I think it’s safe to say that anyone with a sibling has had the experience of being compared to this other human who shares 50% of his/her DNA. For some, it’s an overachieving eldest who sets the standards uncomfortably high. For others, it’s the “bad kid” who has paved the way so that it’s possible for the other kids to get away with just about anything. What is interesting about these comparisons between siblings is that in many of cases, or at least in mine, these siblings have been raised by the same parents, in the same house, growing up listening to the same music, and going to the same schools.
My brother and I look practically identical. When we were growing up, we played the same sports, watched the same tv shows (he always got to pick because it was physically impossible for me to get the remote from him), had many of the same friends, and even had the same scores on standardized tests. On the other hand, our GPAs, our current lifestyles, and our interests in things from music to possible career paths couldn’t be more different.
Why are siblings so different? Is it due to the half of their DNA that is different or is it because they had different kindergarten teachers? The problem with discussions on determinisms is that there are far too many variables. Maybe my brother and I differ because he had a kindergarten teacher who liked to dispel myths like the existence of Santa Claus and I had a kindergarten teacher who thought it was necessary for us to take Spanish lessons. Maybe we’re similar because we happened to have the same third grade teacher. Or maybe we’re similar/different because half of our 20,000 genes are similar/different. The problem is there is no way to tell what are the absolute causes for specific similarities and differences. The question of nature versus nurture is too broad to address all of the possible causes.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
ADHD: disorder, disease, dilemma.
Upon entering elementary school I was immediately enveloped by the new and exciting surroundings. Walls covered in posters, projects, etc.--never a dull moment. This eventually led me to trouble because I spent much less time sitting quietly and listening to teacher than wiggling in my seat and staring out the window. Was I bored? Probably. But that didn't stop my teachers from suggesting I see a psychiatrist to evaluate my symptoms and hopefully allieviate my symptoms (i.e. their misery).
The diagnoses: attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. The treatment: psychostimulants (generic for Ridalin). Now i'm definitely not against the treatment of neurological disorders by means of medication, as long as there exists some psychological intervention such a therapy. Of course in my case, as for most ADHD patients, it was prescription only treatment.
Now, what did this mean for me? would I now be classified as hyperactive and distractable for my entire life? If so, did that mean I had/have an excuse for getting lost on my way to the bathroom and leaving the elementary school grounds? Not so much. I soon became the antithesis of my diagnoses. It was a combination of embarrassment that I was medicated for undesireable behavior, that I was the only one I knew with the issue, and simply the notion of medication in itself (I've always been weird like that).
But, I'm not sure thats how it would have played out had I been born ten or fifteen years later. The social view of the 'disorder' has changed. Parents want their kids to be 'special' or different, and show the exceptionalism of their childs mediocre performance through adversity (ADHD). So whip out the amphetamines, classify your child, and give them an excuse to be a pain in the ass. Not to mention expose them to prescription drug abuse, illegal sales of prescription drugs (think high school), and possibly eating disorders (adderall is great for the appetite).
I'm not saying there do not exist genetic reasons for this disorder. I'm certain there are people with legitimate cases of ADHD. But, like mine, many are the result of a behavioral issue that requires psychological intervention (ranging from spankings to therapy). Kids are pains, they need some direction, guidance, and discipline. I just don't think that pharmaceutical companies needed to be involved. But hey, they've got to make a living some how.
I now have no issues with hyperactivity or distractability. I'm guessing its because I'm an adult and realize there are consequences for my actions. And I'm fairly sure that my only issue in kindergarten was that I was a child with little respect for my teacher's authority and general behavioral issues. I blame my parents.
Just now I thought of something better to write. Typical.
There is a bit of truth to the cultural complaint that “These Days” parents who fail to discipline their unruly children can casually chalk it all up to ADHD and put them on medication that makes watching after them immensely easier. Personally, I don’t like nodding my head while my great aunt blathers about how a relative (who would endanger himself and others without his medication) could have turned out all right had his parents spanked him now and then, but I understand where she is coming from. I feel similarly toward people who think bad headaches are migraines or fleeting moments of fear are full-on panic attacks—this kind of misinformed self-diagnosis is cause for deep annoyance from those who have actually suffered from migraines or panic attacks.
In spite of myself, I tend to place diagnoses on the unsettling characters in my life. Early in my university years I befriended a socially awkward student who was a fantastic liar. From “embellishing” to glossing over the facts to inventing some of the tallest tales I’ve heard from someone over the age of 10, this guy showed no outward signs that he was overflowing with lies. It took me a while to see through him, but with the help of some observant and knowledgeable mutual friends, we eventually had him figured out. Despite his little problem, I remained his friend, telling myself that behind the lies he was by no means a bad person. He was just a mythomaniac.
It practically goes without saying that the friendship didn’t last forever. He developed the intriguing tendency to cut off contact with people without visible cause or explanation, and about the third time he did this to me, he didn’t come back. Over the course of six months he became increasingly odd, antisocial, and unlikeable. I imagined it was some confused combination of social anxiety, schizoid personality disorder, and his confusion about his sexuality (not a Freudian reading but a fact). I would have washed my hands of him had he not started dating his ex-girlfriend—who happened to be my best friend and roommate. At this point, annoyance exploded into drama, and a year later I’m telling myself that John is a mad alchemist who has made social brokenness into a fine powder and regularly administered it to my roommate, who has seen a sudden and severe decline in her personality. (I haven’t had time to Wikipedia-doctor recent developments, so my mind has jumped to the realm of conspiracy/fantasy.)
In the spirit of Lewontin, I wonder what would have changed or could change if John was diagnosed by someone with a lot more experience. If he sought counseling or took medication, would he act differently? Would his worldview or actions change if someone credible told him that he was abnormal? And would “labeling” him be for the better or worse?
I think most people would look at John, especially after he was unkind to them, and just think of him as a “Bad Person”—someone randomly unkind and completely unworthy of further attention. For reasons beyond me, I feel the need to diagnose him, to tell myself and others that it is a disorder that makes him this way—one more complicated than a heart two sizes too small. Perhaps it is lasting affection for our friendship past, perhaps it is an attempt to make sense of his bizarre behavior. Perhaps my predisposition to diagnose people is something that could be diagnosed.
I think Pinker would see me as someone who is unwittingly following his narrow view of personality. By trying to put my universe in order, I’ve turned to shaky science, hoping it will tell me that people I dislike or fear are the way they are because it’s in their genes. They can’t help being horrible, and I shouldn’t think they’re entirely at fault for their own ineptitude. Maybe with a degree in psychology I could back my claims, but for now I’m stuck in a place where the more I look into the human mind the less it makes sense.
Asians are smart
Once in high school I had a kid come up to me and ask me for help with his Calculus. At the time I was failing pre-calc. One of the more common stereotypes in the United States is the Asians are just smarter. I mean, they're all over campus (I'm being serious here). You can't throw a stone without hitting an Asian student. In my high school this was norm. You find Asian kids in the hardest AP classes, IB, CIS, engineering, science courses. There's a page on Facebook dedicated to the "Asian grading system : A-verage, B-elow average, C-rap, D-eath, F-ucked."
