When I look at one of my grandchildren, who did exceptionally well at university, I say: “Thank you, Mozart.” You see, he spent much of his time as a toddler with his grandmother, and his grandmother loves Mozart. Indeed, the little lad quickly learned to recognise “Gwannie’s Mozart”. And of course we have been told that Mozart’s music is constructed in a way that harmonises with human brain patterns, and has been shown to improve intelligence.
The first published study of this effect was printed in Nature, a scientific journal of high reputation, in 1993; it showed that listening to Mozart raises IQ by about nine points. The natural desire of parents to bring up intelligent children ensured that the news spread wildly. The state of Georgia spent public money on providing music tapes for newborn babies, and commercial companies went into the business of providing tapes for the toddlers of the world. The only snag is that it has proved to be impossible to reproduce this effect in other studies. And even the original study was on adults and not toddlers or babies.
Once again I passed over my opportunity to complete the sudoku puzzle in my newspaper this morning. It seems to me to be a sterile activity. But this is only sour grapes on my part; I have no idea how to tackle it. But I should learn. After all, I have reached the age when I need to write down my wife’s name in order to be sure of remembering it. I should be exercising my brain, just as I exercise my testosterone-starved muscles on my pushbike. Unfortunately a diet of sudoku puzzles only makes one better at doing sudoku puzzles: nothing else.
This appears to be true of all such activities which claim to improve our brain power – from computer games and exercise to practising short-term memory. They may help us to improve the immediate task, without effecting any improvement in general mental facility. In contrast, real exercise – that is, good and regular aerobic activity – has been shown to improve brainpower.
But exposing the young to Mozart and practising sudoku cause no harm. It is different when plausible and authoritative reports on the connection between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine persuade parents to withdraw their children from vaccination. The effect of this was to lower the vaccination rate to a level when epidemic measles, potentially a serious disease, returned to Britain; it had formerly been declared under control. The doctor who publicised the spurious connection was struck off the medical register in 2010. But sadly even this has not persuaded some parents and pressure groups that the connection is illusory.
(Are you having a flu jab this year? If not, you may be a link in a chain which causes the death of someone unknown to you. Only one in three health workers, key junctions of infection, had a jab last year.)
Wishful thinking is often a cause for taking such scares as scientifically credible. But another factor, which is often forgotten, is the power of the story. Would you buy a model of car because I bought one last year and told you how pleased I am with it?
Or would you go to a Which? report which has tested it dispassionately and compiled reader feedback on the model?
You would choose the second – you’re not a numbskull – or would you? Any competent salesman will tell you that customers are more easily persuaded by a well-told motivational story than by any statistics. So what happens when a sad mother tells you that her child developed autism within a month of having an MMR vaccine? Does that change your view, or should it?
I have taken these examples from a new book, The Invisible Gorilla, by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons (HarperCollins, £9). If that title sounds familiar it may be because I reported on Simons’s original “gorilla invisibility” study in July last year. Here, the subjects were asked to watch a video of a basketball game, and to count the number of passes made by one side. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked across prominently. But only about half the watchers noticed his appearance.
The authors are particularly good on what are known as “flashbulb memories”. Think, for example, of the day Kennedy died or the Twin Towers were felled. The memories are often strong and clearly visual in the mind. Unfortunately, they often turn out to be wrong, and sometimes in important detail. And, inconveniently, it can be the memories of greatest certainty which turn out to be false.
Of course we all have our intuitions, assumptions and inherited principles. My mother warned me against dancing with West Indian women. Their legs break like matchsticks, she told me with Victorian certainty. I have had the pleasure of dancing with many West Indian women – and no legs were broken (though a little maternal voice chiming in my mind still warns me to be careful).
Such instances often amuse and entertain. But there is a serious message here. If we are interested in truth it is a mistake to rely on intuitions, instincts, feelings etc. In many instances, for the want of a little examination of the evidence, you will be wrong. And, perhaps even more dangerously, you will be the victim of those whose intentions are to deceive.
