chapter reminds me of our very first readings that discussed nerves, synapses, neurotransmitters, and different regions of the brain. It also reminds me of the second week’s readings about the encultured brain. Addiction is a perfect example of how the brain is encultured. This chapter shows how a neurological structure could influence behaviors and how an individual’s environment and behaviors also serve to reinforce neural activation patters and solidify these behaviors. This reading also reminded me of articles written by Dr. Gilbert Quintero, a cultural anthropologist who researches the social, cultural, and political economic aspects of drug use. Like Lende, Quintero has also studied young adult populations in the United States.

Towards the end of the chapter Lende touches on the idea of cultural models and how they play a role in the addiction process. If you all don’t already know, Dr. Bill Dressler, here in our very own anthropology department, conducts a lot of research on cultural models. His research focuses on how cultural consonance or discordance with salient cultural models may produce health benefits or may prove to be detrimental to one’s health. Next week’s reading on depression and anxiety discusses this concept further. People who are not culturally consonant with salient cultural models of a “good life” develop higher levels of anxiety than those who are culturally consonant. This relates to Dr. Lende’s argument because as we learned, higher levels of stress increase activation in the dorsal striatum. And as we know, the dorsal striatum serves to maintain and further perpetuate habits. Therefore, stress and anxiety associated with alienation from the community and family, coupled with societies’ negative view of addiction and the addict’s discordant lifestyle with salient cultural models, serve to dig a drug addict deeper into his or her drug pattern.

What I Liked or Didn’t Like

I liked how this chapter began by showing the contrasting ideologies behind addiction in Columbia and the United States. I also liked how the discussion progressed to an explanation of previous beliefs about drug use, addiction, and drug addicts. I believe that Lende’s approach of providing the reader with broader preconceived notions about addiction and his “busting” of these myths is an effective way to draw the reader in and provide alternate explanations. He talks about how historically, people have either taken a strictly neurological approach to addiction or a strictly behavioral approach to addiction. Then, he mends these two arguments by explaining how both are intertwined and are required for an accurate and holistic explanation of addiction.

What I thought was lacking was the organization of the chapter. I felt like there were certain areas that could be more condensed and straight to the point. I also felt that information that should have been presented together was scattered around which made it a little more difficult to grasp. This disorganization made the reader fetch for information and have to piece it all together for a comprehensive understanding. Similarly, I felt that a summary at the end of each section with the key take away points would have been beneficial to understanding how each component of the argument ties into the argument as a whole.

 

Questions for Pondering

  1. If the nucleus accumbens and the dorsal striatum are responsible for forming habitual drug seeking behaviors in addicts, why don’t we just lesion those brain areas?
  2. Why do you think that current drug rehab programs so often fail to change addictive behaviors?
  3. Using what Lende has shared with us, how could we use this knowledge to develop a more effective treatment process?
  4. Some children with negative home lives do not turn to drugs while others do. What do you think determines whether a child turns to drugs or not?
  5. Nature or nurture? Which do you think takes precedent in the context of addiction? Why?

This Is Your Brain on Art

The​ ​Dance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Scientist

Lennon Hayes

About

Paul Howard Mason is an anthropologist at Macquarie University in Australia. He has fieldwork experience in ethnomusicology and medical anthropology. His area of expertise includes neuroanthropology, dance anthropology, and the anthropology of martial arts. In his article, “Brain, Dance and Culture: The choreographer, the dancing scientist and interdisciplinary collaboration” he draws on his experience in these fields and makes the argument that dance provides a unique area of interest for anthropology.

(from commons.wikimedia.org)
Dance​ ​in​ ​Relation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Brain,​ ​Culture,​ ​and​ ​Environment

Dance is shaped by culture and gives researchers an insight into how people perceive and interpret the world around them by the way they express themselves through dance. Dance is influenced by the embodied brain, culture, and the environment. These three categories overlap among themselves as well. These influences shape how the dancers speak to one another and how they begin to move from improvisation to choreography and finally to performance. Mason chooses a definition of culture from anthropologist Derek Freeman which says culture is made up of alternatives that are socially sanctioned and selected for out of all the possibilities in human variation. Mason says that choreography shows this definition of culture in a small time frame as researchers will be able to see the process of selection. Choreography comes from perception, symbols, and meanings. Researchers will be able to see complexity increasing as they observe the dancers in the studio.

First Lady Michelle Obama joins children for a Super Sprowtz show, a “Let’s Move!” event at La Petite Academy child care center in Bowie, Md., Feb. 27, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
Dance​ ​as​ ​Play

Play is a vital part of development and learning. The higher cerebral centres of the brain and the limbic system are involved in play. The limbic system is related to imagination and decision-making as well as emotions. This system that contributes to play also contributes to behaviors that are driven by emotion. This makes sense as dance is very often seen as fueled by emotion and being very emotionally impactful for dancers and viewers alike. Play helps individuals learn how to behave in their environment and with those around them. In the context of great socio cultural influence, play begins to create shared meanings and behavior. Mason says that play will then no longer be just for those involved in play but also those watching. This can be seen in the choreography of dance. Choreography shapes play behavior from improvisation with the influence of the brain, culture, and the environment. Dance thus gives researchers a way of seeing how these three categories interact and the influence they have on humans’ behavior.

