Early Death or Heavy Boundary Work

On Feb 11th of 2010 the Star Tribune published the an article entitled, "Obese kids face twice the risk of an early death, study finds" There are several problems with this article i would like to address, firstly its title. The use of the word 'obese' serves only as a buzz word to gain superficial attention, while a basic glaze over the reading itself reveals that obesity is not quantified whatsoever. Furthermore, the study itself uses flawed logic when claiming that the 166 deaths of participants could be attributed to one of seven listed causes ranging from cancer to infections.

Never does the article provide solid statistical evidence in support of it's title claim, instead it babbles about Michelle Obama's campaign to stop childhood obesity and things of this nature. I find this extremely disturbing for obesity, apart from being very relevant in our current cultural climate, has potential to wreak insurance havoc. True scientific claims that kids are facing premature death due to their obesity would have massive repercussions in the political community, including the potential for insurance companies to deny applicants based on future development of obesity-related health concerns.

thank you for your time

which obese kids are we talking about?

On February 11th, the Star Tribune published the following article on the increased likelihood of death faced by obese children. http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/84182337.html?page=1&c=y. While this article did an commendable job drawing attention to the problems of childhood obesity, it glossed over the fact that the study was done among only Native Americans, a population which often experiences decreased access to substandard healthcare.

"Dear Editor:

While the article "Obese Kids Face Twice the Risk of an Early Death, Study Finds" was certainly justified in its conclusions about the risks of obesity in childhood, I believe an opportunity was missed to examine the differential experiences of chronic illness in disparate populations. The quoted study was carried out, according to the author, only among Pima and Tohono O'odham Native Americans. We can presume that access to these populations was gained by their concentrations on reservations and their limitation to the government provided health care services available. I do not want to suggest that childhood obesity is not a dangerous condition, no matter what the social or economic conditions of the sufferer. Rather, I would like to point out that for the most part, treatments of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other illnesses linked to obesity, are well-established, and with some exceptions, are very efficacious. We must remember that, in this population, deaths before 55 are correlated not only with childhood obesity, but with poverty, limited access to care (which is often substandard), discrimination, and a variety of other social determinants of health. It would not be surprising to find that obese, well-insured adults, who had been obese, well-insured children, while more likely to die before 55 than their well-insured, healthy weighted cohorts, would be much less likely to die before 55 than the Native American individuals who participated in this study. We must acknowledge that physiological damage from childhood obesity must also go untreated to significantly increase likelihood of death."

Embryonic/Adult Stem Cells

This is a response to a Newsweek editorial on stem cells and the battle between the religious right and scientists. Research has found that adult stem cells are a much less reliable tool for treating disease than embryonic. The article addresses this problem, and describes the reaction from the scientific and religious community. One of the main problems with the article is that it doesn't view embryonic stem cells as a technology, I believe that they should be viewed as such.

Dear Sharon Begley,

After reading your article on stem cell research I was left with a couple reactions. When biologist Robert Lanza stated he was "devastated" that adult stem cells were not as effective as embryonic stem cells for treating diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and others, I became confused. Why would we not use something that we have to help people with these horrible conditions? The problem is that many people view embryos as "little babies", and their use as morally reprehensible - essentially murder. The time has come to change the terminology that we use to refer to embryos. Embryonic stem cells should be viewed as a technology. A technology that much like many other medical treatments, can be used to help people and alleviate pain and suffering. The argument that god views Embryo's as little babies is invalid. If we look at the history of embryos, it becomes clear that before they were discovered that in the public consciousness there was no such thing as an embryo. Humans didn't know that they existed. Once they did, the term "little babies" was then applied - an obvious human construction. The language that we use to talk about this issue is paramount in our understanding of it. If embryo's were referred to as a technology, we would not be having this debate.

Sincerely,

Conrad Schoenleber

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell— A Plea for Rationality, Civility, and Compassion

The following blog is directed at the Star-Tribune as a letter or op-ed. The paper recently featured national news stories on gays and lesbians in the US military. I may also send the blog to other news media, such as National Public Radio, which also covered the story. The blog is wordy (about 280 words long) so I could use help in reducing its length. I had difficulty cutting the text without eliminating important information.

Dear Editor:

In 1993, the convergence of an ideology-driven congress, a weak president, an inflexible military, and an ill-informed public gave birth to “don’t ask, don’t tell”—a convoluted, mean-spirited, and costly policy crafted to deny gays and lesbians participation in the United States military. In the near future, congress will consider repealing the policy. Here are some facts in support of repeal.

The first, and perhaps most relevant, fact is that “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislates against the person (being a homosexual) rather than against a behavior (such as a criminal offense). In other words, persons are punished for what they are even though their sexual identity was determined by genealogy or environment.

Second, the military of over 30 countries, including allies such as Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, fully integrate gays and lesbians into their ranks. Those military report no cohesion or other performance problems.

Third, the policy is damaging and costly. Our military discharged over 13,000 people because they violated the policy. These men and women served their country with honor. Many brought invaluable skills and experience to their service branches. A University of California panel estimated the cost to discharge violators and retrain replacements at $363 million.

Finally, Americans overwhelmingly support repeal. For example, 57% of those polled recently by Quinnipiac University agreed that homosexuals should be able to openly serve in the United States military.

Seventeen years is long enough to test a policy. This one is a failure. Please urge your congressional representatives to act in favor of fairness, compassion, and rationality and repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

To Be, Or Not To Be

Upon reading the StarTribune I found an article entitled “Brainwaves”. The problem I see with this article is an ethical one. I was strongly bothered by the fact that the article mentioned how people could decide whether or not they wanted to live or die with the new technology of brain scans that they had because they could measure brain activity.
Dear Editor, after reading the article entitled “Brainwaves” an issue involving ethics arose in my mind. It was mentioned that people in a coma can now be understood and their decision to live or die can be respected. The question that arises in my mind is, who truly has the power to intentionally take another human beings life? How is this justified? A person cannot just walk into a hospital and say “Kill me, I want to die,” and then have someone actually do it! I think doctors truly need to reconsider their decisions upon hearing this because they do not want to betray a line of ethics, and I believe many families could be negatively impacted upon hearing a loved ones request to die and their attempt to decide whether or not the patient is in fact in any mental state to effectively make that decision.