So come and tell us about your intuitions, and why I am too cynical about them.
secondsightblogdotnet 
As an aside, just to mention, the MMR vaccine is a serious problem for many people. The rubella vaccine is made from the cell line of an aborted foetus.
This subject might be worthy of a deeper examination at another time because it throws up a few moral dilemmas.
Worth Googling: rubella vaccine embryo. For instance http://www.whale.to/m/aborted.htm.
This is a good example of how we learn from each other. I had no idea of the connection.
One of the problems with trying to make up one’s mind about which (expensive) item/service to buy – or indeed whether to buy one at all – is that there can be so much conflicting information about that one becomes thoroughly bewildered by it, and either makes a decision on the basis of something superficial, or maybe just doesn’t get one at all (which does at least save money)
As I am a pensioner now and a widow my intuition works along with my reasoning.
Which Charity do I support, CAFOD -Aid to the Church in Need-SPUC- NFP -British Legion Mill Hill Misionaries etc etc etc. So what I do now is look at my purse and and hopefully the little I give will help them
I think Iona’s suggestion is the best advice.
But then I like my shoes and my clothes and my makeup- but not in excess! I hope.Although my children buy me those for birthdays and Christmas . They are my biggest weakness! (not my children)
I was shocked to read in one of our Catholic papers recently that the well known prayer attributed to Str Francis, ( make me a chanel of your peace,) never originated with him but appeared on a devotional card bearing his picture, a couple of centuries after his death, and somehow it became popular folk lore that he had composed it.
I regretted finding this out and wondered what service had been achieved by telling us the truth. Perhaps blissful ingnorance would have been preferable to the the truth.
Claret that would have made my late husband very unhappy, he loved St Francis and that Hymn, we chose that for the Offertory Procession at his Requim.
How close, I wonder, are we here to getting embroiled in a discussion (again?) about St Paul.
If we are interested in truth, is it not then a mistake to rest one’s life on faith? One day (we hope) we will be able to examine the evidence face to face. But until then are we not riding (especially on a harder day) on a wing and a prayer? Is it not a core aspect of being a believer that – although we use our brains as far as they go – we don’t wait for, or expect, 100% solid evidence? Where lies the difference between truth and faith?? (Is ‘One true faith’ a tenable conjunction of concepts?)
I didn’t like telling women that the birth control pill was an abortifacant , surprisingly many didn’t know or believe it 30 years ago.But when one does things for The Lord it helps to ease the pain of bringing the truth to them.
I understood how difficult it was for some to change.And it was just as difficult for me to tell them.
It is easier now as women do know the facts.
We understand more now why the Church teaches it as a Truth and not blind Faith and obedience.
I mentioned this before on an earlier post-My friend now in her lat 60s was pregnant with her first baby,contracted German Measels. The Dr wanted her to have an abortion-which she refused.
She went into the Church every evening (they were open then) and prayed in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He is now a Deputy Head at a Catholi School.
I prayed continually for my husband when he picked up Cdiff; in hospital,but The Lord called him, so prayer does work if it is Gods Will.
I remember Margaret Thatcher reading out the ‘St Francis’ prayer from the steps of 10 Downing Street after the election of May 1979. Within days a journalist gleefully pointed out that it was in fact a 19th century prayer. Rumour had it that it was given to her by Norman St. John Stevas who was well aware of its provenance but mischievously concealed the fact from the PM.
Yes Quentin I am having a flu jab next week-since finding out the vaccine does not contain ingredients from aborted foetus,As I believe it does in the U.S.A I got the info from the Linacre Centre regarding Grt Britain.
st.Joseph, my wife and I discussed this yesterday. We decided (if it applied) we would not accept a rubella jab ourselves, but, because the germ lines actually exists, we would accept it for our children or grandchildren. That may be wimpish, but we hesitate to take moral decisions for others.
Thank you Quentin.
I am not too sure about this but is rubella German Measels or ordinary measels.
I had a smile to myself thinking about it-it reminded me of when I was 17 and contacted German Measels and had to stay in for a few weeks, but when I was out of quarantine I wanted to go dancing with my friend to the Mecca dance hall in Finsbury Park and my mother gave me 10shillings for my friend and I!.
