Science

by David Feldman

  Neurolinguistically trained psychologists have found that they can better understand and assist clients once they have determined the client’s dominant sense (what they call the client’s representational system). All three of the above quotes meant the same thing: “I understand you, but your words belie your true emotions.” Neurolinguists adapt their choice of words to the representational system of the client, and they have found that it has been a boon to establishing client trust and to creating a verbal shorthand between psychologist and patient. Any feeling that can be expressed visually can be expressed kinesthetically or auditorily as well, so the psychologist merely comes to the patient rather than having the patient come to the psychologist—it helps eliminate language itself as a barrier to communication.

  When grappling with finding the answer to a question, most people use one of the three dominant senses to seek the solution. If you ask people what their home phone number was when they were twelve years old, three different people might use the three different dominant senses of vision, hearing, and feeling. One might try to picture an image of the phone dial; one might try to remember the sound of the seven digits, as learned by rote as a small child; and the last may try to recall the feeling of dialing that phone number. Notice that all three people were trying to remember an image, sound, or feeling from the past. But some thoughts involve creating new images, sounds, or feelings. Neurolinguists found they could determine both the operative representational system of their clients and whether they were constructing new images or remembering old ones before the clients even opened their mouths—by observing their eye movements.

  These eye movements have now been codified. There are seven basic types of eye movements, each of which corresponds to the use of a particular sensory apparatus. Please note that these “visual accessing cues” are for the average right-handed person; left-handers’ eyes ordinarily move to the opposite side. Also, “left-right” designations indicate the direction from the point of view of the observer.

  * * *

  Direction

  Thought Process

  up-right

  visually remembered images

  up-left

  visually constructing [new] images

  straight-right

  auditory remembered sounds or words

  straight-left

  auditory constructed [new] sounds or words

  down-right

  auditory sounds or words (often what is called an “inner dialogue”)

  down-left

  kinesthetic feelings (which can include smell or taste)

  * * *

  There is one more type of movement, or better, non-movement. You may ask someone a question and he will look straight ahead with no movement and with eyes glazed and defocused. This means that he is visually accessing information.

  Try this on your friends. It works. There are more exceptions and complications, and this is an admittedly simplistic summary of the neurolinguists’ methodology. For example, if you ask someone to describe his first bicycle, you would expect an upward-right movement as the person tries to remember how the bike looked. If, however, the person imagines the bike as sitting in the bowling alley where you are now sitting, the eyes might move up-left, as your friend is constructing a new image with an old object. The best way to find out is to ask your friend how he tried to conjure up the answer.

  Neurolinguistics is still a new and largely untested field, but it is fascinating. Most of the information in this chapter was borrowed from the work of Richard Bandler and John Grinder. If you’d like to learn more about the subject, we’d recommend their book frogs into Princes (sic).

  To get back to the original Imponderable—why do people tend to look up when thinking? The answer seems to be, and it is confirmed by our experiments with friends, that most of us, a good part of the time, try to answer questions by visualizing the answers.

  * * *

  WHY DO WE ITCH?

  * * *

  The short answer is: We don’t know.

  Here’s the long answer. Itching is an enigmatic phenomenon. If a patient complains to a doctor that she has horrible itching and the doctor finds hives on the surface of the skin, the doctor can treat the growth and alleviate the itching symptoms. But much itching has no obvious cause and is not associated with any accompanying illness. Scientists can induce itching by heating the skin too close to the pain threshold or giving subjects certain chemicals, especially histamines (thus explaining why doctors prescribe antihistamines as a treatment for itching), but the ability to induce itching -doesn’t mean that doctors know its etiology.

  This much is known. There are sensory receptors just below the surface of the skin that send messages to the brain. The itch sensation seems to flow along the same pathways of the nervous system as pain sensations. According to Dr. George F. Odland, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington Medical School, the vast majority of sensory receptors are “free” nerve terminals. These “free” terminals do not seem to be designed for any specialized or particular function, but they carry both pain and itch sensations to the brain. These pain receptors are the most common in our nervous systems. When they operate at a low level of activity, they seem to signal itchiness rather than pain.

  Many scientists have speculated about the function of itching. Some believe that itching exists in order to warn us of impending pain if action is not taken. Others speculate about the usefulness of itching in letting primitive man know it was time to pluck the vermin and maggots out of his skin and hair. Itchiness can also be an early symptom of more serious illnesses, including diabetes and Hodgkin’s disease.

  Itching sensations are distinct from ticklishness, which at least some people find pleasurable. Itching is rarely pleasurable; in fact, most people tolerate itching less well than pain. Patients with severe itching are invariably more than willing to break the skin, inducing pain and bleeding, in order to remove the itch.

  * * *

  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

  A “MOUNTAIN” AND A “HILL”?