Asian parents are notorious for pushing their kids to excel and be successful doctors, lawyer, something that makes money. Being half-Asian (though sometimes I don't look it, depends on if I'm around white people or Asians) brings up the question of 'are Asians really smarter than the rest of the races?'
Asian countries have a completely different mindset from Western countries. Emphasis is placed on community, honor, and family. You obey your parents, or else you get smacked. You don't question tradition or your teachers. In Western cultures the individual and creativity are valued. We are taught to question the teachers and ask 'how' and 'why.' In tabula rasa we are completely shaped by our culture, how we are raised shapes our strengths, weaknesses, and which we work on.
Asian parents are notorious for pushing their kids to excel and be successful doctors, lawyer, something that makes money. Being half-Asian (though sometimes I don't look it, depends on if I'm around white people or Asians) brings up the question of 'are Asians really smarter than the rest of the races?'
Asian countries have a completely different mindset from Western countries. Emphasis is placed on community, honor, and family. You obey your parents, or else you get smacked. You don't question tradition or your teachers. In Western cultures the individual and creativity are valued. We are taught to question the teachers and ask 'how' and 'why.' In tabula rasa we are completely shaped by our culture, how we are raised shapes our strengths, weaknesses, and which we work on.
Adoption and the Blank Slate
"......ok next, Colin Hart?" said my 9th grade English teacher the first day of class (she was taking attendance).
"yup, right here," i replied.
The teacher then paused for a second....."Wait.....Hart.....i remember that name....are you Laura's little brother?"
"yeah that's me"
Then in a clam and gentle voice she said,"oh that's nice, you look just like her"
The funny thing about that story is that my sister and i look NOTHING alike, after all she was adopted from Korea years before i was born.
It always seemed normal growing up to have 2 adopted siblings, and one biological sibling. it was just the way it was, when i was young that was just how things were. When i thought about what to write about for this posting, and how to relate what we are learning in class, I (as usual when it comes to writing) had no idea what to say. But then it became so clear, what better way to address the 'blank slate' idea than with a family of 4 sibling, all with the exact same environment growing up, the same elementary school, the same middle school, and the same high school. Even as shown above, some of the same teachers.
If the blank slate theory was in fact correct, we should have all grown up to be (in general) very similar to each other right? that could not be further from the fact.
My sister Laura is an amazing painter, I just recently got passed stick figures.
My sister Elinor was a political science major, always reading and writing papers. i'm studying aerospace engineering and find an equation much more helpful than a sentence.
All three of my siblings loved camp growing up, i hated it. Never even went
I guess you would have to see all of us together to notice the differences. So you'll just have to trust me. They're there.
If the 'blank slate' was in fact true, the four of us would act MUCH more alike. It should not matter the least that my sister Elinor and I have COMPLETELY different genes than Laura and John. We grew up in the same environment, that's all that should have mattered. Right?
The fact of the matter is my sister Elinor and I are in many ways (personality wise) very similar to our father. Me even more so than her. For me, this basically rules out the 'blank slate' idea completely. There are clear genetic factors that play into the social development of people. If my brother and sister were to met their biological parents i'm sure there would be similarities to the little quirks that encompass their personalties.
In my book, genetics win.
-Colin
Doctor Who?
I haven't had the worst immune system that a person could have, but being born with asthma, several food allergies, seasonal allergies, and being more susceptible to the common cold than your average bear, I'd say I'm a sure-in for the notorious H1N1. How I haven't contracted the 'Swine Flu' yet, I'm astonished.
But apart from my immune system's heroic efforts at keeping me alive this long, I've also been prescribed numerous medications for each individual 'illness'. I have a Ventolin inhaler, an Azmacort inhaler, an Epi-Pen, CounterAct daily allergy pills, and the occasional allergy shot, to name a few. One might say I 'need' these medications to get through my day sniffle-free, or to help keep me alive in case I happen to ingest a bite of food containing almonds (lame, I know, I hear they're delicious). However, I don't claim to have the worst day ever if I happen to skip out on my allergy pill, and I hardly ever use my inhalers regularly; they're more for emergency asthma attacks - which I'm fairly positive has only occurred once. Even though doctors urge me to maintain a consistent routine with these daily medications, I know I'll live to see another day if I skip a day, week, or month here and there.
So, with all of the back story on my medication history all out in the open, when I was in 3rd grade I contracted pneumonia and was out of school for an entire week (!!). My mom didn't take me to the doctor right away, thinking it was just another bad cold that I'd recover from within a couple of days, but when I didn't show any big signs of improvement, she took me to the hospital. The doctor that examined me diagnosed me with pneumonia, and mentioned that because my mom had waited the couple of extra days before taking me in, he had to prescribe me more expensive and sophisticated types of medication since my pneumonia had only worsened. Now, not saying I as a 3rd grader knew more than a doctor at the Mayo Clinic, but since I was the one with the illness, and I knew how I felt, I didn't feel that the couple of extra days had made my pneumonia that much worse; if anything I had almost started to feel slightly better.
But being a shy 3rd grader, of course I listened to whatever the doctor said. I took my medication, felt better after a few more days, and was able to return to school by the next week. But during that whole ordeal, I felt bad that my mom felt like she had been put under such guilt for being a 'bad parent' and allowing my illness to 'worsen' according to the doctor. Her mom was a nurse who worked with and befriended many doctors throughout her lifetime, and so my mom was raised to trust doctors and other medical persons up front, and she has tried to raise me to think the same way also. But I can't help but think that the doctor who had prescribed me all the medications at the time (and I'm kicking myself for not remembering what I had to take), might have had his own agenda during my visit.
Richard Lewontin makes a strong point in his book, Not in Our Genes, to remember that scientists are not free from biases, nor are they incapable of being affected by other outside influences. I'm not saying this applies to all scientists or doctors, especially all of the time, but one can't help but question if they're all for our best interest and health 100% of the time, or if my pneumonia was a great opportunity to guilt-trip my mom into buying the extra medications that I "could very well die without." My doctor might have been having a tough day, or week, or even month, and used my visit as a pick-me-up for himself; knowing he had an easy diagnosis and a simple prescription to make. The possibility of having a bad day/week/month might have also contributed to him giving my mom his honest opinion of being 'irresponsible' for waiting to take me to see him.
Who really knows now, but it's at least something to think about.
But apart from my immune system's heroic efforts at keeping me alive this long, I've also been prescribed numerous medications for each individual 'illness'. I have a Ventolin inhaler, an Azmacort inhaler, an Epi-Pen, CounterAct daily allergy pills, and the occasional allergy shot, to name a few. One might say I 'need' these medications to get through my day sniffle-free, or to help keep me alive in case I happen to ingest a bite of food containing almonds (lame, I know, I hear they're delicious). However, I don't claim to have the worst day ever if I happen to skip out on my allergy pill, and I hardly ever use my inhalers regularly; they're more for emergency asthma attacks - which I'm fairly positive has only occurred once. Even though doctors urge me to maintain a consistent routine with these daily medications, I know I'll live to see another day if I skip a day, week, or month here and there.