If I hadn’t have contacted measels, I wouldn’t have gone so therefore would not have met my husband who came all the way from Finchley with his friends-which was unusual(only because he had a lift in a friends car). I wonder if these things are ment to be. (Idont mean the measels).I also had ordinary measels as a child I remember it even though I was very young, because of the heavy nose bleeds in bed!
As you say people have to make their own decisions about morality.
Ref : St Francis and Margaret Thatcher: I have since been told that she read the prayer at the steps of 10 Downing Street from an auto cue!
I never felt quite the same about that prayer (or the hymn based on it) after Mrs. T. had used it, and was pleased to discover that it wasn’t St. Francis after all, and that Mrs. T. had Got it Wrong. So her mistake was St. John Stevas’s fault, was it?
St. Francis wrote the Canticle of the Sun, which I love.
Sorry Quentin, this hasn’t got much to do with the topic in hand.
I don’t see that “truth” and “faith” are opposed. Pope Benedict argues that faith and reason are not opposed. Faith is one route to truth. Reason is another.
The ‘topic in hand’ is not that clear to me. With the prayer of St. Francis I linked it to the truth not always being what it seemed.
It was meant to be reasonably light hearted example but the truth does sometimes hurt.
I chillingly recall Quentin writing about the child abuse scandals and how the phrase: ‘ we have co-operated with the police’ was used as a kind of smokescreen. It was the literal truth but by omitting the word ‘fully’ as in : ‘we have co-operated fully with the Police’ it testified to a truth and hence avoided the sin of telling a lie and yet was an untruth in reality as it gave the false impression that co-operation with the authorities was policy when in fact hiding info. on child abuse by clergy was the policy. (Hopefully not the case now although i note that an American Bishop has been charged today with that very offence.)
Another uncomfortable ‘truth’ is that the child abuse scandals within the Church will never go away. Even if we ever get to the point where they are reduced to just a few isolated ( but always serious,) cases it will haunt the Church forever in much the same way as the Spanish Inquisition has become a self -explanatory phrase for describing cruelty and torture.
When I heard about the American Bishop,not telling the police about the sexual items on a priests computer. The thought came into my head -‘that if ones own brother was doing the same( not that my brother- its just an example)would we go to the police or sort it out ourselves.?
st.joseph, I am sure that several years ago some bishops, through ignorance or naivety, believed that scandal could be avoided and priests converted from wicked sexual ways. In fact Cardinal Murphy O’Connor did this once – an action he had cause to regret deeply. And Pope JPII gave extensive protection to Fr Maciel, head of the Legion of Christ. Maciel was a thoroughly evil man, sexually and financially corrupt. Pope Benedict took speedy action after his accession. It is not for me to blame JPII, but, had it been any other person in a similar position, the facts, as I understand them, would mean that his failure to take decisive action was gravely sinful.
But it rapidly became clear that attempted cover up was a bad way to proceed. Nevertheless several bishops in several countries continued protect cruelty and crime – often leading to further offences. Of course the corrupted priests were blameworthy, but I believe that the bishops, once they were aware of the facts, became the more blameworthy. The priests were victims of their passions; the bishops were victims of their pride.
If you knew that your (imaginary) brother was going to continue corrupting children unless the law took action, would you be happy then to conceal his behaviour?
(Rubella is German measles. As you probably know, if a pregnant woman gets German measles there is a severe danger that the baby will be damaged.
I find that, with little questions like this I can usually get the answer by typing the word or query into Google. [www.google.co.uk]. Try putting in rubella and you will soon become an expert on the subject! I use Google as my home page. On Internet Explorer, once you are on the Google page, click on ‘Tools’, then ‘Internet Options’, then on ‘home page’, and click on: ‘use current’)
Thank you Quentin.
It is good that all these things have come to light now.
On Question time a little while back-from Northern Ireland the subject was child abuse among priests and a lady was very adament that she would never go to Church again or take her children I dont know the gentleman on the panel, but his answer to her was ‘go back to Church and if you know of any abuse report it to the police’.
I thought that was a good reply to her and gave her a lot to think about.