Antidepressants as expensive tic tacs

Susan Perry writes for Second Opinion, MinnPost's health blog. In her post, "Is it time to abandon the 'don't ask don't tell policy for antidepressants", she addresses the topic of Newsweek's February 8th cover story that antidepressants are no more effective than lifting depression than a placebo. She questions if marketing is really triumphing over science.

http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2010/02/02/15541/is_it_time_to_abandon_the_dont_ask_dont_tell_policy_for_antidepressants


It is of course, very shocking to hear that after 30 years of research, it is only finally coming to our attention now. The media has been ignoring the data because these drug companies have so much investment, and people don't really care about the data, as long as they're feeling happy. Yes, it is easier to take a pill than go talk to someone. I'm sure that the drug companies can invest in psychological treatment, and then go buy out a candy company.

But in all honesty, if a drug works just as well as a placebo, it means that there are other ways to fix the problem. It means that the drug is not altering the brain chemistry in a significant way for most people. Yet we can't forget the people that it does work for -- the people with severe depression. This poses a separation of a biological and psychological kind of depression. We’re not yet able to differentiate between the different entities that most likely make up what exactly constitutes “Major Depressive Disorder”. It seems likely that the more biological causes would respond better to pharmacological treatments than would a more psychologically-based problem. Think of how sometimes even electroshock therapy is effectively (though controversially) used in very severe forms of depression. Severity might be acting as a proxy for the degree of biological dysfunction, and therefore the severely ill are the ones responding better to antidepressants. For the rest of the 87% who are only mildly depressed, I think it is important that they are aware of what they're being prescribed.

Ethical Debate Over Heelprick Blood

The Star Tribune recently published a story about the ethical debate over storing the heelprick blood taken from every newborn baby in the United States. (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/83831712.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU) The article presents bioethical issues concerning privacy and morality. The notion that the blood samples can benefit the whole country and society as a whole is only briefly mentioned. Science is part of an institution and they both need each other to survive.

Dear Editor;

Sharon Terry of the nonprofit Genetic Alliance has the right grasp on the, “Ethics Debate Over Blood From Newborn Safety Tests” (Feb. 9, 2010). Sharon is accurate when she states, “There will be an enormous benefit overall to the system.” Storing and studying the blood spots from newborns can only increase the welfare of the population in the United States.

R.C. Lewontin makes clear the link between genes and society in his work, Biology as Ideology. He states, “Genes make individuals and individuals make society, and so genes make society.” Therefore, the genetic information gathered from the blood spots benefits all of society and should not be discarded. Furthermore, since the blood spots are stripped of identifying information it seems that the bioethics of this issue follow the rules of morality.

The government has provided an amazing public good in using the blood spots to create one of public health’s most successful programs. It needs to continue to assure it has access to this wealth of information. If people are so concerned about the result of storage, they might consider opting out of all the treatments and knowledge that have been created by the government from programs such as this.

Write about This

In many ways the StarTribune is letting me down. There are fewer and fewer science and human interest stories, instead there is mainly just hard hitting news. I looked on the website a few days ago in the science and technology section and the majority of the stories were about only computer and Internet related issues.

I am forced to get my science stories from somewhere else and because I am reading about the stories in my favorite newspaper that I wish to see, I will suggest two stories: In the 21st century, American schools must be more competitive in world. American students rank 25th in math and 21st in science compared to students in 30 industrialized countries. (footnote below) What will the eventual result of this be thirty years from now? An in depth look at science in k-12 schools would be good.

Another good story would be one about the future of DNA testing. Should the government create a DNA database of every person born after 2020 to allow our law enforcement to be able to solve cases quicker? Also, DNA or fingerprints would help with missing children cases.

My opinion is that the StarTribune should have more aggressive science writing that focuses on the issues at hand today and less news about computers. If the StarTribune does this, it will be a stronger paper.

1. Statistics on American K-12 Public Education - The Broad Superintendents Academy." Home Page - The Broad Superintendents Academy. Web. 30 Jan. 2010.

Pet Acupuncture: Relieving for Who?

The Star Tribune recently published a story with the headline reading "Acupuncture for Pet Ailments." Pet lovers may find this to be a huge relief but this article does not have a lot to back it up. The article gives examples of pets that were brought in, received the acupuncture therapy, and now seem much livelier, more mobile, etc. Acupuncturists claim that these procedures are less invasive, less expensive, and can be effective for animals that don't have available, healthy painkillers. The part of the article that gets me is that there is no scientific evidence that sustains the argument that the animals that have received this treatment are physically better off than before.

The doctors that are mentioned in the article never specifically say that acupuncture works because-- some long medical/scientific reasoning inserted here. They only talk about the procedures they have done, how much it costs (or doesn't), statistics on how many vets perform this procedure, and even admit that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. The animals cannot say exactly what they are feeling. The only 'credible' voices are those of the pet owners. They make inferences that their pets "'can now go a lot farther'" or "'she's eating better and she actually runs to her food.'" Are these real, valid claims or are these ideas made up to unconsciously ease the mind? Of course an owner wants to see that their pet is getting better if the treatment is cheaper and less invasive than surgery. The fact is that animals cannot speak for themselves so we rely on the owner's opinion of the pet's pain. Is this acupuncture a treatment for the pet or the owner?

Awarenss in PVS patients

The Star Tribune recently published a story that reported that scientists had recently found that the brains some patients in vegetative states show a few sparks of awareness. While the article does state that such responsiveness is rare and makes quick reference to the infamous “Terri Schiavo Case”, saying that awareness is not possible in those who have suffered severe oxygen depletion, it does not present even basic definitions for the terms used in the article, such how persistent vegetative state differs from coma. Thus, it can easily lead to its readers interpreting the findings incorrectly and give false hope to those with loved ones diagnosed and being in a persistent vegetative state.

Letter:


I was pleased to see the article “Brainwaves” on the paper’s website, but am concerned that it did not do enough to explain the medical condition to which it was referring. To those who are unfamiliar with how the term “persistent vegetative state” is defined by the medical community, PVS may easily be confused with other conditions such as coma. This could create confusion regarding the ethical dilemma as mentioned in the article regarding whether or not a patient in a persistent vegetative state whose brain patterns suggest they want to die should be taken off of life support.

While coma is defined by the lack of both wakefulness and awareness due to irrevocable brain damage, those in persistent vegetative states have awoken from a coma, but have not regained awareness and are extremely unlikely of ever doing so. Thus, those five patients mentioned in the article who have shown signs of some awareness are, by definition, not in a persistent vegetative state and therefore do not meet the legal requirement to be taken off of life support in the United States. Thus, this question should not be considered substantially different from the morality of assisted suicide.

