My Experience with Egocentricism

As I was grading discussion posts on egocentricism, I was reminded about my own recent egocentricism experience last year and wanted to share.  

A bit of background: My entire adult life, I was known for 2 things, my long, blond hair, and my figure (of course there is so much more to me but I know these are traits others knew me by).  I was image conscious.  Fast-forward to October 2014: I was 36 years old and diagnosed with breast cancer.  I was faced with losing the two things I was known for.  The fit, pretty, bubbly girl with long blond hair and a hourglass figure was gone.  Now, I was scarred, flat chested, 20 lbs heavier from steroids and chemo, and bald.  My husband could tell I was struggling and took me out on a date.  I had always been a relatively confident person, but that was when I had my appearance to hide behind.  I remember wiping away the tears as we pulled up to the steakhouse.  I felt like everyone was going to be staring at me.  I was embarrassed.  I felt bad for my husband that he now had an 'ugly' wife.  I felt bad that the other customers had to eat while looking at me. I was so engrossed in myself, at the time, I was absolutely over-estimating the amount of attention others were paying to me.

Now that I'm a year and a half removed from this situation, I can absolutely realize my feelings of egocentricism.  While to an 'outsider' it seems silly and unrealistic that the rest of the world is paying that much attention to you, but it was very real to me at the time.  It felt very similar to being in high school and having a monster zit on my face just in time for the homecoming dance.  While these feelings are characteristic of teenagers, they can also creep up even once we graduate into adulthood.  I'm happy to report, that after a few outings, I started to 'snap out of it' and realized that no one cared if I was bald.  People didn't look at me in disgust.  Honestly, people didn't look at me at all.  I was overestimating that others were observing my behavior - just as we do in adolescence. Once I was able to step away from my egocentricism, being bald was actually very freeing.   

Summer 2014

Winter 2014

What's in a Word? A LOT!

Okay, we are all familiar with the F word... You know the word we aren't supposed to say, but we think in our head?  Obviously, I'm talking about the word flatulence (What?  That wasn't the word you were thinking of?). At the risk of sounding crass, I'm wanting to prove a point ~ there are just some words that aren't appropriate to use unless being discussed in a very specific way.  So, perhaps in a doctors office the word flatulence may be totally appropriate and simply describing a totally natural bodily function.  However, in a different context, say high-noon tea, cotillion, or a first date it would seem inappropriate (even offensive), right?  I want to take a quick moment to teach you about a few other words.

To be honest, I feel like the health teacher in 5th grade who delivered the puberty talk ~ it's a bit uncomfortable, but necessary.  Some of you may already know the information, but in the spirit of education, I feel it necessary to share, because let's be honest, if we don't know better, we can't do better. Some of you may know about these words and some of you may not, but I can't think of a more appropriate place to address it than a General Psych course.  Please know this is not meant to come down on anyone, I'm simply using the forum as a teaching moment that may not be addressed anywhere else.

I think we can all list examples of our language evolving.  I remember when 'ass' or 'bitch' was considered a bad word and never mentioned on TV.  Now, it's rather common place, even in prime time, network television shows.  Another example: 'negro.'  It was once an accepted part of speech, however after our language and culture have evolved we no longer use that term and even cringe when perhaps an older grandparent who doesn't know better still does (has anyone else experienced this??? RIP Grandpa!).  I have a cousin who is a genius.  She also happens to have cerebral palsy and is in a wheel chair.  My grandmother used to call her 'crippled.'  I think back about how offensive that term feels... But, my grandmother didn't know better.  In her day, 'cripple' may have been an acceptable way to describe someone who had a disability.  Now, we focus on people first language.  As time changes, our language changes.

