Meet teenager Lori Brownell, the first exemplar of an outbreak of
involuntary trembling and verbal outbursts that’s drawn health
professionals and environmentalists to the town of Le Roy, New York.
Brownell is not from Le Roy, hailing instead from Corinth some 450
miles eastward, but she happened to eat dinner in the town last summer
right before her life began to get weird.
In one of the early YouTube videos
she started filming to document her condition, she explained that she
passed out suddenly last August while headbanging at a concert. Then she
fainted at a school dance, after which her body became wracked with
tremors. She went on meds, but the twitching continued and was soon
joined with a violent sort of snorting and what she believes are
Brownell’s disorder wouldn’t be all that notable if it weren’t for
students at Le Roy Jr. / Sr. High School rapidly developing the same
type of tics and verbal outbursts. The Le Roy school district and the
New York State Health Department began investigating “neurological
symptoms associated with a small number of students” in November. That
number of students has since climbed to 15, the vast majority being females.
After the Centers for Disease Control’s latest report on binge drinking, a post had readers wondering if the activity was tied to the cold.
A number of commenters on my binge drinking post asked about the connection between cold temperatures and binge drinking. One wrote:
“I noticed a pattern as I look out my window on a fine January afternoon in a state that’s on the high end of the binge drinking scale: It’s cold, and it gets dark very early in the evening. There’s not much to do here for half the year if you like to actually be outside. Drinking is a way of dealing with the depression that comes from forced inactivity. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that northern, non-coastal states drink heavily.”
A four-hour television series, which will debut at the same time a companion book is made available, takes a close look at how our built environment is affecting our personal health.
A provocative new four-hour series soon to air on public television, Designing Healthy Communities,
examines the impact of our built environment on key public health
indices, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, cancer, and
depression. The series documents the connection between bad community
design and burgeoning health consequences, and discusses the remedies
available to fix what has become an urgent crisis.
Long in the making, the series looks well produced, immensely enlightening and even captivating. The four parts will include:
Retrofitting Suburbia, which will address health problems like obesity and diabetes
Rebuilding Places of the Heart, on reviving our older downtowns
Social Policy in Concrete, addressing the particular risks faced by low-income communities
Searching for Shangri-La, exploring whether there are “ideal” healthy communities
Using data released by the Centers for Disease Control, we can see that there is something of a binge drinking belt across the northern half of the country, and that liberal states drink more.
Binge drinking varies from one in ten adults (10.9 percent) at the low end of the spectrum to more than one in four (25.6 percent) at the high end. There is something of a binge drinking belt across the north of the country, running westward from New England, Pennsylvania and Ohio to Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana. Alaska ranks high too, suggesting that long, cold winters might play a role, though tropical Hawaii is in the top tier as well.
With the help of my MPI colleague Charlotta Mellander, I took a quick look at some of the economic and demographic factors that might be associated with binge drinking. The correlations that we noticed, of course, do not prove causation, only that an association exists. Several factors do stand out, however.
Binge drinking is more common in liberal states, those voted for Obama in 2008, and it is negatively associated with states that voted for McCain (with correlations of roughly .3 and -.3 respectively). Binge drinking states are also more “extroverted.” The correlation between extroverted personality types (one of the “big five” personality traits identified by psychologists) and binge drinking is .3.
To navigate certain parts of New York City — namely Queens and much of Manhattan — all you need to be able to do is count. In Manhattan neighborhoods like the West Village, and most of Brooklyn, things get a good bit trickier. You can no longer depend on the logical numbered progression of streets and avenues, and must instead rely on some other picture inside your head.
For a while now psychologists have debated just what that picture looks like. Some believe we need to orient ourselves by local reference points. Under this theory, we’re lost until we see that certain street or certain landmark, at which point the rest of the grid emerges in our minds. Others argue that experience is our mental cartographer. This idea suggests that if you cruise around the city enough, you develop a spatial memory that helps you find your way no matter which direction you face; at the same time, if this is true, it should become harder to reach a destination that’s farther from your familiar starting point.
A third alternative suggests that our internal GPS system is informed by frequently looking at maps. In other words, the more time we spend finding directions on Google Maps, the more our minds may grow familiar with the officially documented outline of our city, rather than the one created through our own experiences. This idea receives support in a recent study published online late last month, ahead of print, in the journal Psychological Science. A team of psychologists led by Julia Frankenstein of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany, found evidence that we’re best oriented when facing north — just like a reliance on maps would suggest.
Being a part of group is awesome (go team!) but so is individual
effort. The uncritical embrace of collaboration above all else can lead,
as a social scientist at the SPUR panel remarked, to the reverse of
what was intended: group-think, conformity, consensus for the sake of
peace-making. Further, the suburban corporate campus, even when it
attempts, as Facebook and Google are, to approximate urban environment,
can often serve to exacerbate the type of self-reinforcing behaviors
Bill Bishop explored a few years ago in his book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.