Blog Posting #3 (due Sunday 2/14, 11:59 P.M.)

This week, we'll use the blog as a place to develop letters to the editor and improve each other's work. The required posting, thus, comes in two parts:

1) Identify, in a few sentences, the publication you're looking at (something local, in the Twin Cities area -- can be online or in print), the problem you see in the way science is being deployed there, and why you think it's a problem you think it's potentially dangerous or harmful enough to merit your time in addressing it. The point of writing this little meta-commentary, before writing the text of the letter itself, is to inform your colleagues about what you're trying to do, so they can best evaluate how well you did it.

2) Write a draft of your letter to the editor.

(For easy reference, here's the text from the assignment sheet: "Write a letter to the editor of that publication, in which you describe that problem, explain and analyze it, and propose a corrective. (Note: letters to the editor are, of course, for a general reading public. This is part of the challenge—how to communicate ideas such as semantic contagion, legitimation, biopolitics, and Cartesianism effectively, without using any jargon? And they are short­—150-200 words maximum!)")

Finally, in your comments this week, offer some suggestions to help your colleague improve their letters -- what can be clearer? how could the arguments be strengthened? how might something be worded better? Let's make these as good as they can be!

Reproductive Technologies

The state has never hesitated to attempt to control the reproductive capacity of women’s bodies. However, the market has had a greater effect, and as effective contraceptive products became available, demand for such technologies (condoms, hormonal birth control, abortion), and feminist movements, has resulted in their eventual legalization and common usage. Also the result of demand is the increasing utilization of reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization among those wealthy enough, or well-insured enough, to afford it. In contrast to the history of contraceptive technologies, most of the legislation surrounding such fertility treatments has been overwhelmingly supportive, many states requiring insurers to cover in vitro fertilization and other expensive procedures for reproductively challenge couples.
It will be interesting to see, in the process of healthcare reform, where the money will be allocated in a theoretical public option surrounding contraceptive and pro-conceptive (ha!) technologies, and what they convey about the states attitude toward women’s bodies as reproductive vessels. The demand among elected officials for no abortion coverage, or at least the separation of its funding from the almost sacred pool of “taxpayer money” shows that the state is eager to, if required to provide substantial healthcare coverage, regulate if not by law than by limiting coverage. And presuming compliance with many state laws by covering assisted reproductive technologies, the public option would evince the nation’s overwhelming aversion to viewing women’s bodies as non-reproductive vessels, or limiting their options establishing difficult pregnancies based on fiscal demands.
Along with the assisted reproductive technologies, we must also consider the technologies that allow us to determine if an embryo will carry any chromosomal abnormalities. These technologies, the decision to use them, and to what end (termination of a pregnancy or preparation for a more care-intensive infant and child), certainly connote the ideas of eugenics and perfection, placing upon women the responsibility of improving the human race or choosing to have genetically disordered offspring. (Rapp, 2000 “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus.”)
And then there is the problem of deciding what is disordered. While Carl Elliot’s chapter on “Bringing up Baby” in “Better Than Well” deals mostly with how we perfect our children after their births, it would certainly be an appropriate place for the discussion of amniocentesis and other prenatal tests in the intersection of science with culture.

While on the one hand I believe that all health care should be available to all people, therefore supporting the coverage of assisted reproductive technologies in addition to prenatal diagnosis and contraceptive technologies, I know that limited resources will lead to a budgeting of healthcare based on cultural perceptions and beliefs about how women’s reproductive capacities should be used. However, I feel it is irresponsible to spend $20,000 to establish a pregnancy for an infertile couple when there are kids to be adopted and blood pressure meds to be paid for.

the right to be unhappy

I say, if being unhappier will make you happy, go for it! But Huxley's argument in this case I cannot take seriously. I do not believe the Savage when he says ""But I like the inconveniences". I think that people can tolerate many inconveniences, but when the inconvenience grows to a certain magnitude, no amount of telling yourself that everything is fine will improve you situation or reduce your suffering. This is not the best of all possible worlds. To you Candids out there, it's great to have a positive outlook, but you're not fooling anyone, you just haven't suffered enough yet.

I think Huxley is setting up a giant strawman if he is blaming science for this dystopia. To me it is obvious that any problems in his Brave New World stem not from science but from the impositions of a secret hierarchical government of "benevolent" dictators that use technological advances to control the people. Science is an attempt to know the universe. Politicians, leaders, and all people can use its most famous product, technology, to hurt or help, persuade or disuade, etc... . Any politics that surround true science are imposed from the outside upon it, not from within.

Now, off to manifest myself as an absence for a few hours. har-har.

Huxley's SSRI

''Hug me till you drug me, honey;
Kiss me till I'm in a coma;
Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny;
Love's as good as soma."

One part of Brave New world that I found particularly interesting is the consumption of the drug ‘soma’. It is some sort of narcotic/ hallucinate, much like an opiate. It acts like a tranquilizer, or an anesthetic. Every body in the world state uses it, and is given out with weekly paychecks. People can take small amounts and feel happier, or can take more and completely check out on a mental vacation. Bernard is considered unusual and suspect for not wanting to use it. The people have been conditioned to think that emotions are distasteful and so detrimental – totally not worth dealing with. But to the reader it really isn’t as great as they claim. Linda ends up dying on it, and John the Savage commits suicide on it. Soma is actually pretty unappealing, as it is only a vacuous escapism. The people in the world state love and worship it, but that only plays into the total consequence of behavioral conditioning and scientific utopianism. Soma is a form of stability and persuasion and religious- replacement. Even in the world state, people naturally want religion of some kind. Karl Marx called religion the opium of the people; in Huxley's Brave New World Soma is substituted for religion.

But is the idea that pleasure enhancing drugs in such ubiquity be something of fiction? While Prozac wasn’t invented in the 30’s, I think Huxley was on to something. Substances seem to be the only way people are getting ahead these days. Tranquilizers, steroids, and anti-depressants are so normal now.

We all are pretty aware of what substances can do. We’ve all seen people zombied-out on something or another. Whether they are prescribed or not, they do mess with you. How widely prescribed these SSRIs are prescribed, they might as well be handed out with our pay checks. What Huxley shows is a very political side to what we put in our bodies. These drugs are designed to make our lives better, but who is to say what is better? Often times they aren’t really our conscious decision to better ourselves, but rather to sedate us into accepting the world as we know it.

