Snapshots

Preface: I debated long and hard if it was frivolous to post today’s musings, written at the beginning of the week, given the grim news out of Ukraine as Putin’s forces have fully invaded the country and appear intent on regime change. But I do believe we need to take care of our mental health by not exclusively thinking about terrifying things, and so thought this would be 10 minutes of your day to focus on something else. I will, however, add at the end some sources that support Ukrainians from a variety of perspectives.

————————————————————–

A lot of people I know are happy to buy old photographs they find at flea markets or antique stores. Not the artistic kind, mind you, but snapshots of people who they never met, who have probably walked on long ago, and whose families had no interest in keepsakes. I have always felt that it was intrusive, somehow crossing a border into someone’s privacy, not quite kosher.

Nonetheless, I very much enjoy it when collectors actually come up with some interesting aggregate that tells us something about similarities and differences across time, or capture a Zeitgeist, or point to some inexplicable curiosity. I know, I’m not consistent, but then who is….

One of those accumulations of discarded photographs was published in 2015 by a Frenchman, Jean-Marie Donat, who had searched for and found photographs of people posing with others, costumed as polar bears, in Germany from the 1920s to the 1960s. The book’s limited edition, a collection of over 200 found photographs weirdly titled TeddyBears, is sold out. Thus I cannot tell if the mystery of such a strange prop was ever revealed.

There is speculation, though, that the hype started with 2 beloved polar bears in the Berlin Zoo in the early 1920s, and costumed employees taking pictures with themselves and visitors to increase zoo attendance. From there it spread.

I can personally vouch for the presence of such creatures in Berlin with this 1928 picture of my then 4-year old mother, posing to the left of the bear. How the album survived war and flight, I don’t know. If that picture had landed at a flea market, perhaps I’d be glad for an interested collector who would keep that smile around.

Another edition of snapshots – this time of women in trees – was recently showcased in The Marginalian (formerly Brainpickings.) Described as “Sweet and Subversive Vintage Photographs of Defiant Delight,” Popova offers both some of the photographs and her, as always, thoughtful commentary on the nature of tree climbing and taking photographs of unusual activities or circumstances.

The collector Joachim Raiss eventually jumped on the polar bear train as well, it looks like. Irresistible flea market finds, I guess. The views of women in trees appealed to me, someone known to have climbed a tree or two in better times, as a display of discarding of norms and exuberant recklessness, even if Sunday finery was involved.

(My photographs today are of unclimbed but admired trees, pines and eucalyptus, in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and along the Pacific coast.)

Speaking of reckless and tree climbing: How does this bit of science journalism sound to you?

“Climbing a tree or balancing on a beam can dramatically improve cognitive skills, according to a study recently conducted by researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Florida. Working memory capacity increase of 50 percent found in research.” (Ref.)

These assertions refer to a study that looked at a group of adults who were given training exercises that focussed on proprioception, the awareness of body orientation and positioning. They engaged in activities that required both attention to body position and physical exertion – lifting, running, balancing, crawling, specific new sequences of movements. Their working memory (how you process and remember facts currently in your view) was tested before and after the training and it improved! Control groups either listened, while seated, to a lecture, or did a gentle form of Hatha Yoga, Kripula Yoga, which focusses on body posture and awareness, contraction of muscles and breathing, and neither control group showed a gain in working memory capacity.

Shall we rejoice – hey, all we need is the right exercise and our decrepit memory picks up… or shall we give the study a closer look?

For one, no mention of tree climbing in the methods section – where did that come from? Secondly, the groups were extremely small, just 18 participants in the experimental condition of movement training, larger control groups, but still underpowered and in any case not the same number of participants.

Groups also varied along so many dimensions that any comparison is very hard to link back to a causal factor. The age composition was different, the gender composition was almost reversed between training group and one control group.

The duration of the experiment was much longer for the training group (2 and 2.5 hrs respectively for training, while only one session for one hour at yoga.) The training exercises were new, the yoga control, however, was intermediate, in other words familiar with the moves. (It is also inexplicable why this study did not find a beneficial effect of Yoga on working memory, when many other studies of Hatha Yoga have…).

And last but not least, the task they used to assess memory improvement is not one of the better ones, we’ve had more precise tools in our tool box for the last 20 years.

I am summarizing these things not only so you don’t have to slog through a methods section. More importantly, I don’t just want to point out that there is weak research out there and data interpretations that cannot be trusted – I assume we all agree on that.

I am trying to stress the issue of reckless science reporting, that papers over ambiguous results or introduces bad data, and will soon be contradicted when the next result is out that points in a different direction. The public, in general, is mostly not aware of what constitutes reliable science and what should never have made it through the review process. Seeing conflicting results, ever changing tacks on this or that claim, will undermine trust in science, at a time when that trust is already at a low point, politically expedient for some, no doubt.

Shouting not from the rooftops, but the tops of trees: check the science before jumping to conclusions and writing it up for cheap effects in the news. Scientist in tree insists!