Another word: Retarded (or retard). At one time, the word "retarded" was considered common place and even a diagnostic term to describe someone with limited intelligence.  Embarrassingly, I remember saying the word when I was a kid to describe something unpleasant or that I didn't agree with.  No one corrected me back then (perhaps they should have!) and it was a word that was pretty casually flung around.  However the word has grown to have a very negative connotation, meaning stupid and ignorant.  The connotation is so bad professionals no longer even use the word (people who were once labeled as retarded are now referred to individuals with an intellectual disability).  So, if you find the "retard" (or retarded) part of your vocabulary, change it.  I don't fault anyone who has used this word before, because you very well may not have known better.  I just wanted to use this platform to teach you better.  As students of psychology, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard that since now we know better, we must do better.

The same goes for the word "gay" if you are using it in a derogatory sense, such as "Don't be gay" (meaning don't be silly, weak, a term of disagreement) or "That's gay" (meaning you disagree with something or think it doesn't make sense).  Again, something I recall saying in my youth, and now cringe at the thought that those words ever came out of my mouth.  When I was younger, I honestly didn't know better... Now that I am aware of this, I choose to do better.  Please join me in doing the same.

The evolution of words is something that is constant in psychology.  I'm in the field, and honestly, I have trouble keeping up with the changes.  The goal of this practice is to take the stigma out of certain words.  "Retard" originally was a clinical term, but the stigma of it has taken over.  "Gay" is still an acceptable term, but only when used in it's correct context (such as describing sexual orientation).  Other terms that have evolved include: Dissociative Identity Disorder (once called multiple personality disorder) and Bipolar Disorder (once called manic-depression).

Human Sexuality is Complicated...

Gender, Sex and Sexual Orientation

We have the scientific evidence, which is typically straight forward, but not always.  Then we often bring in our own spiritual beliefs, which are also often straight forward, but not always.  Put all that together and we can end up with quite a discussion.  Obviously, this is a science based class, so we will cover the science side of things.  Quite honestly, I don't always have the right answers on how to mesh the scientific facts with the 'spiritual' facts.  Good thing I'm not the one that has to figure that out!  Bottom line, no matter where you stand, I think we can all agree that EVERYONE deserves love and respect.  So, here's my disclaimer as we discuss this topic: I do have a bias on the subject.  I am a Christian, and I also fully believe that much of our sexual orientation is determined by our biology.  Obviously, things get pretty crazy messy interesting in my head when I try to make sense of it all.  I also respect that not everyone agrees with my beliefs on the subject.  

Also something to note: Belief perseverance, which we covered earlier, can play a huge role in how we accept new information and if we allow ourselves to critically evaluate the new information or if we are quick to disregard it because it doesn't support our initial thoughts on the topic.  There are so many dynamics to how we form our opinions.  In my opinion,  it's absolutely fascinating how complex human sexuality is, but also how each of us think about sexuality.  

Here is a great 4 minute video that explains the difference between sex, gender and sexual orientation.  I hope you find the video helpful.  

SOAP BOX WARNING!!  My biggest pet peeve is when people talk about sexuality and automatically jump to the physical aspects of a relationship.  There is SO much more to ALL romantic relationships than just the physical component.  When I think about my husband, there are tons of things that I love about him that aren't physical...  it's no different with any other couple, straight or gay.  When I hear chatter about sexuality, I think to myself "hearts, not parts".  I choose to focus on RELATIONSHIPS.  And from my perspective there can be all sorts of legitimate relationships.  

This certainly is a complex topic.  Made even more complex when we throw in theology, which can be difficult to filter out, if religion is something that is important to you.  In full disclosure, I will tell you that I am a Christian.  And, I believe the science that indeed sexual orientation does have a genetic component.  I think we can all agree it can be difficult when we believe in two things that don't match up.  I'm the first to admit that it's unsettling when things don't fall into tidy little boxes.  I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion on these topics.  But, what I do ask is that you read the evidence with an open mind.  