Forest City’s Alexa Arena, another participant in the SPUR panel, says
that her company’s anthropological research while working on the more
iterative workspace model seen in its 5M Project
revealed that employees working in these environments found that their
best ideas came not while in that bustling, lively office but more
likely when they were in their own neighborhoods hanging out with people
not necessarily in their own line of work, or waiting for lunch at the
Korean taco truck parked in front of the office.
From which cities do the bands playing the iconic rock festival hail?
Making the bill at Coachella signals a certain level of value to big labels and record industry tastemakers as well as to the wider public. The rapper Azealia Banks rode a wave of Internet buzz to this year’s Coachella stage before she signed to a
major label or even made a full-length record. Being a big act’s protégé can help too. Rumor has it, for example, that Dr. Dre only agreed to
perform when the festival booked his
Coachella thus provides an interesting lens into the evolving geography of popular music, enabling us to map the locations and music scenes where not
just the most established acts, but some of the most intriguing up-and-coming acts hail from.MPI alum Patrick Adler, now a grad student in Urban Planning at UCLA, gathered locational data on the 2012 Coachella acts from multiple
sources, including band websites, MySpace, Sound Cloud, All Music, Pitchfork and music journalism. When possible, he gave priority to
locations entered by the acts themselves. For veteran acts, he used their location when they achieved their greatest popularity. For acts with multiple
locations, he gave fractional points to each location.
“In Portland, and in the West in general, urban poverty is less of a concentrated urban phenomenon and the low income households living with low food access are really spread all over an urban area,” says Leete.
While food deserts may be more of a reality in cities in the Eastern U.S. where poverty is more concentrated, cities in the West have more suburbanized poverty. She argues that these aren’t food deserts, but food hinterlands. The issue, Leete says, is not just areas with few grocery stores, but the scattered low-income people who live too far from grocery stores and have few options to get to them.
“The food desert idea has been bandied about a lot and it’s been popular, but it’s really only a relevant problem to people who don’t have access to cars, and that’s a certain particular subset of the population. It’s not even the poor population, but it might be 25 percent of the poor population,” says Leete. “In some urban areas virtually all or some huge percentage of the poor have access to cars and in some other urban areas very few of them do. So it’s a very context-specific problem.”
And in the context of transportation, residents in food hinterlands are limited. But merely building a grocery store can’t possibly accommodate a fairly large population that’s spread out across the city.
Where do mass shootings take place? While the tragic pattern of who commits mass shootings fits a particular profile, where these attacks occur is less demographically predictable. As CityLab’s Richard Florida and Alastair Boone write, the places that suffer mass shootings run the full gamut of American communities, leaving victims that look a lot more like the country as a whole.
Survivors will get a final say over the site’s future. Meanwhile, little has been done to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Yesterday we asked for your thoughts on Barack Obama’s comments about whether his presidential library would cause gentrification on the Southside. Several readers took issue with use of “debacle” in our subject line, and we hear you; “conundrum” would’ve been a better fit. Many others weighed in on Obama’s remarks. Here’s a sample:
Katie H. from Chicago:
WBEZ’s Natalie Moore has done great reporting on the neighborhoods that are and are not gentrifying in Chicago. While gentrification is a huge problem in the city, particularly in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, the West and South sides that are overwhelmingly black have the opposite problem—generations of disinvestment. This is a thorny, complicated issue, and I don’t know what the Obama Foundation will bring for the future, but as far as his analysis on the current state of Chicago… he’s right.
Stephen D. from Middletown, Connecticut:
If a fancy $6 cupcake store brings to the neighborhood people with the expectations of good schools and low crime and the power to demand them, then the “gentrification” represented by the cupcake store has benefited the people of the neighborhood. However, communities need to be vigilant about the trends in the relationship between incomes and rents… The time to write such language is before there is substantial gentrification.
David C. from Houston:
“Gentrification” is a fake meme that acts as a pejorative to keep people at bay, away from a neighborhood that doesn’t want them. If “displacement” is a problem because somebody improved a structure and taxes went up, Obama is absolutely right: address that specific problem with those specific people.
In many ways, Trump embodies in one person this nation’s intense polarization and deep-seated confusion surrounding firearm regulations. But which position is backed up by the best evidence? What does science say about what lawssave lives and what don’t? That’s where the Gun Policy in America project comes in.
Over the last two years, researchers at the RAND Corporation have synthesized all the available research on the effect of various gun laws on a range of outcomes. To that, they’ve added a survey of policy experts both for and against gun control. The results of this self-funded project have been visualized in interactive maps and charts on their website. Think of this as your one-shop-stop to understand what we know about gun policy—and importantly, what we don’t.