Ignorance: Not Always Bliss

Pinker's, "Blank State" is inviting and rejecting as the same time. It is easy as a scientific thinker to be lured in by the biological genetics explanations he offers, but he goes too far when he rejects every other cultural theory. He basically rules out anything that has to do with identity, race, or religion; everything that will happen can be derived from one's genes. Neuroscience has all of the answers.

I agree that traits, actions, and attitudes have genetics components. The human genotype influences almost all of our characteristics. Behavior exists because of genes, but these genes cannot be expressed without environmental factors. The social status of a group says a lot about how people will grow, prosper, reproduce, or not. Someone could be born with 'smart genes' giving them a very notable IQ for example, but if they are born into a poverty stricken area where every person is vulnerable to disease, these genes will most likely never be expressed.

Before more research was done, alcoholism was considered morally wrong and showed weakness. Non addicts couldn't understand why the addicts couldn't just simply quit. After doing extensive studies, it has been found that inherited biochemistry makes these people more vulnerable to these addictions. The genes can cause the urge to be very over-powering or very weak. As these genes may be active, the environment of the person plays a huge role in whether they will be expressed. Living in a college frat will inevitably have different outcomes on a person than someone who for instance lives in a dry town. A person may inherit an alcoholism gene, but there is a slim chance it would ever be expressed if they lived in an environment where alcohol is unavailable.

The way I see it is that nature AND nurture plays a very important role in every person's life. One does not exist without the other. Some may see this as ludicrous-- that you must take one side or the other. I see it as ignorance.

Distractions and Free Will

To Steven Pinker, who you are was predetermined before you were born. Your brain, and chemical framework is preexisting. Essentially, there's no such thing as free will when it comes to genetics. Your identity and everything that comes with it is already made up. While I believe Pinker definitely has a point that genetics has a huge part in who we are, he seems to take the argument bit too far. Anyone who has looked back on their life can point out individual instances that have helped form them. It's ridiculous to act as if the events in our life have zero effect in forming us. For an example, I'll use a personal story.

To anyone who has taken adderal, you understand what concentration can actually be like. To sit in one spot, with study tunnel-vision going on can feel pretty rewarding. We go to an institution that can be quite academically demanding, and for many study drugs offer a leg up. Some people claim that adderal allows them to remove all the parts of their personality that they don't like and become themselves. As someone who had a prescription for over a year, I can see where these people are coming from. I was never diagnosed with ADHD, but I definitely had the symptoms. Easily distracted and chaotic, my concentration was easily affected. I remember one instance where I was at a movie theater and caught myself counting the lights in the ceiling. After I'd done it 8 times, I realized that maybe I did in fact have some sort of attention deficit order.

My freshman year of college, I decided to try the magic pill. Unfortunately, I took 30 milligrams and was awake for 36 hours. Stupid. Over the next year and a half, I would take adderal regularly. As I became older, I started to ween myself off of the little blue pill. Sick of the side effects of lack of sleep and mellowing moods, life just wasn't as fun on aderral. I rarely take it now, able to concentrate without a drug assist.

Now, the question remains: would I have learned how to concentrate naturally? Or did taking aderral alter my brain chemistry? Or maybe just understanding what concentration actually feels like made the difference? Some people argue that this drug is dispensed to children at too young of an age. That by giving them a pill that forces concentration, we rob them of all the things that makes being a kid fun. An ethical debate over whether children are actually children on drugs forms. That perhaps, not paying attention is part of a healthy childhood. I for one am glad that I got to be obnoxious when I was younger. Some of my best memories involve not paying attention, although at my teachers' ire.

So Pinker, am I a product of nature or nurture? My voluntary choice to "better" myself changed who I am today. I had free will to choose to take adderal. I chose a path away from distractions. If I hadn't, I'd probably still be stuck on youtube today.

go go amputation

After reading Elliot's "A New Way To Be Mad" and discussing apotemnophilia at length in class, I've become very intrigued by the "condition", as well as if it should actually be treated as such. I know that a number of people in the class expressed repulsion at the thought of someone willingly getting a limb cut off, and while it is a strange idea at first glance, the more I consider it's parallels with transsexualism, the more I have to reconsider. Who are we to say what someone else's body should look like? Who has the authority to make these decisions?

Regardless of if the condition is biological in origin or purely environmental (or even a combination of both), the legitimacy of wanting something specific for your body is unchanged. I do believe that if it is your body, it should be your choice.

That being said, if it has neurological origins and can be traced to a defect in the brain which can be treated, then I would think that the treatment would be the better option, since amputation, a drastic measure, can in some ways incapacitate a person for life. However, at present, amputation is the only safe "cure" for the feelings which apotemnophiliacs face every day. Therapy has shown no breakthroughs here, and there simply hasn't been enough research done to know if there is a drug that could fix the issue in the right parietal lobe (which David Brang noted in "Apotemnophilia: A neurological disorder").

I definitely do think that more research like David Brang's should be done, but in the meantime, I think that providing amputations would only be humane. Consider that those suffering with extreme symptoms of the condition suffer enormously because of the limb attached to them, and sometimes even go to great lengths to get rid of it themselves.

In class, it was mentioned that giving apotemnophiliacs amputations would go against evolution and natural selection, but I disagree. We aren't hunter gatherers, and our survival doesn't necessarily depend on how well we can pick up a glass of water. If someone is happier and more successful after they have an amputation, then I see nothing wrong with it.

Neo or John the Savage... picking a poison

The droning tones of the infamous, "Mr. Anderson" echos in my ears long after the blurry green numbers cease flashing across the screen. According to a former and beloved teacher The Matrix is a film that "no one in their right mind can ever really understand... not even its own damn writers." Apart from immortalizing Keanu Reeves as a legitimate badass (as if Speed did not already do that) the Matrix has been analyzed and embraced by Christians and Trekkies alike. It has been declared to be one of the most symbolic, metaphorical, thought engaging films of our generation. And it was this film that came to my mind when reading Brave New World.