So, with all of the back story on my medication history all out in the open, when I was in 3rd grade I contracted pneumonia and was out of school for an entire week (!!). My mom didn't take me to the doctor right away, thinking it was just another bad cold that I'd recover from within a couple of days, but when I didn't show any big signs of improvement, she took me to the hospital. The doctor that examined me diagnosed me with pneumonia, and mentioned that because my mom had waited the couple of extra days before taking me in, he had to prescribe me more expensive and sophisticated types of medication since my pneumonia had only worsened. Now, not saying I as a 3rd grader knew more than a doctor at the Mayo Clinic, but since I was the one with the illness, and I knew how I felt, I didn't feel that the couple of extra days had made my pneumonia that much worse; if anything I had almost started to feel slightly better.
But being a shy 3rd grader, of course I listened to whatever the doctor said. I took my medication, felt better after a few more days, and was able to return to school by the next week. But during that whole ordeal, I felt bad that my mom felt like she had been put under such guilt for being a 'bad parent' and allowing my illness to 'worsen' according to the doctor. Her mom was a nurse who worked with and befriended many doctors throughout her lifetime, and so my mom was raised to trust doctors and other medical persons up front, and she has tried to raise me to think the same way also. But I can't help but think that the doctor who had prescribed me all the medications at the time (and I'm kicking myself for not remembering what I had to take), might have had his own agenda during my visit.
Richard Lewontin makes a strong point in his book, Not in Our Genes, to remember that scientists are not free from biases, nor are they incapable of being affected by other outside influences. I'm not saying this applies to all scientists or doctors, especially all of the time, but one can't help but question if they're all for our best interest and health 100% of the time, or if my pneumonia was a great opportunity to guilt-trip my mom into buying the extra medications that I "could very well die without." My doctor might have been having a tough day, or week, or even month, and used my visit as a pick-me-up for himself; knowing he had an easy diagnosis and a simple prescription to make. The possibility of having a bad day/week/month might have also contributed to him giving my mom his honest opinion of being 'irresponsible' for waiting to take me to see him.
Who really knows now, but it's at least something to think about.
look ma, no. . . .
I am not a parent, but at this point in life I have many friends who are becoming parents, I've worked as a labor assistant attending births, and also spend a good part of my work week at a pre-natal education & yoga center, so I am around people on-the-verge or in-the-midst-of parenting often. I also worked for a couple years as Special Ed. paraprofessional in a high school with kids with "Emotional and Behavioral (ahem) Disorders." So as I've been doing all the reading, I find my thoughts circling around and back through the people involved in these child-rearing experiences. And I do mean circling, so bear with me.
* Ali, my cousin-in-law, whose baby was born with a sixth finger on one hand, and the stub of a sixth finger on the other. Ali and her husband found these extra digits magical and fortuitous, and people in grocery store lines and such would tell her stories of how it was a good omen for their baby. However, doctors soon encouraged them to cut the extra stubs off, saying they might just be in the way later. When I told Ali about the articles we've been reading on Apotemnophilia, she wondered what affect all this has had on little Lucca's infant sense of self. Is it better for the baby to fit in or feel distinguished? Will he miss that extra pinky someday? Or have an unusual urge to lose more fingers?
* The students I worked in the high school all had been labelled throughout their educational career, otherwise they would not have been in our classroom. Ours was a "level 3" setting, which meant the last stop before they would be placed in a "setting" outside the regular school. Invariably, these students had not only the "disorders" that classified them as EBD, but also difficult home situations. So, if we accept that their disorders do have a bio-chemical component, it seems that there also was a "nurture" factor that separated them out from "mainstream" students even further. Many of them also did not live with their biological parents (but with other relatives), as their parents often had similar mental health issues that interfered with their ability to parent. . . . There are layers upon layers with these kids:
--if they had meds, did they take them, did they have family support to remind them to take them, did they ever have any emotional support in addition to the chemical support of the drugs, if the chemical balance is created with medications, can that override any negative effects of the home environment (verbal, physical abuse, etc.)
--if they are labelled as Special Ed./EBD, etc. and seperated from the mainstream setting, what does that do to their sense of self? the pathways in their brain? their social relations?
--was/could their behavior be modified (temporarily or permanently) by the behaviorist practices set up bt the the teacher in the classroom? This question intrigues me as we would have trainings based in "brain science" that were brought to us as being very conclusive.
* Yoga Moms: On another end of some spectrum of parenting are the moms at the prenatal yoga center, who are all very conscious of making "good" decisions for their developing babies, their new infants, their toddler, etc. Chemicals in food, diapers, toys are all worried about, information on how to care for an infant, how to interact, how much time baby spends on his/her stomach versus the back etc., are of interest to most of these moms. How much of it will affect their child's future? And if the kid doesn't like his/her future, to what extent can he blame his mom? If they truly are blank slates, well, heck that is a TON of pressure on these women (who are totally sleep-deprived to begin with. . . ) (and of course dads and other family members, society, etc.)
Maybe Pinker provides a somewhat "easy" answer of not worrying to much about trying to control behavioral factors. Maybe Lewontin would say that the school creates barriers to keep the unusual kids down, and doctors create conditions to keep the odd fingers away, and the moms seek information to increase their child's societal status?
I've been reading Brave New World this weekend, because somehow I never read it before, and it brings up so many questions of happiness, what makes people happy. Is it to medicate our cares away? To surgically remove our flaws and unwanted parts? To just, finally, be like everyone else? To do our task with ease instead of struggle? To know exactly what the teacher wants us to do, when and how, and do it without acting out? To always have things that smell good, feel good and taste good? Uniformity, Skill, Optimization. . . are these the goals? of science? parenting? education?. . .
And to close, I've seen from heart-wrenching personal experience that even when a parent has all the information and gives love and support and material resources to a child, things can still end up in terrible places. Can science help us with that?
--julie
Ok so another post just for funsies
As I was thinking about Acrotomophilia I found something very interesting. I haven't heard anyone discussed this as maybe in the same category as cutting. Self mutilation seems to correlate with depression or attention seeking in many cases. Could this be an extreme case of wanting attention so much mutilation by itself is not enough so amputation is necessary?
Also, as I was sitting in church today a passage was brought to my attention.
Corinthians 12:21-24
"The eye cannot say to the hand "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unrepresentable are treated with special modesty,
What does this mean? So are these people going against God?
Also, as I was sitting in church today a passage was brought to my attention.
Corinthians 12:21-24
"The eye cannot say to the hand "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unrepresentable are treated with special modesty,
What does this mean? So are these people going against God?
Science and Britney!
When my church was designing our current church they ran into a problem. The doors to enter the sanctuary were on the side but if they wanted to do weddings they had to enter the back. This was a problem. None of the other members could find a solution. After much thought i came up with the idea of putting a door in the back leading outside with a pathway from the classrooms so easy access. Now that door is in my church. Pinker would probably say my genes are very much involved in my problem- solving experiences. My mother is a college professor and my father is an engineer so they are both excellent problem- solvers. Elliot would say because i was brought up around science from day one that now using science and going into a scientific field is expected. Or in otherward determinism. My culture an genes make me prone to measure, problem- solve and use science is almost all problems or just in everyday life.