Evolution​ ​and​ ​Dance

Mason states that these five processes contribute to evolution: variation, selection, complexity, organisation, and memorisation. They can be seen in relation to dance as they act on how a dance is formed. There are limitless possibilities in improvisation which accounts for the variation. Improvisation is then refined down into choreography, this is the aspect of selection. Complexity is, I believe, the dancers and the choreographers individual opinions and the way they believe the dance should be done. This information is then organized into the choreography for the performance and then the dancers must memorize it.

How​ ​to​ ​be​ ​Interdisciplinary​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Methods​ ​Involved

Mason suggests that scientists engage in fieldplay. That they should engage with the possibilities of dance and dancers should engage with science. What this would look like I am not entirely sure I know. This would allow for these concepts to be embodied and for the barrier between these two fields to be broken down. To truly study dance, the scientist must be engaged and dance itself is based in movement. The knowledge found in dance is in movement, which means one should be involved in order to have a better understanding. As one learned the movement necessary for contemporary dance, they can see their perception change. Mason refers to dance as the object and means of investigation. Creating choreography is distributed throughout the dancers, so the researcher must be involved as well. Choreography gives insight into social organization and the way humans express themselves.

How​ ​It​ ​Relates

This article dealt with embodiment in reference to dance and choreography. Embodiment has been talked about in class and it makes sense that it would apply to dance. A researcher can begin to embody dance while doing fieldplay giving them a better understanding and insight to the process. Emotions and the limbic system also come into play in this article. Dance is often highly related to emotions and creates strong feelings in those that are involved. It would be interesting to see how different forms of dance relate to different emotions. Just two weeks ago we spoke about physical activity in humans. This article on dance was reminiscent of the discussion on capoeira and how culture interacts with biological systems. Different forms of dance could also likely influence the vestibular system.

My​ ​Thoughts

I enjoyed this article. I am not a dancer myself so I do not have any first-hand experience that I can relate to the article. The evolutionary systems and dance was interesting. The connection to me was kind of difficult to see. I had to think about it for a while in order to grasp it. I had never really thought about dance in such a way before. I enjoy the idea of “the dancing scientist” and researchers participating in this way. It is a bit humorous to picture but it makes sense. Dance is all about movement and the best way to understand is to participate and understand that feeling. The section where Mason talked about dancers playing with the depths of science was something I would like to understand a bit more as I am not sure how that would be done entirely.

 

Born For Art

Rob Else

About

Colwyn Trevarthen, born 1931, is a professor emeritus of child psychology and psychobiology at the University of Edinburgh. Among other things, he has studied psychobiology and developmental brain science of expressive movement, human intersubjectivity and cultural learning, chronobiology and “musicality” of human action and applications in development, education, therapy, and art.

A mother playing with her baby (from publicdomainpictures.net)
An Inborn Proclivity

Trevarthen makes a case for the human propensity for art and fiction as being ingrained in us from birth, and important components of how humans are uniquely adapted when it comes to learning, using, and being shaped by culture. To support this assertion, he uses a number of converging lines of evidence from a variety of different disciplines. First, he notes that Neanderthals, as far as we know, did not have any kind of artistic creations, like art or music, yet Homo sapiens sapiens had a rich history of these aesthetic pursuits. Second, humans are unique among other primates in our abilities of tone and rhythm, which even infants are able to display. Trevarthen calls this “communicative musicality,” and in previous work demonstrated that infant communication has “pulse,” affective “quality,” and a temporal narrative component. Third, human biology is fluid, rather than fixed, in the way that it develops, which Trevarthen suggests is a critical component of the connections that infants make with caregivers. He draws on the concept of epigenetics to show that even our DNA can be shaped in these early formative years, with great impacts later in life. Fourth, humans display a capacity for episodic memory unlike like found in any other animals, which is a key component of storytelling. Finally, Trevarthen draws on neuroanthropological literature that claims that the way that our brain develops in infancy is linked to processes of meaning making and social development.

(from commons.wikimedia.org)
How It Relates

One of these concepts that Trevarthen brings up, that of communication and play between mother and infant, relates to other readings we did regarding primate cognition, play, and learning. One main concern of ours in class was that we questioned whether we could be certain that non-human primates weren’t communication in similar ways with their babies, just in a manner that we as humans couldn’t pick up on. Further, Trevarthen’s work is similar to that of DeCaro who demonstrates a link between parental attention and well-being among young students.

My Thoughts

Overall, I thought that Trevarthen did not do a good job of structuring an argument for the inborn propensity of humans for art and fiction. While all the pieces are potentially there, he doesn’t discuss art or fiction again in any meaningful way after the first section of the article. It was also rather evident that Trevarthen comes from an evolutionary psychology perspective, and there is some problematic use of gender dynamics throughout the piece. From an anthropological point of view, it would be interesting to do observational work in a number of different cultures with infants as well, or draw upon existing literature, to discuss the relationships that mothers in different cultural settings have with their infants that may or may not promote artistry and fiction.

 

Questions​ ​to​ ​Ponder

1. Are there other interdisciplinary studies that would benefit from what Mason calls fieldplay? What do you think of the concept? As well as the idea that even a lifetime is not enough time?

2. In the article, there is a quote from John Blacking about how we understand the minds of non-human animals by observing their movements and non-verbal communication. It then says that humans can be understood in the same way. What are your thoughts on that? Can you think of situations outside of dance that this is applicable and vital to understand?

3. What did you think about the idea of evolutionary systems and how they relate to dance? Do you see what Mason is trying to convey?

4. How does Trevarthen’s work relate to play theory?

5. How would you design a neuroanthropological study to provide further evidence for Trevarthen’s claims?