Q: How do you account for what seems to be a worldwide mass delusion regarding the belief in something like “global warming” despite the existence of opposing scientific views and data? –Shar Z.

A: Your phrasing betrays the wicked brand of a global warming skeptic. I am also a skeptic, though I’m far from certain about my position. My knowledge of the earth and its atmosphere could barely fill a pamphlet. I suspect that is true of most people in the global warming debate, including Al Gore.

As you point out, there is more than one tenable position on global warming. Yet, despite divergent viewpoints, incomplete data, and sound arguments to the contrary, some global warming proponents – who probably possess no more knowledge than I – can be violently strident.

We’ve seen this sort of thing before, Shar. Collective fears are nothing new. Neither is mass panic, which I think characterizes most organized responses to global warming. A thought is only delusional if it is wrong, but panic is destructive regardless of the facts.

In Part 2, we looked at the mind’s unbidden messages. The deeper the brain structure, the more primitive and powerful the urge. Sometimes we can influence our minds by exerting a bit of managerial pressure from the top. Other times, our primal minds have the upper hand and the best option is to accept what they give us.

The third of three parts.

In Part 1, we discussed the mind’s job: to keep us safe. Let’s turn now toward the covert ways in which the mind tries to carry out that lifelong task. In a mental landscape dominated by language, the nonverbal, primal mind has some sneaky ways of communicating. It does some of its best work under cover of darkness and that can give the mind’s messages a murky and ominous tone.

It’s a long one, but hopefully worth your time. The second of three parts.

Q: Hello! I’m French and I like reading your funny and interesting papers on this site. I have a question. What do you mean exactly when you use the word “mind?” Intelligence, brain, thought, or the “mind” found in the mind-body dichotomy? – François Delahaye

A: None of the above, François, but funny you should ask. During my absence from the site, I’ve been pondering the best, shortest answer to that very question. I’ve come up with a three-part answer. Hardly short, but cut me some slack – smarter people than me have been chewing on this question for centuries.

We’ll start by pinning down the mind’s time-honored job description. Your mind was not born yesterday. After a hundred thousand years of field-testing and fine-tuning, that mind of yours is sophisticated equipment with a purpose: to keep you right-side-up and breathing. It is a learning, worrying machine. Your mind is almost always looking out for you, even when it seems to be working against you.

The first of three parts.

Q: What’s behind the “deer in the headlights” phenomenon? I understand fight or flight is necessary during dangerous situations, but why do people “freeze” when they’re scared? It seems like the worst thing to do when your life is in danger. – Mindy, New York

A: ‘Round these parts (the foothills near Denver), the freeze response makes a lot of sense. This is western diamondback rattlesnake territory. Hike around my backyard long enough and you might hear the unmistakable sound of an upset rattler. Take it from me, few sounds evoke a more immediate and powerful stress response. When that happens, the sympathetic nervous system dumps adrenaline and glucose into the system at lightening speed and, if everything is functioning correctly, a person becomes as still as stone despite the energy coursing through his body. In the right situations, it is a brilliant mechanism.

(Guest Contributor: Hachi the Iron Dog.)

Q: Will chewing gum make you smarter? My friends said it won’t. Please help me decide. – Jennifer, Texas

A: As one who does not run in gum-chewing circles, I was unaware of this quietly raging debate: does gum chewing improve cognitive functioning? The question appears in the professional literature as far back as 1940. More recently, the gum industry (hereafter referred to as Big Gum) has done their best to evangelize the cognitive benefits of fruitless mastication. Other researchers find that hard to swallow.

In what seems to be the ongoing Young Curmudgeon series, I explain why I can no longer maintain my American Psychological Association membership without losing self-respect: the APA seems more interested in getting your mind right – even if that means silencing debate – than offering practical resources to a lowly clinician like myself.

Their recent stance on global warming, as outlined in USA Today, is the last straw for this little shrink. The APA is out to change your behavior whether you like it or not. They are, like, more smarter than you and stuff.

(Apologies for the extended absence – I was movin’ on up to the West Side – as well as the crankiness of recent posts. We’ll return to more upbeat topics next time.)

UPDATE: I'm not the only one. Dr. Helen gave up her membership before I did. And I thought I was being original.

On the heels of a landmark Second Amendment decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press has reported that gun owners commit suicide more often than non-gun owners: “Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.” The AP seems to be concluding that gun ownership leads to suicide. I disagree. Let’s look at some facts.