Incoherent Thoughts from the Nonchalant Mind of Kevin...
I am having a difficult time trying to relate something science related to my life other than the tortuous years sitting at a lab desk pouring hot chemicals while talking to someone on the phone. Unfortunately, I spilled one of those chemicals on my hand and boom goes the dynamite.
After trying to read Pinker's article for the fifth time, I am starting to think about me growing up, possibly as a "blank slate." I interpreted his article that nurture prevails over nature. I personally believe that they both have equal effects on a person's evolution through life.
For instance, I grew up watching Power Rangers (not going to lie, I had a crush on the pink ranger. Yup...). Anyways, looking back, I think my mom tried to make sure I was not into cars because my biological father was huge into cars, but did not make a ton of money off of fixing cars. He did it more as a side job, but I remember he had a passion for them. I got a few hot wheels here and there, but she strayed away from getting me a lot of car related toys. When I got started into model making, she always hesistated on getting me cars. But ever since she bought me my first car (Dale Earnhardt Sr.'s #3 NASCAR car), I was hooked. I was the only seven year old hell bent on knowing the works of cars. After hanging around kids who started getting into cars in Junior High, and hanging around family members that were car fanatics, my love for cars like the American Muscle car, the Ford GT500 and Japanese Imports, like the Nissan Skyline GTR R34, grew exponentially.
Recently, I asked my mom why she steered me away from the exhaust spewing machines that I love as I grew up. Her response was simply, "Your father barely scraped by just fixing cars, until he got a full time job. I don't want to see you struggle to make money in this world." (In a nice, G-Rated way, minus the profanities she said about my dad.)
I firmly believe that you should not have to pick between nuture and nature completely. I believe that the two work together in order to shape you (and hopefully, to further evolve you) as a human being. I think no matter how hard my mom tried, I would gravitate towards cars no matter the circumstances. It is more of a hobby to me than it is life. On the other hand, I have a deep passion and love for soccer. The problem is, no one in my family loves (or even likes) soccer as much as I d0. Sure, they played it recreationally, but they stopped after awhile.
In a sense, the things I am involved in and what passions I have were shaped by both nature and nuture. I love soccer by nuture, but I love cars by nature (sounds absolutely rubbish). These are the incoherent thoughts from the nonchalant mind of Kevin. Thanks for going on this ride with me, and do not hesistate to visit now.
After trying to read Pinker's article for the fifth time, I am starting to think about me growing up, possibly as a "blank slate." I interpreted his article that nurture prevails over nature. I personally believe that they both have equal effects on a person's evolution through life.
For instance, I grew up watching Power Rangers (not going to lie, I had a crush on the pink ranger. Yup...). Anyways, looking back, I think my mom tried to make sure I was not into cars because my biological father was huge into cars, but did not make a ton of money off of fixing cars. He did it more as a side job, but I remember he had a passion for them. I got a few hot wheels here and there, but she strayed away from getting me a lot of car related toys. When I got started into model making, she always hesistated on getting me cars. But ever since she bought me my first car (Dale Earnhardt Sr.'s #3 NASCAR car), I was hooked. I was the only seven year old hell bent on knowing the works of cars. After hanging around kids who started getting into cars in Junior High, and hanging around family members that were car fanatics, my love for cars like the American Muscle car, the Ford GT500 and Japanese Imports, like the Nissan Skyline GTR R34, grew exponentially.
Recently, I asked my mom why she steered me away from the exhaust spewing machines that I love as I grew up. Her response was simply, "Your father barely scraped by just fixing cars, until he got a full time job. I don't want to see you struggle to make money in this world." (In a nice, G-Rated way, minus the profanities she said about my dad.)
I firmly believe that you should not have to pick between nuture and nature completely. I believe that the two work together in order to shape you (and hopefully, to further evolve you) as a human being. I think no matter how hard my mom tried, I would gravitate towards cars no matter the circumstances. It is more of a hobby to me than it is life. On the other hand, I have a deep passion and love for soccer. The problem is, no one in my family loves (or even likes) soccer as much as I d0. Sure, they played it recreationally, but they stopped after awhile.
In a sense, the things I am involved in and what passions I have were shaped by both nature and nuture. I love soccer by nuture, but I love cars by nature (sounds absolutely rubbish). These are the incoherent thoughts from the nonchalant mind of Kevin. Thanks for going on this ride with me, and do not hesistate to visit now.
Classification. Does it define me?
Like Mason's post, I had a similar scare this past summer. About two years ago I was having terrible stomach pains to the point of not eating. I had completely lost my appetite because the pain was just unbearable. It was not until I went to my first gastroenterologist appointment that I thought something serious could be causing all this pain. After the usual question answer question answer, stress seemed to be the major cause of my stomach pain and was decided that I would need an upper endoscopy.
I have had surgeries in the past so this 'twilight' sleep was going to be a piece of cake. After the minor operation it was determined that I had gastritis and esophagitis, which is simply inflammation of the stomach and the esophagus. This was the diagnosis I could accept. It was too horrible and I would be treated with a medication that would act as a stomach relaxer so I could finally eat again.
It wasn't until a year later that I started having the exact same problem again. I began to wonder if the medication wasn't working anymore or if I had a really bad case of the stomach flu. It dragged on and on for weeks--there was no way it was the stomach flu. I then decided to go to a new top notch gastroenterologist and get a second opinion to find the reason why my stomach was hurting so terribly.
I was in the doctor's office not really thinking that I could possible have something serious until the doctor came in with my mother. It was then that I was told that I had Barret's Esophagus. It was described to me as abnormal intestinal cells that grew into the esophagus acting as a defense mechanism against terrible acid reflux, especially acid reflux that wasn't treated for years. I was then told that because it was abnormal cells I would have to be screened for cancer every year. I could not believe it. Only a year ago my aunt was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and had recently passed away a week previous. This diagnosis was much scarier than the first one.
Here is where my story parallels Mason's. I was so worried about this diagnosis that my stomach kept getting worse and worse even after I started a new medication that was sure to help. I made myself so sick--just as Lewontin describes paralleling the self full-filling prophecy. I threw up acid and decided to go back into the doctor for another upper endoscopy. The doctor re-diagnosed me with GERD, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease which could be easily treated! Finally, some good news- no cancer!
I had to give short notice to work about taking off for my emergency operation. I told my boss and she understood completely. However, by the time I got back to work everyone was asking me if I was sick, as in terminally sick, CANCER sick. Word had gotten out that I apparently had cancer. It was as though I was a fragile egg that everyone was making sure wouldn't crack. CANCER. Thats the word that defined me, classified me, even though I didn't have cancer. Classify. Thats inherently what human's do. After things are classified it gives a sense of balance to the world, it makes sense. But does classification really simplify things?
Was it real
Earlier this year i was given a test that was used to determine if the patient had lupus or cancer. after waiting several hours the test came back inconclusive, and i would need to come back later in the week. during that week i was very worried that i did in fact have cancer or lupus and began to feel sick. Lewontin would say that the reason i became sick was that i was preoccupied with being obsessed with the illness that it did make me sick. In the end the test showed that i did not have cancer or lupus and upon hearing this my symptoms disappeared.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
"Its not me, its your disorder."