I greatly enjoyed the Huxley excerpt on an emotional level, because unlike Pinker's work where I found myself morally opposed unable to get overcome his arrogance as he destroys religion, politics, and culture all within a few paragraphs, Huxley's piece only alludes to his opinion and interpretation of the human condition. The central question raised by Mustapha Mond, 'do you want to suffer?' To suffer is to be human, when void of all pain, as in the presented utopia, people cease to be people reduced to a mere robotic state, forever to go through the motions of life. In this world happiness is tantamount to fulfilled necessities, "they're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're plagued with no mother or fathers; they've got no wives of lovers to feel strongly about..." But in reality i feel in order to experience true happiness one must first experience suffering, for how is one to feel the trueness of any emotion without its counterpart as well? Yet perhaps i am mistaken for according to Mustapha Mond, "happiness is never grand."

This fabricated happiness parallels the world presented in the Matrix, where individuals are living in a state of delusion, and in both a reluctant hero emerges, unable to accept reality. Neo and John the Savage, both make a choice, they to choose to suffer and in doing so accept the entire human condition, to experience beauty and pain, to love and to suffer. For Neo this choice is represented in taking a pill, for the Savage it is Shakespeare. A pill, medicine representative of science paradoxically collides with Shakespeare the embodiment of humanities as the two men embrace the same conclusion.

The role of science in both is worth examination, for rather than being an illuminating force revealing truth, science as technology is used to mask reality. The matrix itself is comparable to "soma" both devices seek to disrupt the human condition by eliminating pain and with pain knowledge of beauty, "it hasn't been very good for truth of course. But its been very good for happiness."

My final comparison to be drawn is that of the role of knowledge. In both works knowledge is synonymous with power, for with the knowledge comes the ability to create a new reality. A fairly Latour-ish concept creating a reality, but bear with me. For Neo the ability to wake others from the matrix, thus creating their reality, is a direct result of his own knowledge that they're current state of existence is one generated by artificial means. Likewise, John the Savage is able to create reality as he embraces beauty in-lou of happiness.

Upon reading Carl Elliott's article "A New Way To Be Mad," I was struck, as I'm sure many others were, with a combination of fascination and repulsion. Being faced with a phenomenon that seemed so far outside my perception of what's "normal," I didn't really know what to make of it. The thought of anyone feeling they needed to chop off a perfectly healthy limb to be the person they felt they were sounded kind of ridiculous and almost selfish--after all, there are many "non-voluntary" amputees out there who I'm sure would give anything to have their arm or leg back. I still can't say I have a comprehensive grasp and stance on the issue, and in many ways I'm torn as to what I think the best method of "treatment" would be and how to move forward once we know enough about the condition to make any decisions about it. But for me the article raised some questions about how apotemnophilia should be handled both medically and socially.

My initial reaction to the mere existence of something like apotemnophilia--it seeming weird and unnatural--began to change as soon as soon as Elliott introduced the idea that it parallels transsexualism. Since John Money's study of apotemnophilia in 1977, it has been classified as a paraphilia, defined by Elliott as a psychosexual disorder or perversion. To whatever extent this has shaped what little knowledge the public has about this condition, the term "perversion" certainly carries heavy connotations, ones which I personally think should cause us hesitation in applying such a label to anyone. That aside, for me the comparison to transsexualism has had an effect on how I view apotemnophilia and what should reasonably considered for its treatment.

Once presented with this comparison, I couldn't think of any way apotemnophilia differs from transsexualism significantly enough for them to be regarded and treated differently both socially and medically. Both are cases of people who feel their physical bodies don't match their image of themselves. Transsexuals feel trapped in a body of the wrong gender, and apotemnophiliacs feel their bodies are somehow incomplete with all four of their limbs, that a specific arm or leg, though attached, is not a part of them. Both struggle with the feeling that they will not truly be themselves until they have their bodies physically altered. And those who obtain surgery, in both groups, seem significantly happier with their lives afterward.

This is where my struggle with treatment and insurance begins. Elliott doesn't take a strong position one way or the other in supporting what seem to be either of the two main options at this point: covering surgical procedures with insurance for apotemnophiliacs, or psychiatric treatment. He does express his hesitance towards surgery as a cure, though. Initially this was my feeling as well; giving surgery to these people wouldn't really be solving the problem, psychiatry is more likely to get to the root of it and hopefully eliminate the desire altogether. Avoiding possibly unnecessary amputations seemed like the best solution to me. However, when I make the comparison, I can't in any good conscience consider applying the same idea to transsexuals. The thought of trying to "cure" a transsexual through therapy and drugs is, to me, insulting and immoral. Insulting because it means denying or ignoring the legitimacy of another person's ability to know who they are, and immoral because it means dictating, based on a certain perspective, what an acceptable identity is. To me this seems an inevitably harmful attempt to make people something they are not.

I definitely think that at this point, there simply hasn't been enough research done on apotemnophilia to make a determination about what the standard medical procedure should involve if it's diagnosed. The part I struggle with is that while the doctors and scientists take their time figuring this out, there are people out there who are in pain every day because of this condition, and have nowhere to turn for support besides each other. However, I think one of the first steps we need to take is to make sure that as public knowledge of apotemnophilia grows, we don't immediately assign it a stigma, at least keeping the terminology neutral. If it must be labeled, label it a condition or identity rather than a disorder or perversion. We need to acknowledge that there is still a lot to be learned about apotemnophilia, and that we are doing our best to grapple with the complexities of this issue.

Mind Blowing

I don't know what to think about Pinker's writing. While reading it i had so many ideas coming to my mind. My mind could not keep still, I had mixed emotions. At time I was agreeing with him and at time I saw myself disagreeing with him. Oh! my God this is so hard and complicated. I don't know how to speak my mind. I wish i could write in my language so i can better explain myself.
Anyway i grew up as a Christian with the belief that Pinker wrote: "Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, implying that they could have chosen otherwise, therefore freewill exists." This is what i grew up believing in, that as human we have the choice to choose if we want to do bad or good, but now i am not so sure when Pinker said: "Today, no scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place. That means that there has been a need for a new theory of human nature, one not tied to fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible." So since i am not a scientifically literate person, i guess i can still believe in the Bible. I just don't understand why he would dismiss the Bible as a whole. Maybe you can use the Bible to explain some biological things.
For Apotemnophilia, i would think that it is a disorder. People are probably born with it and the environment they might grow up in might make them forget about it or it might enhance it. Of course we are born with some things and i think that's what Pinker is trying to say, but i don't think we should forget the impact of the environment on us. And also i believe in this thing called free will, for example i could be thinking about paying back people who have hurt me in the past, but i could decide not to do it just like Adam and Eve could have decided not to eat the fruit of that tree. When they ate that fruit humans started knowing wrong from right, so some humans still choose to do wrong even though they know what is right.
Pinker had some good explanations for the stand he took, but i think this issue is such a big one that it is impossible to know what is the best explanation for what makes us who we are. Your mind just spins trying to figure it out all at once.