A few things I want you all to consider:

• One's actions are not always consistent with their orientation.  Someone can be gay and "act" in a heterosexual way and vice versa.  This doesn't change their orientation, it's their behavior that is changing.  There are many factors that determine our behavior (drive, safety, culture, etc.).
• We all have free will.  So, while we may not be able to choose our orientation, we can choose if we act on that attraction.  Example: We are sexual beings, but we can choose whether we engage in sexual behavior.  Whether or not we choose to engage in sexual behavior doesn't change the fact that we are still sexual beings. Our behavior is independent of our orientation.   
• The science suggests that there is a strong likely hood that part of sexual orientation is biologically influenced (your text lists numerous examples).  That is not a judgment of if it is right or wrong.  It is simply a fact.  

There are lots of examples out there that show how genetics and environment interact.  

• Let's look at cancer.  I have a gene (BRCA) that makes me more prone to get certain cancers than the general population.  My identical twin sister also has the same genetic mutation, yet I got breast cancer and she did not.  While we have the same DNA, something in my environment may have triggered my gene.  This gene also makes us more prone to skin cancer.  So, while I can't do anything to change my genetics, I can take action to reduce my risk of developing skin cancer by wearing sunscreen and protective clothing.  
• Many people have an addictive personality.  They are just designed to be more susceptible to addiction and prone to impulse.  If someone with a genetic predisposition to addiction steers clear of alcohol or drugs, that genetic trait may not manifest (show) itself.  It's still there.  It just isn't as easily observed.  

Motivation

Motivation

I really like teaching about motivation because often times students really want to know WHY people behave a certain way and these modules help to explain that.  One thing that interests me is intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation.  Here are a few examples of how I identify with this theory:

1.  I'm a pretty organized person and like things clean.  Okay, I'm not great at cleaning, but I definitely don't like things cluttered.  When I was a kid I used to clean my room really well ~ that is when it was my idea (intrinsic motivation).  However, whenever my mom wanted me to clean my room, it was much more of a chore and a lot less fun (extrinsic motivation).  

2.  I played sports in high school.  Volleyball, cheerleading and I even schlepted ran track.  I was a distance runner (because I wasn't fast and the coach had no idea where else to put me!).  The only reason I ran track is because I wanted to get in good with my volleyball coach, who was also the distance track coach.  I hated every second of track practice and hated track meets even more!  I was extrinsicly motivated to run.  However, now as an adult, I actually like tolerate running and sometimes I even enjoy it.  No one is making me run, I just do it for me.  As an adult, I am intrinsicly motivated to run.

3.  As an instructor I can tell a HUGE difference in the students who are in my class because they want to be (intrinsic motivation) and because they are genuinely interested in learning and those who are in my class because they have to be (extrinsic motivation) and just want an A and don't care as much about the material.  My guess is that as students, you can probably spot this when you read through the discussion posts, too.  Now, I'm not judging, I totally understand there are classes you are into and classes that you just feel the need to get through (for me those were art history and math).  We all have priorities, so no offense taken :).  The students who are intrinsicly motivated tend to do much better in my class than those who are extrinsicly motivated. 

Human Development

Human Development

I've got to say every time I cover these chapters in a class, and I've covered them a lot, I am dumbfounded humbled and amazed.  Our bodies are simply amazing!  Honestly, it's difficult for me to even write a post, because this stuff leaves me speechless.  

One thing the text looks at is how nature (our genes) and nurture (our environment) influence our development.  Clearly, you can see how our genes affect our growth and development: if your parents have a slow metabolism, perhaps you will have a slower metabolism, too.  And, we can see how our environment shapes our development: if not given proper nutrition, such as in some underdeveloped countries, certain diseases and illness may develop, inhibiting their growth.  Also note, not only does our environment and genes affect our development, but our genes can also affect our environment.  Confused yet?  Here's what I mean:

Let's look at temperament.  Temperament is our natural way of responding and is evident very early on, perhaps prior to birth (so we would attribute that to genetics).  Some babies are easy, some may seem to act like Satan's spawn perhaps a bit more difficult.  For the easy babies, everyone wants to hold them, their mothers probably sleep better and are therefore more refreshed to care for the babies needs (the way people interact with the baby would be attributed to the environment).  People want to feed them, play with them, rock them, etc.  A difficult baby, on the other hand,  may be less likely to be held or played with.  I think we can all agree, a happy baby is much more enjoyable to be around than a difficult baby.  While adults will certainly attend to the baby's needs, those interactions may look a lot different, perhaps less nurturing.  These differences of interactions can certainly affect a child's level of attachment and how they perceive the world.  Easy babies may perceive the world as nurturing and dependable.  Difficult babies may perceive the world as more harsh and frustrating.  

The Harlow studies on attachment were really ground breaking.  Simply providing basic survival needs isn't enough.  Babies NEED to be nurtured.  As someone who has worked with adults in a counseling setting for several years, I can attest that individuals who have weak attachments as children grow up to have difficulties in relationships.  You can read of those affects here: http://richardbrown81.hubpages.com/hub/Effects-of-Insecure-Attachment-in-Childhood-on-Adult-Relationships 

Classical and Operant Conditioning

Classical and Operant Conditioning

A big part of understanding classical and operant conditioning is knowing the vocabulary (CS, UCS, CR, UCR).  

These concepts can be confusing, so here is how I break it down:

Classical conditioning occurs when situations are paired.  These are LEARNED.  Ask yourself the following questions:
 1. Is the question asking about an object or a situation (that's usually a clue it's a stimulus) or a verb (that's usually a clue that it is a response).  
2. Is the response something that is innate or occurs naturally (that's usually a clue that it is unconditioned) or is it something that must be learned (that's usually a clue that it is a conditioned response).  

Operant conditioning can also be a bit confusing.  It is about reinforcements, which increase a behavior, and punishments, which decrease a behavior.  Ask your self the following questions:
 1.  Does the action increase the frequency of the behavior (that's a reinforcer) or decrease the frequency of a behavior (that's a punishment).  
2.  Does the action add to the situation (positive) or take something away (negative)? 
Often times students confuse the words positive and negative as good and bad.  Think of the words positive and negative as math terms (like positive and negative numbers), not in terms of judgments of being good or bad.  

A colleague shared the following key words with me that may also help you identify positive/negative punishments or rewards.

• Positive reinforcement = REWARD (adding something to increase a behavior)
• Negative reinforcement = RELIEF (taking away something to increase a behavior)
• Positive punishment = PAIN (adding something in hopes of decreasing a behavior)
• Negative punishment = LOSS (taking something away in hopes of decreasing a behavior)

Grades Don't Define You

Grades Don't Define You

I saw this on Pinterest and wanted to post it for all my students to see.  We often put so much effort and money in school that we forget that school isn't about earning a grade.  It is about learning and gaining knowledge.  I'd even go as far to say that a good grade doesn't mean you are smart and a bad grade doesn't mean you aren't.  A test grade is simply a snapshot of how well you did at a given moment. It doesn't reflect how hard you worked, how smart you are, or if you will be successful in life.  It really doesn't even reflect how much knowledge you have gained, as I am sure you learn things that you aren't tested over, or perhaps you know the material you were tested over, you just didn't perform well that day.  