I agree with you that these things were kept in the dark years ago and as you commented in a earlier post- it will help to clean up the Church and also other places of abuse.
Quite honestly – but if my ‘imaginary’ brother was guilty or sister for that matter or father or mother I would be inclined to report it, even though it would hurt.
Thank you for the info on googling-I dont know why when I try to find something it comes
up ‘no web site found’. But will follow your instructions.
Speaking to a lady after Mass this morning was amazed that I was using a computer ,only now for since blogging,one is never toold to learn!
The Maciel case is very disturbing. I’ve always been wary of ‘movements’ – charismatics, neocats, even Opus Dei – perhaps it’s a natural British distrust of anything that smacks of ‘enthusiasm’. JPII tended to see them as the future of the Church, perhaps not surprising as traditional religious orders seemed declining, demoralized, even heterodox. Also Maciel’s organization was quick to donate money to Solidarity, and was doctrinally conservative. Was JPII aware of the allegations against Maciel, and like many of the latter’s followers, chose to give no credence to them? If he was aware of Maciel’s wrongdoing (which amounted to a lot more than sexual and financial irregularity – he was in effect leading a double life) and still protected him, then he was gravely at fault.
Goodness! I am with you on this question of “movements”. The only movement to which I subscribe is the Catholic Church. Takes all my time”
The absolutist papal claims must carry a similarly absolutist responsibility for what a pope knows, or ought to know. Some light may be thrown by this link: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican.
Quentin what I meant to add onto my reply was-that the Bishop in the news was guilty of hiding the fact about a priest downloading images on a computer-not a actual bodily abuse to children. Althought both are abhorrant and does not bear thinking about and I am not agreeing with it at all but wondering if there is a level of abuse which would not be criminal when using a computer in the privacy of their own home-Just a thought.When I hear of all the things that young people can get intoon a computer, at least thats what I read about . Then maybe a caution from a loving person may be appropriate- like ‘if you dont give it up I will report you’!
St. Joseph,
The obvious evidence is that the childen in the photos were being abused and exploited to satisfy a demand for such photos. Somewhere in that chain are people making money from the abuse of children and others getting some perverse sexual satisfaction from seeing the images of this abuse.
A bit like the statement that: ‘Without handlers there would be no thieves.’ To put that in context : ‘Without paedophiles there would be no abusive images.’
Some paedophiles ( including those in the clergy,) have sought to justify their actions by stating that their victims liked what was being done to them and /or they were juveniles as opposed to children.
We have to be careful that their deviousness at satisfying perverse desires is not somehow allowed to pass without legal process on the spurious grounds of it being less serious.
Thank you Claret for that clear understanding of the situation.I often wondered where they were getting the photos from
I was trying to find some information on sexual transmitted diseases and was looking for some info on oral sex, and I got quite a shock to see such explicit photos showing oral sex and that was not what I was looking for.That is why I ask sometime as I dont want to receive anything like that again,I thought I was going to have the crime squad on my doorstep!
I dont think that ought to be allowed either -as females are expoited too, that is just my thoughts. Maybe wrong the law does.nt care about that.
There is a grey area, though. For example, if someone is looking at explicitly sexual drawings rather than photographs of children, no child has been abused to produce those images; yet one would still be very uneasy about letting the onlooker have unrestricted access to one’s children. And could that onlooker be prosecuted, and if so for what?
(I read once – but this may be one of those “urban myth” stories – that paedophiles in prison were passing pronography around amongst one another. When the question was asked, “what pornography?” it turned out to be a Mothercare catalogue).
Iona,
A large part of the ‘sexual satisfaction’ is because the images are real and involve real children. Indeed the element of sexual satisfaction is in the real abuse that is being perpetrated to obtain the images. The same cannot obviously be said of drawings so a prosecution would be unlikely but would give rise to concern and be evidence of a predelection for deeper offending desires.
Oh dear! – I have twice recently got half-way through drafting a closely-reasoned and perceptive post on this topic (I assure you) when I pressed the wrong button and it vanished into the ether. [I’m not sure which wrong button it is, but Control-Z doesn’t reverse it]. I suppose the answer is to draft offline, and cut and paste.