Problems with Pinker

I found myself growing frustrated with Steven Pinker about six paragraphs into his article The Blank Slate, when he writes, “Today, no scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place”. He goes on to argue that it’s idiotic to believe in any part of the “Judeo-Christian” theory, which he asserts is entirely built on fundamentalist interpretations of the bible (it’s not). So, page one establishes a couple of things: 1) “Christian” (or religious, for that matter) is nonsensical, and 2) anyone who believes in any scrape of it is a moron. Thanks, Pinker. While this alone put me off the rest of his article (I am Christian and consider myself on the not-moron side of things), I think that it perfectly exemplifies my broader criticism of Pinker, which is that he wishes to know nothing of the “other side” (meaning, based off what it seems in the article, anyone who does not believe that neuroscience is the epitome of truth). Pinker spends the first three pages of The Blank Slate explaining/asserting that every other theory of human behavior is nonsense, outdated, fundamentalist etc, and that neuroscience can explain 100% of human behavior. He never stops to consider that, perhaps, neuroscience AS WELL AS “something else” could explain the world. Maybe we are born with certain basic traits but our environments determine how they develop? It seems ridiculous to me that he would completely write off environment growing up as a determinant in how we grow as humans (just as I think it would be completely ridiculous to argue that biology has no impact whatsoever). His methodology reminded me of something I had read by a scholar named Dylan Evans, writing on the relationship between psychoanalytic theory and science. He writes:

It follows from this that the question raised by the accusations of unscientificity is that of the relationship between science and truth. It is thus not only important to examine what we understand by “science” but also important to clarify what we mean by “truth.” Does something qualify as truth only when it can be validated by the discourse of institutionalized science? Or does modern science, as Lacan argues, derive its power precisely from the fact that it wishes to know nothing of truth as cause? (Evans in 2009)


While the specific context of Evan’s writing differs from what’s at hand here, I think his argument can be applied very effectively to Pinker. Modern science has long posited itself as the bringer of “truth” (whatever that means) precisely because it separates itself from everything else–in not being “mixed up” with culture, desire, and politics, it provides an “objective” view of the world (excessive quotes indicate my own thoughts on this). Evans argues (and I agree) that fleeing from “everything else” is an attempt to create so-called truth is what creates the hegemonic, un-questionable regimes of knowledge Pinker criticizes in the first page. Any theory of human nature must have some kind of answer to the “but what about X” questions raised by other disciplines. From what I’ve read, it seems like Pinker’s answer to the arguments presented by Lewontin about human nature or Elliot (more specifically) about the origins of Apotemnophilia would be “It’s all genetic!” To me, this is ignorance, not science. The existence of neuroscience is not a reason why history and culture can be wiped away; genes do not mean individuals are not impacted by the discourses that surround them. I certainly don’t understand the origin of what we call Apotemnophilia, but “it’s a result of a problem in the parietal lobe, which can be traced to Q deficiency inherited from Z gene” doesn’t really cut it for me.

Insure Them

Apotemnophilia is a disorder and the people who feel they have to suffer from it should be eligible for health insurance in the future because I believe eventually this disorder with be in the DSM-IV. It should be in the DSM-IV because it is clearly a psychological condition that consists of a chemical imbalance in one’s brain.

These people should be eligible for health care because then they could possibly go through treatment to prevent them from causing more harm to their bodies.

I know it is a tough argument to make that people who do harm to themselves should be eligible to be covered, but what about people who try to commit suicide and then have to go to a psychiatric hospital. Aren’t they still covered?

Pinker says the first law of behavioral genetics is that all behavioral traits are partially heritable. I partially agree with this because there has to be some genetic make up that strongly contributes to the complicated actions of the few people who have this disorder.

It is very difficult to make sense of this disorder because it is so complicated. The environment a person is in contributes to this disorder significantly. So much so that I would say its half the genes of a person who is an Apotemophilia and half the culture they surround themselves with.

Everything keeps coming back to our discussion the first week of class. The key question for me was: is this ethical? In a free country people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, but doctors should not assist them. One possible solution would be to make it a law that you can't cut off your limbs.

In conclusion, with the power of the internet there is no way to stop this fire from keeping on burning. Health insurance companies should cover these people because it is clearly a psychiatric disorder that should require treatment.

Terminator: The Brave New World?

In 1932 Aldous Huxley tried to warn us against scientific utopianism. At first, I took his work as an ill-conceived futurology but after unintentionally watching two Terminator movies this weekend, Aldous' portrayal of a perfect, yet dangerous society actually seems possible. The Terminators that control the world are no different than the Brave New World population high on soma. Both models suggest that the tragedy of the human race cannot be cured with spirituality or intellectualism. Instead death and suffering will only be cured with the application of bioscience.

However, these are not fictitious scenarios we should simply ignore. The ethical implications of today's biopolitics could very well lead us to either situation. Nikolas Rose even asserts, “Social theorists and bioethicists have also played their part in conjuring up a future landscape rich in moral dangers and slippery slopes that might hurtle us to a very different form of humanity.” (An Emergent Form of Life, pg 80) Pharmaceutical medicine, gene therapy, and 'enhancement treatments' have made it possible to achieve a “posthuman” capacity. I believe that current medicine could take us to a place like the Brave New World. Technology could take us there too. The processing power of robots doubles about every year and before long they will catch up to human intelligence levels. I have even heard many estimates that a take over by super-intelligent robots is one of the top ten dangers to humanity.

Therefore the consequences of the decisions made between the gap of science and society should be taken seriously. If the right ethical decisions aren’t made today we could end up living in the Brave New World. As John Connor astutely pointed out at the end of Terminator Salvation, a human is, “Not somebody you can program. You can’t put it in a chip.”

Neurology and Psychiatry

After initially reading A New Way to Be Mad by Carl Elliott, I was left completely confused and horrified to say the least. A lot of unanswered questions pertaining to this new phenomenon known as apotemnophilia, which I had never heard about before reading this article, were left circulating in my mind. My first thoughts were that this ‘disorder’, and yes, I do believe it should be classified as such, was more of an emerging fetish or fascination brought on by our ever-changing society and the increasing popularity of body modification, opposed to a biologically scripted gene pattern.