  * * *

  Although we think you are making a mountain out of a molehill, we’ll answer this Imponderable anyway. Most American geographers refer to a hill as a natural elevation that is smaller than 1,000 feet. Anything above 1,000 feet is usually called a mountain. In Great Britain, the traditional boundary line between hill and mountain is 2,000 feet.

  Still, some geographers are not satisfied with this definition. “Hill” conjures up rolling terrain; “mountains” connote abrupt, peaked structures. A mound that rises two feet above the surrounding earth may attain an elevation of 8,000 feet, if it happens to be located in the middle of the Rockies, whereas a 999-foot elevation, starting from a sea-level base, will appear massive. For this reason, most geographers feel that “mountain” may be used for elevations under 1,000 feet if they rise abruptly from the surrounding terrain.

  The Oxford English Dictionary states that “hill” may also refer to nonnatural formations, such as sand heaps, mounds, or, indeed, molehills.

  Submitted by Thomas J. Schoeck of Slingerlands, New York.

  Thanks also to F. S. Sewell of San Jose, California.

  * * *

  WHAT IS ONE HEARING WHEN ONE

  HEARS A HOUSE “SETTLING” OR CREAKING?

  * * *

  We like to think of a home as a bulwark, a refuge from the vicissitudes and capriciousness of the outside world. The infrastructure of a house consists of elements like beams, pillars, and foundations, words that connote steadiness, permanence, and immutability.

  But architects we talked to soon disabused us of this notion. In fact, talking to an architect about the stability of houses is a little like talking to Norman Bates about shower safety. In particular, we were startled by a book called How Buildings Work: The Natural Order of Architecture, written by Edward Allen, and passed on to us by James Cramer, executive vice president/CEO of the American Institute of Architects. In one chapter
, “Providing for Building Movement,” Allen details the many ways in which buildings move, and if we weren’t averse to clichés and bad puns, we would say that the opening rocked us to our very foundations:

  A building, even a seemingly solid, massive one, is never at rest. Its motions are usually very small ones, undetectable by the unaided eye, but most of them are of virtually irresistible force, and would tear the building to pieces if not provided for in some way.

  Allen states that in an average house, all of these components can and do move:

  1. The soil underneath the foundation buckles under the weight of the new foundation.

  2. Materials that are put in place while wet, such as mortar, concrete, and lime plaster, shrink as they harden.

  3. Some dry materials, such as gypsum plaster, tend to expand and push against adjoining elements.

  4. Most lumber used in houses is not completely dry when put in place. Wet lumber shrinks.

  5. Structural elements that carry weight loads, such as beams, pillars, and columns, deflect under the weight.

  6. Wind and earthquakes cause more “natural” deflection.

  7. Wood and concrete sag.

  8. Wood, in particular, tends to expand when exposed to high humidity and contract in dry conditions. When humidity decreases noticeably, such as when heat is put on to warm a room in winter, the wood creaks noticeably.

  9. Any material adjoining another material with different movement characteristics is in danger of scraping against another or moving away from the other, which can cause movement and noise.

  10. All of the above movements can and do cause noise, but the most common noise associated with “settling” is the actual expansion and contraction of the building. Allen explains:

  Back-and-forth movements caused by thermal and moisture effects occur constantly. A building grows measurably larger in warm weather, and smaller in cold weather. A roof, heated by the sun, grows larger in the middle of the day while the cooler walls below stay the same size. At night the roof cools and shrinks.

  And so on and so on. The architect’s planning compensates for the inevitable movement of these materials. Or at least we hope that it does. Otherwise, the creaking noises might lead us to the same fate as Janet Leigh’s in Psycho.

  Submitted by Joanne Walker of Ashland, Massachusetts.

  Thanks also to Dr. Emil S. Dickstein of Youngstown, Ohio.

  * * *

  WHY DO SOME ICE CUBES COME OUT

  CLOUDY AND OTHERS COME OUT CLEAR?

  * * *

  A caller on the Merle Pollis radio show, in Cleveland, Ohio, first confronted us with this problem. We admitted we weren’t sure about the answer, but subsequent callers all had strong convictions about the matter. The only problem was that they all had different convictions.

  One caller insisted that the mineral content of the water determined the opacity of the cube, but this theory doesn’t explain why all the cubes from the same water source don’t come out either cloudy or clear.

  Two callers insisted that the temperature of the water when put into the freezer was the critical factor. Unfortunately, they couldn’t agree about whether it was the hot water or the cold water that yielded clear ice.

  We finally decided to go to an expert who confirmed what we expected—all the callers were wrong. Dr. John Hallet, of the Atmospheric Ice Laboratory of the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada, informed us that the key factor in cloud formation is the temperature of the freezer.