I learned this lesson in graduate school.  We had to write a paper on our personal counseling theory (sounds exciting, huh?!).  For a counseling nerd professional like me, it was actually a really cool assignment.  The kind of assignment you dive into full force.  I worked so hard on this assignment and cranked out a quality 20 pages.  I was almost giddy to turn my paper in.  I knew I had NAILED it.  I was so looking forward to class the following week because I knew we would be getting our papers back and I couldn't wait to read how brilliant my teacher thought my paper was.  Boy was I WRONG!  After all my hard work, I got a ZERO on my paper.  For someone who always worked hard and excelled at school it really stung.  I'm afraid to tell you what went through my head at that moment ~ I probably would get fired for that.  But I can say I remember sitting in class, biting my tongue, choking back the tears thinking how unfair it was, how I was a horrible counselor and how I had wasted all that time and money going to school.  I felt like an absolute failure, honestly, something I wasn't at all used to.  If memory serves me correctly, I even told my professor how disappointed and furious I was because "I could have drawn a smiley face with a crayon and gotten a zero."  It was a group counseling class.  Half the class was learning about group counseling and the other half the class was actually participating in group counseling. It was an interesting/strange dynamic.  So, I bit my tongue through the education part of the class, but when it came time for our 'group session' I let her have it.  Probably not my smartest idea.

I learned a very valuable lesson: all that zero meant was that I misunderstood the assignment.  It really had no reflection on how hard I worked, what I had learned, on my ability to be a counselor and it certainly didn't define who I was outside of school with the stuff that really matters.  It was a painful experience.  But a lesson I needed to learn.  Luckily, my professor let me revise my assignment that better fit what she was looking for.  But, the real lesson learned wasn't in the paper, it was in the entire experience.  Y'all ~ I'm not looking for perfection.  And neither should you.  Yes, I have to hand out grades to assess how you are doing in the class, but rest assured I see each of you as more than a single test grade.  

I'm posting this because I wanted to share a little of my experience with you.  I wanted to let you know to cut yourself some slack if perhaps you didn't do as well as you had hoped.  And, if you did great, then celebrate! But, know that you are the exact same person you were before you passed/failed any quiz, assignment or exam.  Grades don't define you!  

Just Say No?

Just Say No?

When I read through these modules on drugs, it's both amazing and scary!  I'm amazed that through modern medicine, I could have a basically painless birth experience (kudos to you women out there who choose the natural birthing route ~ you are far tougher than me!).  Or, that because of some psychoactive drugs people who suffer with severe mental health disorders are able to lead typical, fulfilling, productive lives that they may otherwise not have.  

As far as illicit drugs, I've also seen people who have managed to use drugs recreationally, quite frankly with very little negative consequences.  It doesn't rule or ruin their lives; they are extremely honest, friendly, intelligent, productive people.  Many are highly educated with really solid jobs. They look nothing like the scary people the DARE officers told me about in grade school.  

On the flip side, I can think of how illicit drugs have really negatively impacted some folks I know both personally and individuals I've worked with professionally.  It's ruined families; the effects of illicit drug use reach far beyond just the user.  Addiction can cause: kids grow up without parents, heartbroken parents watching their children self-destruct, spouses or partners at their wit's end questioning why the user loves the drug more than them.  

Socially, I feel the pull between thinking that people should have the right to use if they so choose, but also weighing the toll it takes on our society.  It seems silly that some drugs are deemed acceptable and legal (i.e. alcohol and nicotine), and that others, which arguably aren't really any worse are illegal (i.e. pot).  I think of the amount of money spent on housing non-violent offenders in prison because of drugs and how much revenue could be generated if some drugs were taxed.  And I can also appreciate how much money is spent in the social service system (such as foster care) because drug use does destroy some families.  Children are sometimes left in its destructive wake, and sometimes the effects are felt for generations.  

I don't know what the answer is, only that it certainly isn't a clear cut, back and white issue for me.  I definitely see our country getting more liberal about drug policies, as least when it comes to marijuana.  Hard to separate what is said for political reasons, and what is enacted for social reasons or public protection.  I guess only time will tell...   