Apotemnophilia: a neurological disorder written by David Brang really spoke to my inner scientist, persuaded by evidence, and caused me to formulate an entirely different opinion on this disorder. What was once thought of as strictly psychological, now has proof of having a related neurological component after heightened skin conductance response to a pinprick was found to be elevated below the desired line of amputation. In biological terms, this corresponds to a dysfunction of the right superior parietal lobe. This finding agreed with me substantially due to my familiarity and interests in biology and psychology.

I immediately associated this article with a syndrome I had remembered learning about in my psychology class last semester. The story can be found in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks who describes different neurological disorders found in his patients. There is a man who wanted to throw his leg out of bed, because he thought it was fake and a woman who felt her hands were useless. Most significantly is the story introducing Phantom Limb Syndrome which is where a person still has the sensation and feeling that a limb is intact, even after it has been amputated. This is due to a theory referred to as the forward model, which states people plan movements consciously as well as unconsciously due to neural signals integrated within the parietal lobes. The ability to form a coherent sense of body image is associated with the parietal lobe as well.

With this knowledge brought to my attention, it makes a lot of sense to me that a disruption in the wiring of neurons in one’s parietal lobe could very well contribute to this peculiarity we have come to call apotemnophilia. If a person is still able to sense that a limb is present and belongs to them when it is not there, why wouldn’t someone not be able to feel the presence of a limb that IS there and feel like it does not belong to them?

I understand this may be hard for someone to agree with if he or she doesn’t have any sort of neuroscience background. Here is an article that explains the functions of the parietal lobe for anyone who wants to become more knowledgeable in this area or is just curious: http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume11/issue3/articles/rauschecker.html.

Ambiguity and Biopolitics

In many ways, I find Latour's second chapter, "Circulating Reference" a good summary of what we have discussed in class so far. Briefly, that there are no absolute facts in even the seemingly hardest of scientists. He shows that even in determining what kind of dirt a person is looking at, which seems entirely fact-based (either it is one type of soil or another) there are politics at play. Subconsciously preconceived conclusions (whether or not the rain forest is advancing or retreating) can easily influence the subjective observations (it seems a bit more brown that orange) the geologists must make. Regardless of what kind of science a person preforms, the effects of politics must be recognized.

Thus, for this small blog I figured I would put my own politics out there. As an atheist, I've come to the belief that there is no easy answer to any of life's questions. In my mind purpose is something that people must create for themselves and there are no absolutes. Having been raised Catholic, even attending a Catholic school for many years, I understand the sense of comfort that comes from belief in God, but find that theistic through (for me, at least) is far too restrictive for everything I see around me. There is far too much variability and inconsistency in the world to think that certain behaviors are bad (I don't know many people who think that eating shellfish should really be considered an abomination) or good just because someone said it is. Or even if most people say it is.

However, I do hold that certain psychologically-unsound behaviors should be discouraged and worked against by society. For example, not many people disagree that those with anorexia nervosa should be encouraged to eat healthily. That people who self-harm should be helped to overcome such tendencies. That parents who, for some reason or another, feel compelled or obligated to hurt their children should be removed from their kids and given treatment. Or that apotemnophiliacs should be treated psychologically in order to make them feel like their limb is theirs rather than just lopping it off.

But like Latour's dirt, psychology and biology are by no means clear-cut. Should students be allowed to take Ritalin during finals in order to help them do better? It is their bodies, and no one is being hurt. As long as they know the risks involved, what's the harm? And how much different is it really for one person to be able to by glasses that help them read a bit better to someone else getting new eye lenses that help them see further and more clearly. Neither may seem "right" or "natural" now, but not so very long ago the fact that I'm wearing pants rather than a skirt or dress with several layers right now would seem so as well. These matters become infinitely more complex when one considers whether or not such treatments should be covered by insurance. What about people who didn't have insurance, or, if they wouldn't be covered, couldn't afford them? What about citizens with less developed medical care who didn't have access to them?

In the end I must conclude that I really have no idea how much liberty a person has over their own body. I can't say whether or not if a person can afford it, they should be able to augment themselves however they see fit as long as its not done self-destructively, or if such augmentations should be done only in order to better society because, as said in Brave New World, "everybody belongs to everybody else", or if they should be avoided entirely in order to prevent one group of people to have a distinct physical advantage over everyone else just because they can afford it. I don't think anyone can really answer these questions until, as a society, we all come to what Latour refers to as a "moment of truth" we agree what our answers will be and our reality is molded around them.

Apotemnophilia: Immoral and Selfish

As I read the Pinker article I was rather shocked that he seemed to turn purely to neuroscience as the answer to why we are the way we are. One of his major points in response to this question was that the environment has a minimal impact on the way we, humans, turn out to be. He then tried to support this argument with a bunch of neuroscience jargon that was way over my head.
While I read on, I started to think to myself, "Do I agree with him?." The short answer is NO. The reason for this being that several examples of friends and family came to mind in which I could tell that the environment had a significant impact on the way that individual turned out to be. My friends who hung out with the "wrong crowd" changed their lifestyle to accommodate the drinking and partying. My family grew up around water and there is no doubt that we all love water sports now. Essentially I agree with Lewontin who argues that the environment does have a major influence on why we are the way we are.
Relating this all to Apotemnophilia, I believe that it manifests in both biological and environmental aspects. I don't think someone is completely born with it, but that the environment has an influence on whether or not they end up getting it. In essence, I believe that both influences must be present in order for someone to end up with this.
Now for the moral/ethical part. Being raised in a religious family, I believe that God put us on this earth the way we are for a reason. I believe that by cutting off healthy limbs, we aren't living for God, rather we're living for ourselves. To remove a limb because it "doesn't feel right" is immoral and selfish.
To conclude, I don't think that I was born with the idea that removing ones limb is immoral and selfish. In fact, I believe that the environment I was raised in has shaped me with the morals I now have which led me to the belief that removing ones limbs consciously is immoral and selfish. Hopefully you can see why I disagree with Pinker's argument about the influence of environment!

Blog Posting #2 (due Sunday 2/5, 11:59 P.M.)

Take a position—about how to sort out the many, often contradictory, factors bearing on what Nikolas Rose calls 'Biopolitics' (described below), by taking one of our readings, and showing how a few parts of it anchor a smart, workable ethical case.