There are two big takeaways. One, some gun control policies clearly seem to decrease certain types of violence. Two, while there is more overlap than one would have expected among experts on both sides of the issue, the huge gaps in research make it impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
“We haven’t invested, as a country, as much as we should in building a data infrastructure,” said Andrew R. Morral, the lead researcher on the project. “The second thing is: There’s not very much investment in research to use the data that is available or to collect more data.”
Let’s dive into the first part of the project. Clicking on the little magnifying glass in the “policy analysis” section pulls up the table below, which gives a snapshot of the literature review. In the vertical column on the left are the gun policies the RAND researchers have examined—both restrictive ones such as bans on assault weapons and minimum age requirements, as well as permissive ones such as concealed-carry and “stand your ground” laws. In the first row, you can see the spectrum of outcomes the researchers were interested in. Among the negative ones are mass shootings, suicide, accidental deaths, and violent crime. But they also looked for research on links between these policies and gun sales, incidents of defensive gun use, and hunting and recreation.
The table is populated with the results of the analysis: The darker the purple, the stronger the evidence supporting the effect of a policy on the outcome. The gray cells, on the other hand, show where there’s no research at all. (On the website, you can click through to get a detailed explanation of how the researchers came to these conclusions.) Here, science staunchly backs up the claim that laws that prevent children from getting their hands on guns help reduce unintentional injuries and suicide (deepest purple boxes).
For four outcomes that are central to the gun debate going on in the country—how gun control laws hinder people’s ability to defend themselves, whether they discourage hunting for sport, and whether they increase or decrease the likelihood of mass shootings and officer-involved shootings—the researchers found very little authoritative evidence. (See: the many boxes marked “inconclusive.”) Via the report accompanying the project:
This does not mean that these policies are ineffective; they might well be quite effective. Instead, it partly reflects shortcomings in the contributions that science has made to policy debates. It also partly reflects the policies we chose to investigate, all of which have been implemented in some U.S. states and so have proven to be politically and legally feasible (at least in some jurisdictions).
Here’s another way of visualizing the results, available on the website. Below are seven policies (on the left) that research has found to have substantive effects on at least four outcomes (listed on the right). The brown lines show a positive effect, whereas the green ones indicate a negative effect. The thicker the lines, the stronger the science. Below, you can see moderate evidence that background checks and ownership restrictions for individuals with mental illness decrease suicide and violent crime. In other words, the review demonstrates that some gun control policies, at least, do work.
Given the lack of scientific research regarding many of the policies, the RAND researchers went ahead and surveyed experts and advocates on both sides of the battle. Their sample included those who supported looser restrictions on guns (NRA, Gun Owners of America, etc.) and those who supported tighter laws (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns etc.). On their website, the researchers have put up a nifty interactive map to see the results of the survey.
If you toggle a particular law “on,” you can see what both camps of experts think will happen to a particular outcome if that law is enacted across the country. So let’s say I want to see the effect of a blanket ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunitions—a key demand in the post-Parkland gun conversation—on mass shootings. When I select those options, the results show that pro-gun experts believe the policy will produce no change (first map below). The anti-gun experts believe it would lead to a 11 percent decrease in mass shootings, nationwide (second map below).
Similarly, this is what the experts think will happen to firearm homicides if “stand your ground” laws pop up across the country. The first group thinks firearm-related murders will go down 4 percent; the second thinks they’ll go up 2 percent. (A small caveat: If more policies are selected via this tool, more assumptions come into play, and the resulting maps get less reliable.)
A key hopeful finding of this survey: The two groups do, in fact, have shared goals. They just disagree on how to achieve them. “We find some pretty good evidence that there’s not a values disagreement here,” Morral said. “It’s not that one side favors community violence reduction and the other side favors Second Amendment rights more. Everyone wanted to reduce homicides, suicides, mass shootings, and accidents—the other things were more secondary. … They appeared to evaluate policies in the same way, but they were working from different assumptions about what the policies could achieve.”
That’s important, because more rigorous research around some of the most contentious gun policies could actually help bridge the gap in opinion, the researchers concluded. But getting that data has long been a challenge, for nakedly political reasons: a 1996 amendment to a spending bill—lobbied for by the NRA—that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using government funds for research that “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
For more than two decades, that legislation has hindered researchers from treating gun violence as the public health problem that it is. While there are national datasets that contain information about the circumstances of each traffic fatality, no such database exists for gun deaths. (Traffic deaths slightly outnumber gun deaths overall, but are less numerous in 21 states. Along with suicides, injuries, accidents, and defensive shooting, all gun incidents came to over 60,000 in 2017, according to one count.) If decreasing gun violence is indeed a shared value in America, both camps will have to start with the numbers, so that we can build a shared understanding of the scale of the problem.