The other day, two of my ex boyfriends got together and discussed their mutual tragedy; once, they had been dating me. One of them sent me an email, explaining that he has decided that the reason we don't get along isn't because we aren't compatible; Rather, its because we both have 'personality disorders'. He went on to explain that I have "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and he has "Codependency Issues". He then linked me to an online resource where I could take some diagnostic test to determine whether or not I have NPD.
He has no background in psychology, or neuroscience, or (if you ask me) self reflection. But he has no qualms whatsoever with diagnosing me as disordered. In fact, if I have a disorder, really all of the terrible things about me (I broke up with him, for example) are put comfortably into perspective. Initially, I found this pretty hurtful. I took his argument at least a little bit seriously, and tried to decide if there was any merit to his statement. I then stressed over which was more indicative of NPD - immediately deciding that I don't have it, or self consciously obsessing over whether or not I do? Therein I became "meta-disordered".
And really, the most hilarious part of this - is that if I do have the disorder, than no matter what I do, it is disordered behavior. Because, if you can act in such a way so as to not be behaving as disordered... then it isn't a disorder, its a lifestyle choice, right? So in conclusion - I don't have NPD, I am just a 21 year old girl. Both are labels which justify some set of actions, no?
Then I thought more deeply about the motivations behind establishing that someone has a disorder. My uncle and aunt both have schizophrenia - this disorder exists because it usually renders individuals tragically incapable of 'fitting in' to society. It is important that they be diagnosed so that, broadly, society knows how to deal with them. When my aunt goes running naked down the street in the middle of winter, you shouldn't tear your clothes off and follow her - because she's crazy. You can't share in her experience, you're not "one of them". And besides, its illegal! Likewise, my ex boyfriends diagnosing me with NPD was a way for them to 'deal with' me - to not obtain much of an understanding of me, or the situation we were in, but rather to establish that this understanding can't be achieved - my actions were always biased by a fundamental tendency towards irrational behavior, which is why none of their extremely effective arguments were successful at convincing me that we should stay together, construct an idyllic marriage and live happily ever after. (I wonder if they thought we could have some kind of alternative, futuristic 'threesome' marriage?)
I have been very self conscious of a potential propensity towards various 'disorders' since I was rather young. My schizophrenic aunt would call me sometimes and explain to me that I was the only one in the family that she 'trusted' - this is when she was deciding to go off of her meds. I was extremely scared of the possibility that one day I would just entirely lose my selfness. Or of another possibility; that already, this selfness was inexorably intertwined into a budding insanity that would render me wholly incompatible with the world - unless, of course, I took a slew of personality-alterting anti psychotics, again robbing me of some fundamental meness. Akin to the fear of death is the fear of not recognising yourself, of feeling no connection to your own history which is imbedded in the world around you and the people you share your world with - I thought, perhaps due to the encouragement of my father, that if I just understood genetics and neuroscience, I could either cure schizophrenia or just "think my way out of it".
I still find there is no resolution to the paradox - the best I can do, as an individual, is have faith in my conscious self - I have to believe that I am not 'locked in', because if I am, then I'm kinda screwed. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, drug addiction, severe depression, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, and more, these are the things I am supposedly genetically predisposed towards, and that I have been environmentally exposed to.
What I believe to some extent is that my ex boyfriends determining that I have a disorder based on their 'evidence' is not unlike modern science. Here is why:
The nematode worm C. Elegans has about 300 neurons. Human's have billions. In a laboratory, humans can model a nematode worm which effectively passes the nematode worm version of the turing test (kind of. They didn't ask the other nematode worms if they were convinced.) As far as humans are concerned, this modeled nematode does everything a real worm can do.
Paradoxically, in spite of the simplicity of this organism, what scientists cannot do is consistently predict the next action of an existing nematode worm; and the truth is, no one knows why. What this does is basically spit in the face of determinism. If we cannot even predict this tiny little worm's actions - are we, in our species' life time, ever going to construct a deterministic mapping of a human, assuming we are actually deterministic?
Ultimately we do not know why people (or worms) make most of the decisions they do on a daily basis. Every single hypothesis is just that - conjecture, not truth. We do not know "the genetic contribution" to a child's development versus "environmental" (and separating the two is perhaps absurd.). The interaction of our genes is complex beyond the understanding of modern science. The interaction of the individual with the environment, factoring in things like memory storage, cultural 'memes', - is infintely more complex. Pinker is a pop-scientist whose objective is to lubricate society in favor of scientific 'progress' - which I more or less think is a good thing. But he is inevitably engaging in a biased social analysis every time he tries to explain the "meaning" of his interpretation of a scientific study.
So really, I just want to quote Latour, again, for the third time in this course (sorry x_x):
"Your effort to establish facts has been taken hostage in a tired old dispute about how best to control the people."
Who and what does your or my interpretation and subsequent conclusion ultimately serve? Why might the scientist or the ex boyfriend or anyone for that matter want to believe a particular thing about the world? Not to say that the ideas expressed shouldn't be considered carefully - but they shouldn't be inducted into the halls of 'truth' without some rigorous analysis.
He has no background in psychology, or neuroscience, or (if you ask me) self reflection. But he has no qualms whatsoever with diagnosing me as disordered. In fact, if I have a disorder, really all of the terrible things about me (I broke up with him, for example) are put comfortably into perspective. Initially, I found this pretty hurtful. I took his argument at least a little bit seriously, and tried to decide if there was any merit to his statement. I then stressed over which was more indicative of NPD - immediately deciding that I don't have it, or self consciously obsessing over whether or not I do? Therein I became "meta-disordered".
And really, the most hilarious part of this - is that if I do have the disorder, than no matter what I do, it is disordered behavior. Because, if you can act in such a way so as to not be behaving as disordered... then it isn't a disorder, its a lifestyle choice, right? So in conclusion - I don't have NPD, I am just a 21 year old girl. Both are labels which justify some set of actions, no?
Then I thought more deeply about the motivations behind establishing that someone has a disorder. My uncle and aunt both have schizophrenia - this disorder exists because it usually renders individuals tragically incapable of 'fitting in' to society. It is important that they be diagnosed so that, broadly, society knows how to deal with them. When my aunt goes running naked down the street in the middle of winter, you shouldn't tear your clothes off and follow her - because she's crazy. You can't share in her experience, you're not "one of them". And besides, its illegal! Likewise, my ex boyfriends diagnosing me with NPD was a way for them to 'deal with' me - to not obtain much of an understanding of me, or the situation we were in, but rather to establish that this understanding can't be achieved - my actions were always biased by a fundamental tendency towards irrational behavior, which is why none of their extremely effective arguments were successful at convincing me that we should stay together, construct an idyllic marriage and live happily ever after. (I wonder if they thought we could have some kind of alternative, futuristic 'threesome' marriage?)