Yep, that appears to be what many do. Personally I just whack it out and hope for the best subject to the vagaries of the medium. Believing as I do so for it to be the case that sudden catastrophe’s as the one you mention are in fact the hand of God moving on my life saying:
“Mike do thou not write such palpable nonsense and serve it up as food for my people..”
Of course that could be a simple intuitive leap on my part and easily disprovable by evidence……er…… er….. er..wasn’t that the subject of this thread?
I lose count of the many times it happens to me.
My intuition is that it is not the hand of God but His ‘rival ‘!
So I peservere- and do it again- and again and again!
Presumption or intuition?
I have heard so much about Marciel on EWTN over a period of time, and it is a terrible scandal as all things relating to the Church. I sympathised with the priests who had to endure it all!
But however I can see where John Nolan is coming from-but I would not like to put all ‘movements’ in the Church as suspicious until proof can be found of their misconduct.
As far as Opus Dei-maybe a read at their ‘History of Opposition’on their Web Site may be enlightening to those who suspect wrong doings.
My intitution is to ‘look read and see before making any judgement’!
This link may be of interest in the context of the discussion ‘faith vs truth’
http://blog.adw.org/2011/10/on-the-hearing-is-safely-beleived-a-meditation-on-how-faith-comes-by-hearing-powerfully-demonstrated-in-a-video/?
A fascinating 3 minutes worth. And the ‘rubber hand’ effect (made available at the end) is complementary.
Yes,
perhaps it explains why the Angels always direct me to a parking place when I’m going to Tesco’s and am in a hurry.
I think it was L Ron Hubbard who before he became founder of the Church of Scientology once said: ‘If you want to become rich, found a religion.’
While we as Catholics can take comfort in the founder of our Church i do sometimes wonder if even we are susceptible to a ‘cult’ of personality and that there are real dangers in individuals who in effect ‘found a church within a church.’ We can attach an importance to them as some kind of religious intelligensia who are so far above us mortals that they are allowed an hallowed place that is above question, and calls for blind allegiance that if not granted to them reflects badly on those who reject them.
Sorry but I am a litle confused here!Am I not getting the meaningof it .
It is a very good experiment but I would not say in my own instance that it is correct as far as I am concerned.
Yes I believed it because I saw it, if that is what it is supposed to mean.
I did a lot of reading from a very young age -Scriptural not at a Catholic school as I didn’t go to one until I was 9, but I believed it because I read it!
I cant say I remember hearing any Scripture before then it was all in Latin at Mass, but I read it.
I had to read the Catechism to learn all the answers before Confirmation at 9.
When I was studing biology and physiology for teaching NFP, I couldnt concentrate on the lectures, my mind boggled, I had to read it so that it would make sense.
I am sure someone will explain the experiment to me-as I am sure I am not getting the message right. I have heard that we only hear 40% of what is said to us in a homily.
I’d be interested to see the experiment done with a non-speech sound. Lip-reading contributes a great deal to what we “hear” people say, and that may be the factor influencing whether we “hear” the man say “baa” or “vaa” (actually, I “heard” him say “far”, not “vaa”).
St. Joseph, although we have to see in order to read, I don’t think reading “counts” as seeing. It’s a way of getting information, but different from a way of getting information visually. For example, you could find out how to make a cake by reading the recipe, or by watching someone make the cake.
Iona thank you for that-but I still think that If some told me how to make it and told me the ingredients- I would still forget it when I got home-if that makes sense.
P.S. The priest who says Mass where I go in Monastery gives wonderful homolies everyday-but if I find it difficult to grasp it all at the time I ask him to e.mail to me so that I can read it and digest it more thoroughly.
I think the the truth doesn’t change as I feel the experiment is saying- but maybe the understanding of it is clearer.
Its very hard to see what relevance the Ba ba experiment had to anyone (Neuro linguists apart that is) other than a bit of light relief that you throw into a sermon or a powerpoint presentation. I have long since been of the opinion that the smallest unit of meaning is the paragraph and certainly not a consonant or vowel sound….This partly explains why pithy one liners in blogs are so pointless..!!!By the way I was joking about the Angels in Tesco car park.