These chapters remind me of two things:
1. My first oncology appointment.  The patient sitting next to me  in the waiting room had a strong marijuana odor following them.  I was initially taken aback... This was a doctors office.  Aren't you supposed to 'hide' that behavior?  Then, I made my way back to chemo row where they hooked me up and injected me with poison for 8 hours.  2 days later, I became violently ill, as my body was trying to fight off the poison it had just taken in to kill the cancer.  As I sat there, I thought about how this poison was legal and all the money being made off treating my illness and symptoms (cancer is big business y'all) and there is a natural product, that is relatively safe, that may help people with their symptoms that is inexpensive and it is illegal.  It didn't make sense.  It made me hurt thinking that some folks who could benefit from marijuana didn't get that option while they were fighting the horrific cancer battle.  I don't mean to sound all conspiracy theory, but I definitely felt like we had all been duped into thinking that marijuana is this horrible drug  (remember Just Say No from the 90's?)~ when in fact, it could potentially have some redeeming qualities medicinally.  
2.  When I got cancer, at the age of 36, my mom told me it was okay if I needed to "smoke the pot."  I still chuckle when I think about this conversation because a.) she felt the need to give me permission, even though I was 36 years old and b.) she called it 'the pot.'  

Later on, we will discuss Kohlberg's Level of Morality, which this debate ties nicely into.  Right before my vary eyes my mom went from the pre-conventional stage (don't smoke 'the pot' because if you get caught, you will get in trouble) and the conventional stage (you shouldn't smoke because it's illegal) to the post conventional stage (doing what is good for the person/community based on a personal set of beliefs).  For a psychology nerd and the daughter of a pretty straight-laced mother it was fascinating to see that change occur.  

Lastly, I can say, that it's been really interesting to see the shift of opinions I've gotten on this topic over the years.  

Biological Foundations of Behavior

Biological Foundations of Behavior

Oh my!  These modules bring back memories... PANIC memories!  Don't get me wrong, the material is absolutely fascinating!  Every time I review it, I am in awe at how awesome our brains and bodies are.  It's mind blowing!  It's also tough to grasp on your first exposure.  It's on such a micro level; it was initially difficult for me to wrap my thoughts around.  To be honest, it took several exposures until I wasn't sitting in class with that hot, sweaty, oh-my-goodness-I'm-going-to-fail feeling.  Seriously, I remember sitting in my physiopsych class (my senior year of my undergraduate degree) wondering if I should change my major.  

It is really important to read the text, as this is where all your quiz and exam questions are pulled from.  However, before reading the text, I highly recommend checking out some of the supplemental videos I've posted.  If those aren't enough, feel free to Google other videos (there are lots out there!).  For me, it was helpful to see a visual prior to reading about how it all works.  You may need to read the text in small bits and allow yourself some time to absorb the information.  Then, if time permits, go back and re-read the text.  This isn't exactly easy reading, but it is interesting and really important to the field of psychology.  

Good luck!  In my opinion this is one of the hardest weeks of the class... And also one of the most interesting.  Absorb (much like how neurotransmitters are absorbed across the synaptic gap) as much as you can (hopefully you have high level of acetylcholine, dopamine and serotonin ~ all neurotransmitters associated with memory and learning), but also know that you may not 'get it' all at this point... And that is okay.  

Dependent and Independent Variables

Dependent and Independent Variables

Often times students get confused on Independent and Dependent variables.    
Experimental groups are just that, groups that participants are divided into.  Independent variables are things that can be manipulated by the experimenter (I determine the Independent variable).  The dependent variables are the outcomes (Dependent variables are the Data collected).  
Let's say I wanted to study the affects of sleep on students' grades.  I might have 3 experimental groups: one group who gets 6 hours of sleep, one group that gets 8 hours, and one group that gets 10 hours of sleep.  
My independent variables would be things I can control: which group students are in and how much sleep students get, perhaps the quality of sleep they get, how they are woken up, their level of caffeine intake prior to sleep, etc. 
My dependent variables (things that are affected by the independent variables), or the data I collect might be students grades, attitudes, concentration levels, biofeedback, etc.  
Another topic I might want to research is if violent video games make people more violent.  I would have 3 experimental groups: one group which doesn't play any games, one group that is assigned Candy Crush and another group that is assigned a violent video game like Grand Theft Auto (I'm not really into video games so I'm sure there are worse out there).  
My independent variables would be things I can control such as frequency of play, duration or play, and level of difficulty.
My dependent variables are things that I would measure such as level of frustration, rates of aggression, biofeedback like pupil dialation and breathing rate, and how they handled a difficult situation after being exposed to the independent variables.  
Hope this helps clarify this issue a bit. 