I have been very self conscious of a potential propensity towards various 'disorders' since I was rather young. My schizophrenic aunt would call me sometimes and explain to me that I was the only one in the family that she 'trusted' - this is when she was deciding to go off of her meds. I was extremely scared of the possibility that one day I would just entirely lose my selfness. Or of another possibility; that already, this selfness was inexorably intertwined into a budding insanity that would render me wholly incompatible with the world - unless, of course, I took a slew of personality-alterting anti psychotics, again robbing me of some fundamental meness. Akin to the fear of death is the fear of not recognising yourself, of feeling no connection to your own history which is imbedded in the world around you and the people you share your world with - I thought, perhaps due to the encouragement of my father, that if I just understood genetics and neuroscience, I could either cure schizophrenia or just "think my way out of it".
I still find there is no resolution to the paradox - the best I can do, as an individual, is have faith in my conscious self - I have to believe that I am not 'locked in', because if I am, then I'm kinda screwed. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, drug addiction, severe depression, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, and more, these are the things I am supposedly genetically predisposed towards, and that I have been environmentally exposed to.
What I believe to some extent is that my ex boyfriends determining that I have a disorder based on their 'evidence' is not unlike modern science. Here is why:
The nematode worm C. Elegans has about 300 neurons. Human's have billions. In a laboratory, humans can model a nematode worm which effectively passes the nematode worm version of the turing test (kind of. They didn't ask the other nematode worms if they were convinced.) As far as humans are concerned, this modeled nematode does everything a real worm can do.
Paradoxically, in spite of the simplicity of this organism, what scientists cannot do is consistently predict the next action of an existing nematode worm; and the truth is, no one knows why. What this does is basically spit in the face of determinism. If we cannot even predict this tiny little worm's actions - are we, in our species' life time, ever going to construct a deterministic mapping of a human, assuming we are actually deterministic?
Ultimately we do not know why people (or worms) make most of the decisions they do on a daily basis. Every single hypothesis is just that - conjecture, not truth. We do not know "the genetic contribution" to a child's development versus "environmental" (and separating the two is perhaps absurd.). The interaction of our genes is complex beyond the understanding of modern science. The interaction of the individual with the environment, factoring in things like memory storage, cultural 'memes', - is infintely more complex. Pinker is a pop-scientist whose objective is to lubricate society in favor of scientific 'progress' - which I more or less think is a good thing. But he is inevitably engaging in a biased social analysis every time he tries to explain the "meaning" of his interpretation of a scientific study.
So really, I just want to quote Latour, again, for the third time in this course (sorry x_x):
"Your effort to establish facts has been taken hostage in a tired old dispute about how best to control the people."
Who and what does your or my interpretation and subsequent conclusion ultimately serve? Why might the scientist or the ex boyfriend or anyone for that matter want to believe a particular thing about the world? Not to say that the ideas expressed shouldn't be considered carefully - but they shouldn't be inducted into the halls of 'truth' without some rigorous analysis.
Friday, January 29, 2010
a long time ago, in a land far, far away....
There once was a time when terrorists had not yet flown any planes into major American cities in order to kill people and get free news coverage; when the biggest fear that people had in a junior high school was that somebody might bring a pocket knife to a fight; there was a time when you could walk through the most unimaginably simple device on your way to board a plane and your entire family could accompany you to wave goodbye at the gate; there was a time when not one single person had a cell phone - not one. During this fabled age of Aurthurian chivalry and unicorns, a lot of people started to show the signs and symptoms of some, like, totally rare conditions - I mean, like, what the hell? These people were generally poor and they were generally known to be intravenous drug abusers, heroine users for the most part.
The doctors were, like, "I dunno, these people are probably buying some really bad shit - and that's what's making them sick - let's get back to work." The drug users didn't notice anything different from their usual level of care, so they just went back out and started dying and shooting up. Then, a little bit further on, some guys started coming in to the emergency rooms and clinics of some major cities and they were all like, "I dunno man, I feel really awful!". And they didn't even use drugs!
The doctors were all, like, "whoa, I just saw this same, really (I mean, totally) rare lung thing on some poor junkie downstairs yesterday." And since these were just totally normal dudes with really expensive shoes, they actually got to see some specialists and people even wrote down their names, and everything! So, like, after a while, all these totally normal dudes with expensive shoes started coming in with totally gnarly, but deadly, conditions; the conditions were so statistically unusual that the doctors were like, "uh oh, we better totally call that dude in Atlanta who keeps track of gnarly, statistically unlikely shit - we need to tell him something gnarly is happening."
Anyways, it turns out that the guy in Atlanta where all the whacky reports of statistically unlikely and gnarly disease thingys get reported, was like totally getting hammered on the phone from doctors all over the place (but mainly in big cities). There was totally something weird going on - like maybe it's terrorists, right? Nope. Back in the day, terrorists only hijacked planes and, like, totally let everybody go - not terrorists. Well the dude answering the phone in Atlanta told all of his scientist peeps in Atlanta - then they called Washington. Ronnie Reagan was the boss and his lights were still totally lit up - he was pretty cool for that first term - a badass cowboy president who was a movie star!! Ronnie totally thought it was a bummer.
All the doctors in the big cities were like, what do all these people have in common? Like, some are totally poor and junkied out, and some are, like, rich (or at least not poor, judging by their shoes). WAIT! The shoes! Those guys are, like, totally gay! This is like a gay guy and junkie thing! Whew! We like totally dodged a bullet there - I know me and my wife won't get that gnarly cancer that makes your whole face, like, fall off. Ronnie was totally relieved too, and he never even said the word AIDS until thousands of his countrymen were already dead.
So everybody was all, like, "you know what? Some gay Haitian dude who was also a druggie like totally brought this disease to America - close the borders!!" Ronnie liked that - he could break out his horse!
And thus it was for about three years in the early days of the ninth decade (yes, ninth - count 'em up people) of the twentieth century. Scientists with really amazing credentials that had names like Harvard, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins on them, credentials that were an alphabet-soup of legitimacy - MD, PhD, MS, ScD, MHS, DrPH - not a loser in the bunch - lots of these men and women of science did interviews on television and radio, in newspapers: "We have credible evidence that this disease is completely isolated within the IV drug-user and homosexual communities. One flight attendant who had sex with a Haitian guy caused all of this by going to gay bath houses all over the place - all we have to do is contain and control these groups who are not us. Everybody be cool." Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite were totally relieved - they were safe.
All was not, however, cool. Much like the debate we are about to observe in our class, there is a modicum of very credible evidence that supports any number of theories on apotemnophilia. The theories offered up by the diametrically opposed writers we have read so far, have far-reaching possible consequences, if either (any) of them are 100% right. As a teenager in Los Angeles, personally observing the HIV/AIDS outbreak, the first five years were rampant with theories and, all/any of the theories, if 100% correct, had massive potential consequences. Knee-jerk reactions from the science establishment, governments of many nations, academe, and from the medical profession were alarming and incoherent; each of the groups had their own take on the problem, none had all of the answers (some had no answers at all, only panic to offer). Yet we, as a culture, had learned that what these groups had to say must be legitimate and credible. Indeed, we demanded answers from these groups - we took all that they had to say and made much of it. By the time I joined the Army, in 1985, LIFE magazine had an entire issue dedicated to the AIDS virus and it was reasonably close to the truth we now know.