  When ice forms slowly, it tends to freeze first at one edge. Air bubbles found in a solution in the water have time to rise and escape. The result is clear ice cubes.

  The clouds in ice cubes are the result of air bubbles formed as ice is freezing. When water freezes rapidly, freezing starts at more than one end, and water residuals are trapped in the middle of the cube, preventing bubble loss. The trapped bubbles make the cube appear cloudy.

  * * *

  WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

  A LAKE AND A POND?

  * * *

  This is an Imponderable?” we hear you muttering beneath your breath as you read the question. “A lake is a big pond.”

  Sure, you’re right. But have you considered exactly what is the dividing line in size between a lake and a pond? And what separates a lake from a sea or a pool? Do you think you know the answer?

  Well, if you do, why don’t you go into the field of geography or topography or geology? Because the professionals in these fields sure don’t have any standard definitions for any of these bodies of water.

  As stated in the past National Mapping Division’s Topographic Instructions’ “Glossary of Names for Topographic Forms,” a lake is “Any standing body of inland water generally of considerable size.” The same publication classifies a pond as “a small freshwater lake.” But other government sources indicate that saltwater pools may be called lakes.

  And absolutely no one is willing to say what the dividing line in size is between the lake and the pond. In fact, the only absolutely clear-cut distinction between the two is that a lake is always a natural formation; if it is man-made, the body is classified as a pond. Ponds are often created by farmers to provide water for livestock. Some ponds are created to provide feeding and nesting grounds for waterfowl. Hatcheries create stocked ponds to breed fish.

  Many communities try to inflate the importance of their small reservoirs by calling them lakes rather than ponds. No one is about to stop them.

  Submitted by Jeffrey Chavez of Torrance, California.

  Thanks also to Ray Kerr of Baldwin, Missouri, and Eugene Bender of Mary, Missouri.

  * * *

  WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

  AN OCEAN AND A SEA?

  * * *

  The same folks who are having trouble distinguishing between lakes and ponds are struggling with this one, too. Once again, there is general agreement that an ocean is larger than a sea.

  The standard definition of an ocean, as stated in the United States Geological Survey’s Geographic Names Information Service, is “The great body of saltwater that occupies two-thirds of the surface of the earth, or one of its major subdivisions.” Notice the weasel words at the end. Is the Red Sea a “major subdivision” of the Indian Ocean? If so, why isn’t it the Red Ocean? Or simply referred to as the Indian Ocean?

  Most but by no means all seas are almost totally landlocked and connected to an ocean or a larger sea, but no definition we encountered stated this as a requirement for the classification. Geographical and geological authorities can’t even agree on whether a sea must always be saline: the United States Geological Survey’s Topographical Instructions say yes; but in their book Water and Water Use Terminology, Professors J. O. Veatch and C. R. Humphrys indicate that “sea” is sometimes used interchangeably with “ocean”:

  In one place a large body of salt water may be called lake, in another a sea. The Great Lakes, Lake Superior and others, are freshwater but by legal definition are seas.

  The nasty truth is that you can get away with calling most places whatever names you want. We often get asked what the difference is between a “street” and an “avenue” or a “boulevard.” At one time, there were distinctions among these classifications: A street was a paved path. “Street” was a useful term because it distinguished a street from a road, which was often unpaved. An avenue was, in England, originally a roadway leading from the main road to an estate, and the avenue was always lined with trees. Boulevards were also tree-lined but were much wider thoroughfares than avenues.

  Most of these distinctions have been lost in practice over the years. Developers of housing projects have found that using “street” to describe the roadways in their communities makes them sound drab and plebeian. By using “lane,” which originally referred to a narrow, usually rural road, they can conjure up Mayberry rather than urban sprawl. By using “boulevard,” a potential buyer visualizes Paris rather than Peoria.

  For whatever reason, No
rth Americans seem to like lakes more than seas. We are surrounded by oceans to the west and east. By standard definitions, we could certainly refer to Lake Ontario, which is connected, via the St. Lawrence, to the Atlantic, as the Ontario Sea. But we don’t. And no one, other than Imponderables readers, evidently, is losing any sleep over it.

  Submitted by Don and Marian Boxer of Toronto, Ontario.

  Thanks also to June Puchy of Lyndhurst, Ohio.

  * * *

  WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF

  A SUNSET OR SUNRISE? HOW IS IT DETERMINED

  AT WHAT TIME THE SUN SETS OR RISES?

  WHY IS THERE NATURAL LIGHT BEFORE

  SUNRISE AND AFTER SUNSET?

  * * *

  The definitions are easy. A sunrise is defined as occurring when the top of the sun appears on a sea-level horizon. A sunset occurs when the top of the sun goes just below the sea-level horizon.