On the whole I agree with mike Horsnall.
Msgr. Charles Pope is trying to make the point “Faith comes by hearing (Sed auditu solo tuto creditur)” as against the more popular “Seeing is believing”.
I get the general idea but I feel that things are really much more complicated. What exactly does “hearing” mean?
For myself I can close my eyes, listen to the sound and mentally – by visualising what is happening – turn the sound from ‘Baa’ to ‘Vaa’ and back!
I think that St Thomas has it right if you read him properly:- Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; (I believe whatever the Son of God has said); It is what he said not what I have heard that is important.
You are quite right Horace. It is what is said, not what is heard.
A thought of mine and that is, when Our Blesed Lady saw the Angel Gabriel, and heard what was said to Her, I wonder if She would have believed just on hearing the message. Although St Joseph saw the Angel in a dream and told him to take Mary and the Child .
St John in the book of Revelation saw first and then heard, then wrote to the Churches, who read.
So I think all is important seeing and hearing,but I still believe if we see -makes us believe more readily. The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima-seen by 70thousand people, if the 3 children were the only ones would we believe it so readily.?
This seems like nit picking , it is not meant to be- just thoughts.
But then we are more blessed if we believe and not seen. Thats Faith I suppose.
St Peter saw Jesus first-before he believed-Jesus had to speak in Parables for them to undersdand-and Miracles to make them believe.Even then they deserted Him at the foot of the Cross
Even if Jesus appeared in the sky to the world and everyone heard His voice, I expect there would be those would, nt believe
‘Hearing what God has said…’
As I understand it God speaks in silence most of the time and His speaking word upholds creation. Without the silence of Gods speaking we simply would not be. Therefore our hearing isn’t of much relevance either way except that if we are completely ‘deaf’ to Gods word then essentially we lose our being and our sanity having come adrift from what we truly are. I wonder sometimes if one of the reasons God became a man in order to demonstrate His being was because it was the only way He could get us to understand…. otherwise it would be rather like you or I trying to explain to a goldfish that the only reason they got food and clean water was because of our love for them.
Mike I do smile at some of your comments.
Maybe Jesus came as a Fisherman too- as not only the example of the fish but to tell us that all we need in life is ‘clean ‘Water and Good Food’.
Maybe your remark about the Angel was true in a sense- I believe Angels and (the Holy Spirit in us of course) prompts us at times. If one had been sitting on the bonnet of your car-you wouldn’t have doubted it!
We do hear God in the silence of our hearts, you are right.
My son firmly believes in his Guardian Angel prompting him-he often tells me things that has happened to him.When he was 19 and at Uni he was determined to have the student Union dis-affilliate from giving money for abortions and there was a meeting he was determined to go to,and the morning the alarm didnt,t go off and he said he did hear a voice saying ‘get up Paul’ and he rushed off and got there just in time and managed over the months to do what he wanted to do.
I said to him ‘No one of your friends called you and he was quite adamant that they did’nt. He used to be very upset at the students selling their sperm when they needed money!
I think that one is always influenced by a friend or a work associate regarding consumer recommendations of one sort or another. Recently a friend of mine told me about some software called ‘Download Accelerator Plus’ or ‘DAP’ for short, that helped one to download any media in a quicker fashion. Having just been told about it; I was quite excited that I have learnt about something that purports to be quite useful.
However, I had a recent bad experience with the purchase of software that helped to backup one’s important files called ‘Memeo’. I have since corrected this by consulting a consumer magazine in Australia called ‘Computer Choice’, and purchasing ‘Acronis’ for the backup of important software and documents. It was this recent jolt that has helped me to be more circumspect about the sundry recommendations of friends and colleagues. These recommendations are still influential of course. It takes some self-awareness and work to free oneself of such influences. Just like the advice that Quentin’s mother gave him about West Indian women!
Regarding the moral issue of Vaccines.
A lot of interesting info by typing in ‘The Catholic World Report.The Vaccine that Infects.