Similarly, apotemnophilia might well be a contagious disease - perhaps it spreads through ham sandwiches that have been exposed to dijon mustard. If we close all of the borders to French mustard, we can stop the spread. If a very credible scientist with eighteen degrees and a staff of 200 assistants (and grad students, of course) stood in front of cameras and told you to throw out every last jar of dijon mustard, wouldn't you do it to avoid getting excited by the idea of cutting off a limb or a digit?
Maybe, instead, apotemnophilia is caused solely by the level of development in the superior lobule of the right parietal. We could selectively breed out the people with the genetic markers for this disorder, eradicating the disease within two generations - cool! My galvanic skin responses are going off the charts just thinking about it. Things are not so different today from the time described above, or at least not as different as many would like to believe. We have endowed the science and medical establishments with the credibility formerly reserved for the ecclesiastical brotherhood, we are terrified of abnormalities as described by the priests of our new societal religion.
We can neither ignore these new phenomena, nor can we imbue our new priests of the empirical all the power they would like to have. Reasonable people, in the early 1930s might have stopped a little political movement that claimed that Jews were the entire source of all problems within an entire nation - we, as the rational arbiters of the boundary between panic and stoicism, we the students of CSCL 3331 - we are the ones who have to know that, sometimes, not being able to completely wrap our arms around something strange by applying statistics to it, means only that we have a lot more to learn.
The doctors were, like, "I dunno, these people are probably buying some really bad shit - and that's what's making them sick - let's get back to work." The drug users didn't notice anything different from their usual level of care, so they just went back out and started dying and shooting up. Then, a little bit further on, some guys started coming in to the emergency rooms and clinics of some major cities and they were all like, "I dunno man, I feel really awful!". And they didn't even use drugs!
The doctors were all, like, "whoa, I just saw this same, really (I mean, totally) rare lung thing on some poor junkie downstairs yesterday." And since these were just totally normal dudes with really expensive shoes, they actually got to see some specialists and people even wrote down their names, and everything! So, like, after a while, all these totally normal dudes with expensive shoes started coming in with totally gnarly, but deadly, conditions; the conditions were so statistically unusual that the doctors were like, "uh oh, we better totally call that dude in Atlanta who keeps track of gnarly, statistically unlikely shit - we need to tell him something gnarly is happening."
Anyways, it turns out that the guy in Atlanta where all the whacky reports of statistically unlikely and gnarly disease thingys get reported, was like totally getting hammered on the phone from doctors all over the place (but mainly in big cities). There was totally something weird going on - like maybe it's terrorists, right? Nope. Back in the day, terrorists only hijacked planes and, like, totally let everybody go - not terrorists. Well the dude answering the phone in Atlanta told all of his scientist peeps in Atlanta - then they called Washington. Ronnie Reagan was the boss and his lights were still totally lit up - he was pretty cool for that first term - a badass cowboy president who was a movie star!! Ronnie totally thought it was a bummer.
All the doctors in the big cities were like, what do all these people have in common? Like, some are totally poor and junkied out, and some are, like, rich (or at least not poor, judging by their shoes). WAIT! The shoes! Those guys are, like, totally gay! This is like a gay guy and junkie thing! Whew! We like totally dodged a bullet there - I know me and my wife won't get that gnarly cancer that makes your whole face, like, fall off. Ronnie was totally relieved too, and he never even said the word AIDS until thousands of his countrymen were already dead.
So everybody was all, like, "you know what? Some gay Haitian dude who was also a druggie like totally brought this disease to America - close the borders!!" Ronnie liked that - he could break out his horse!
And thus it was for about three years in the early days of the ninth decade (yes, ninth - count 'em up people) of the twentieth century. Scientists with really amazing credentials that had names like Harvard, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins on them, credentials that were an alphabet-soup of legitimacy - MD, PhD, MS, ScD, MHS, DrPH - not a loser in the bunch - lots of these men and women of science did interviews on television and radio, in newspapers: "We have credible evidence that this disease is completely isolated within the IV drug-user and homosexual communities. One flight attendant who had sex with a Haitian guy caused all of this by going to gay bath houses all over the place - all we have to do is contain and control these groups who are not us. Everybody be cool." Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite were totally relieved - they were safe.
All was not, however, cool. Much like the debate we are about to observe in our class, there is a modicum of very credible evidence that supports any number of theories on apotemnophilia. The theories offered up by the diametrically opposed writers we have read so far, have far-reaching possible consequences, if either (any) of them are 100% right. As a teenager in Los Angeles, personally observing the HIV/AIDS outbreak, the first five years were rampant with theories and, all/any of the theories, if 100% correct, had massive potential consequences. Knee-jerk reactions from the science establishment, governments of many nations, academe, and from the medical profession were alarming and incoherent; each of the groups had their own take on the problem, none had all of the answers (some had no answers at all, only panic to offer). Yet we, as a culture, had learned that what these groups had to say must be legitimate and credible. Indeed, we demanded answers from these groups - we took all that they had to say and made much of it. By the time I joined the Army, in 1985, LIFE magazine had an entire issue dedicated to the AIDS virus and it was reasonably close to the truth we now know.
Similarly, apotemnophilia might well be a contagious disease - perhaps it spreads through ham sandwiches that have been exposed to dijon mustard. If we close all of the borders to French mustard, we can stop the spread. If a very credible scientist with eighteen degrees and a staff of 200 assistants (and grad students, of course) stood in front of cameras and told you to throw out every last jar of dijon mustard, wouldn't you do it to avoid getting excited by the idea of cutting off a limb or a digit?
Maybe, instead, apotemnophilia is caused solely by the level of development in the superior lobule of the right parietal. We could selectively breed out the people with the genetic markers for this disorder, eradicating the disease within two generations - cool! My galvanic skin responses are going off the charts just thinking about it. Things are not so different today from the time described above, or at least not as different as many would like to believe. We have endowed the science and medical establishments with the credibility formerly reserved for the ecclesiastical brotherhood, we are terrified of abnormalities as described by the priests of our new societal religion.
We can neither ignore these new phenomena, nor can we imbue our new priests of the empirical all the power they would like to have. Reasonable people, in the early 1930s might have stopped a little political movement that claimed that Jews were the entire source of all problems within an entire nation - we, as the rational arbiters of the boundary between panic and stoicism, we the students of CSCL 3331 - we are the ones who have to know that, sometimes, not being able to completely wrap our arms around something strange by applying statistics to it, means only that we have a lot more to learn.
Blog Posting #1 (due Sunday 1/31, 11:59 P.M.)
Tell a story—about science in your life—and use our work so far to make sense of it.
Like What? Thinking back, I (Robin) realized that I was a fidgity, loud, easily distracted (Oooo! A shiny thing….!) non-punctual, chaotic kid. The nuns in elementary school knew exactly what I was: 'an ill-behaved child' who was not 'working up to his potential.' The appropriate treatment was time-outs, notes-to-mom, and occasional paddling. Today, I would be diagnosed ADHD and probably treated with Ritalin or Adderal. And the nuns can't paddle (by law). My life would have been different, for sure, but who knows how?
In High School, we heard all the time about who was and who wasn't 'college material.' My SAT scores proved that I was 'college material,' and I went to college (in spite of crappy grades).