Not So Ground Breaking Research

You probably have had a review of the scientific method in every science class you've ever had.  It's about research and about conducting GOOD research.  Because, let's be honest, research results are only as good as the experimental procedures.  If you have flawed experimental design your results mean NOTHING!  Designing a good research is extremely difficult to do, you must account for all kinds of variables... And, if you are anything like me, once you start your research project, you will discover a lot of variables you didn't even think of before.  

In one of my undergraduate classes, we had to conduct research experiments, first with a group and then we did one all on our own.  Being the hungry serious students we were, our group decided we'd much rather use our class time to go out to lunch (in our defense, the course was from noon to 1:00 every day), so we designed our experiment around the amount of food people ate at a buffet versus at a non-buffet.  Hey, no one said this was ground breaking research!  So, it wasn't until we got 'in the field' (i.e. out to lunch) that we realized we never set an operational definition of what 'a lot' of food was.  We're we going to count plates?  No, that wasn't very accurate ~ buffet plates are small and sit down plates were typically larger.  Could we weigh plates?  Probably, but we weren't brave enough to take on that task.  And, plates don't always weigh the same, so the results of that wouldn't have been accurate anyway.  We ended up completing our experiment the best we could, probably estimating the amount of food someone ate (again that is so subjective, what is a lot of food to someone else may not seem like that much to me).  We did this experiment probably 15 years ago, so honestly, I've forgotten the exact results, but I believe we concluded that people who went to a buffet ate a higher quantity of food than those who did not.  Shocking, right?!  (Please note my sarcasm!).  Bottom line, designing a quality experiment is tough to do!  

Another thing these modules bring to mind is that the media doesn't really care about the research design, generally they care about what will sell.  Case and point, this article regarding the time line of the vaccination link to autism controversy: http://theweek.com/article/index/242395/autism-and-vaccines-a-timeline-of-the-dubious-theory-and-the-ongoing-debate#axzz33KiIZUCZ  The article states Andrew Wakefield, the head researcher:  

"misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients" involved in the groundbreaking 1998 study. The editor in chief of the journal that published the report said Wakefield's work "seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

Unfortunately, the retraction of the research didn't seem to make near the splash that the initial, erroneous reports did.  

I am not prepared to hash out the pros and cons of vaccinations, I'm not that educated on the topic.  My point is (I'm getting there, I promise!) that research that is the 'loudest' or most publicized by the media isn't necessarily the most sound.  Let's be honest, with the internet we can pretty much find anything to back up just about any position we may have on any give subject.  It is up to the consumer (that's YOU!) to evaluate if the claims seem legit.  

Another example:  Anyone cruise through Facebook and see this advertisements that say you can lose 5 lbs. in three days?  As a consumer (and a scientist), we have to be skeptical.  Does that claim make sense?  I guess, sort of.  You could lose 5 lbs. of (water) weight in three days.  But if we think just a tad deeper, we realize that those results will go out the window once we drink any liquids, so it's not like the user would lose 5 lbs. of fat, which the consumer may think they are signing up for.  If my calculations are correct, and that's a big IF because remember math and me aren't really friends, it would take something like 16,500 calories to lose 5 lbs. of fat.  What does this company have to gain from such claims?  Does this claim make sense?  Obviously, they want to gain our business.  My point (again, I will get there) aside from evaluating research, we must also evaluate who is doing the research and what they have to gain from the research results they are publishing.  

I'm reminded of something my grad school stats professor once said: Liars can figure and figures can lie.  

Any research or claims that you've come across that you are skeptical about?