This is science at work, naming, categorizing, measuring, diagnosing, and thus creating (bad kid / ADHD kid or 'college material'). These decisions and labels have consequences, shaping lives. I might try to recall a specific 'bad kid' story and see if there are other explanations. I might speculate on how my family life made me 'college material.' Carl Elliot would help by framing historically-local 'disorders,' and talking about the 'semantic contagion' involved in lots of articles about ADHD and child-rearing. I think my whole attitude toward 'school' got shaped here. Pinker would look to my genes (and my OC father and alcoholic but literate parents). Lewontin would insist that naming a kid 'disordered' (or not) changes him or her, and that the diagnoses mirror and legitimate already-present societal beliefs.
So really: like anything where science worked on or around you. Let your friends know about you. Use our readings to frame and illuminate.
Concepts and Issues—from our work (some of many; might help):
Big Ones: All societies have always had 'theories' of Human Nature (science) and these are active in creating specific Political Systems (politics). Always intertwined.
Like What? Thinking back, I (Robin) realized that I was a fidgity, loud, easily distracted (Oooo! A shiny thing….!) non-punctual, chaotic kid. The nuns in elementary school knew exactly what I was: 'an ill-behaved child' who was not 'working up to his potential.' The appropriate treatment was time-outs, notes-to-mom, and occasional paddling. Today, I would be diagnosed ADHD and probably treated with Ritalin or Adderal. And the nuns can't paddle (by law). My life would have been different, for sure, but who knows how?
In High School, we heard all the time about who was and who wasn't 'college material.' My SAT scores proved that I was 'college material,' and I went to college (in spite of crappy grades).
This is science at work, naming, categorizing, measuring, diagnosing, and thus creating (bad kid / ADHD kid or 'college material'). These decisions and labels have consequences, shaping lives. I might try to recall a specific 'bad kid' story and see if there are other explanations. I might speculate on how my family life made me 'college material.' Carl Elliot would help by framing historically-local 'disorders,' and talking about the 'semantic contagion' involved in lots of articles about ADHD and child-rearing. I think my whole attitude toward 'school' got shaped here. Pinker would look to my genes (and my OC father and alcoholic but literate parents). Lewontin would insist that naming a kid 'disordered' (or not) changes him or her, and that the diagnoses mirror and legitimate already-present societal beliefs.
So really: like anything where science worked on or around you. Let your friends know about you. Use our readings to frame and illuminate.
Concepts and Issues—from our work (some of many; might help):
Big Ones: All societies have always had 'theories' of Human Nature (science) and these are active in creating specific Political Systems (politics). Always intertwined.
• determinisms (genetic, biological, cultural and so on)
• reductionisms (limiting our view to a few of many possible causes and influences)
• boundary work (ways science limits, defines, circumscribes)
• ideology (the world view that makes things normal, natural, common-sense. It's always 'political')
• technologies (tests, surgeries, therapies, names-and-definitions, measuring and seeing instruments, ways of talking or writing)
• 'blank slate' (or tabula rasa)
• 'ghost in the machine' (our friend the self or soul)
• noble savages or states of nature
• and with these three (above): John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Jean Jacques Rousseau,--and Ahnoald Schwarzenegger (they'll ALL 'be back'!)
• sociobiology or evolutionary psychology (as disciplines)
• neuroscience / cognitive science (also disciplines—CF: 'boundary work')
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
pinker's caricature
(test post)When I first visited Steven Pinker's website I thought it was a little dorky that he used a caricature of himself as his bio picture, but after reading the selection for class, I think it was more telling than that.
The sense of humor and lightness given off my the caricature shows up again in the tone of his writing (or I think maybe it was a speech, so in this case, speaking). He has away of tossing in jokes and Far Side cartoons that makes you like him, believe him, and start to think, "yes, we can all just relax, it's our genes, what are we to do anyhow." MIT, Harvard, MIT...this guy must know what he is talking about. But the more I think about the article, the more I feel it is caricature-esque. He draws black and white extremes--you are either paranoid about how you raise your kid, or you beat your kid, as if there is no in-between gradation, similar to how a caricature draws out your three biggest characteristics and minimizes the rest. . . His "pop" sensibility was engaging at first and grating by the end--seeming to lack a sense of nuance about humanity, and, I think, assuming too much that neuroscience contains the whole of everything.
(Though I will add that he takes some beautiful photographs)
--julie kesti
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to "Science and the Humanities -- Working Group One"! This blog was created by us, Ben Fink and Robin Brown, as part of the course "Science and the Humanities" at the University of Minnesota this spring (CSCL 3331, Spring 2009), as a space to collaborate and create knowledge together.
At the beginning of the second week of classes we'll distribute detailed information about blog posting, and the work schedules for each unit will tell you exactly when required posts and comments are due. You are also welcome and encouraged -- both you in the class, and you who may have stumbled upon this blog from elsewhere -- to post or comment at any time. We simply ask that everyone, students and non-students alike, follow the four rules for cooperative conversation set down by the linguist H. Paul Grice...
1) QUALITY. You are free to express any viewpoint on any issue, but you must back any statement you make with sufficient evidence. This will often mean citing a page in a book, or other relevant sources.
2) QUANTITY. Express your viewpoints thoroughly, with good argument and evidence; at the same time, avoid writing unnecessarily long or repetitive posts.
3) RELATION. Keep your posts and comments relevant. Read other people's posts -- including our posting assignments -- before you write posts or comments, and we'll keep a much more coherent conversation going.
4) MANNER. Write as clearly as possible. The point is to make yourself clear to the rest of us, and to convince of the truth of your arguments.
...as well as one fifth rule of our own:
5) RESPECT. Please respect all participants in the discussion at all times -- even (or perhaps especially) when you must respectfully disagree. No flame wars, please!
And as always, if you have any trouble posting, or understanding posting assignments, or in any other way, feel free to contact us.
At the beginning of the second week of classes we'll distribute detailed information about blog posting, and the work schedules for each unit will tell you exactly when required posts and comments are due. You are also welcome and encouraged -- both you in the class, and you who may have stumbled upon this blog from elsewhere -- to post or comment at any time. We simply ask that everyone, students and non-students alike, follow the four rules for cooperative conversation set down by the linguist H. Paul Grice...
1) QUALITY. You are free to express any viewpoint on any issue, but you must back any statement you make with sufficient evidence. This will often mean citing a page in a book, or other relevant sources.
2) QUANTITY. Express your viewpoints thoroughly, with good argument and evidence; at the same time, avoid writing unnecessarily long or repetitive posts.
3) RELATION. Keep your posts and comments relevant. Read other people's posts -- including our posting assignments -- before you write posts or comments, and we'll keep a much more coherent conversation going.
4) MANNER. Write as clearly as possible. The point is to make yourself clear to the rest of us, and to convince of the truth of your arguments.
...as well as one fifth rule of our own:
5) RESPECT. Please respect all participants in the discussion at all times -- even (or perhaps especially) when you must respectfully disagree. No flame wars, please!
And as always, if you have any trouble posting, or understanding posting assignments, or in any other way, feel free to contact us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)