What the hell does this mean? 'BIOPOLITICS' is a useful term. It names the intersection of LIFE and SOCIETY that troubles decisions like whether to let people cut off limbs because they want / need to. Or lengthen their legs. Or live on Prozac. Or use Ritalin to get through Finals. Or take Dianabol to raise your batting average. Or demand new plastic lenses for 20 / 15 vision. Or any of the things we've talked about where the ethical dimension of the life / society link is important. When we say 'people have a right to their own bodies,' were taking a 'biopolitical' position. When we say 'society has no obligation to take care of someone who cut off their own leg,' we're taking a different one.

Start with an article you liked (or hated—that can work, too). Engage it, and go where you want. This is sort of like writing a really smart letter-to-the-editor responding to one of our readings as if it just showed up in The Atlantic (Carl Elliot did). Or the Hastings Center Review (which 'Emily's Scars' did).

You can bring in anything more that you want, but start with a solid engagement with one of the things we've read. Then take it where you want.

The core question we're all working on is HOW BEST TO MAKE SENSE of these impossibly hard, topics.

Speak your mind. Make some sense.

bridging the culture gap

This is an interesting video on mirror neurons (empathy neurons) by VS Ramachandran:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html

"We map it so then we can understand it"

In an effort to explain why biogeographers use so many different types of maps to chart the same location my professor provided only this, saying "we map it so then we can understand it." I was struck by how Latour-ian of a concept this was, so for the first time this semester i cracked open my text book only to be bombarded with not only that exact quote but several other knockoffs, so similar i'm fairly confident it would qualify as plagiarism, (had it been written in a different source).

Let me rewind slightly and put this into context (because despite what pinker says, i believe context/environment is critical to understanding any sort of action) Biogeography of the Global Garden (Geog1403) is promoted by the advising staff as one of those "fluffy" science classes designed for the liberal-art-hearted to fulfill their required biology with a lab core, yet nevertheless it remains a science. We have spent a majority of the first 3 weeks of class going over in excruciating detail what qualifies as a biome, and have just recently made the transition to reading maps...

So fast-forward once more to find me nearly asleep in the darkest nook of the massive lecture hall, it is a monday, i am exhausted, and i was right on the brink of consciousness when professor zeigler's words came floating back to me, completely interrupting my dreamy state. After examining the textbook (as previously described) it was revealed she was a coauthor, thus slightly more apt to use exact wording. Regardless i feel Latour would question the principle, "we map so we can understand"

This practice of mapping is directly addressed in Latour's 2nd chapter Circulating Reference, when a "space" is transformed into reality. We as readers are witnesses to the process of how "the world is packed into words." In Latour this is seen/read as a process, including a literal "moment of truth" and yet with my biogeo class there is no process, it is simply presented as reality to be learned (or at least memorized until the exam and then it can be forgotten once more) There is no explanation of how the maps came to be, they simply are, and because they are produced by scientists they automatically reveal truth.

It struck me as a faulty, and yet quite human, way of experiencing the world. Before we can begin to understand we must transform our reality into words. We are simply not capable of translating knowledge through any other vehicle. Yet, i remain critical, for how can we map/label/word that which we do not understand? The paradox of reality?

The Ghost IS the Machine

...or at least a part of it. I agree with Pinker in that there is a genetic basis for everything that we do. The initial conditions, the substrate on which our minds are formed (our brain) is a product of our genetics. Though I think Pinker takes it too far at times. An example of this is a lecture he gave entitled 'Jews, Genes and Intelligence'( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6037708729636407580&ei=O-JlS5u0DIWUqwLop4TuCg&q# ) where he argues that there is a biological basis for higher intelligence in a certain segment of the Jewish population. I do not think that intelligence is well enough understood yet to make these claims and that the complexity of the familial, economic and social interactions involved are too great to statistically analyze at this time in any meaningful way. I'd go as far to say that his claims are irresponsible and dangerous. It reminds me of the pseudoscience of WWII era German "scientists" claiming genetic superiority.

Nonetheless, there is, i believe, a direct relationship between the physicality of our brains (and thus our genetics) to who we think we are (in my estimation about %50 genetics, %50 experience). Latour's castigating 'Brain-in-a-Vat' analogy is much better put fourth by Daniel Dennett in a short story called 'Where Am I' ( http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html ). Dennett's story is a fictional tale of a human brain that actually gets put in a vat and the apparent paradoxes that ensue. His story attempts to ask and shed light on questions such as what is the self? where do I exist? and, jocularly, what is the role of technology on the question of what it means to be human? I truly believe that soon humanity will have to come up with an answer (or definition) of what is the self? and what is consciousness? Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts that before the end of the century a $1000 computer will have the combined intelligence of the global human population due to the exponential growth of technology * . Therefore I believe that it is of great importance for people in the humanities to become familiar with scientific methods and principles and be able to keep up so that they have something to contribute, for the definition of humanity will be ever dramatically changing.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_is_Near

Science as Ideology

Yes, this is late. I beg your forgiveness.


As the son of a doctor and a psychologist, there was zero chance that I wasn't going to have strong opinions on the subject of science. The scientific method, rational thought, problem solving - it was how my family interacted. When discussing why my eighth grade writing scores weren't high enough, "These grades just aren't your full potential (problem). I think the problem here son is that you haven't been studying enough, but watching too much TV (hypothesis). You come home and immediately turn it on (evidence.) If you cut out the TV watching and instead spent more time studying, you'd be where you should be (conclusion)." Q.E.D.

I gladly inherited this science based world view. Cool and intellectual, I think that most things can be explained through rational thought and logic. A mystic I am not. Unfortunately for my sister, this didn't work. To her, there were far too many things that were unexplainable. The BIG QUESTIONS, like is there a god? Where do we come from? What are we here for? All of which really don't have any concrete answers caused her problems. Whenever an answer couldn't be found, distress was soon to follow. To the rest of us, they were non-issues. Why would we waste our time asking questions that we realize we will never find an answer to? This mode of thought just couldn't flow with my sister. So instead of rebelling the way most kids do - drinking, sneaking out, smoking weed - she chose the way that would cause way more problems: she became religious. Commence family uproar.


Suddenly two opposing ideologies started inhabiting the same space. Faced with the fact that members of our family had different views of reality, we had to come to an understanding. The fact of the matter is, science can't explain everything. It can't even come close. Our science as a dogma way of understanding the world had obvious holes. I came to realize that my world view was an ideology. In the search for cold hard truth, I missed the fact that there is rarely such a thing.

Are we really in control?

In my (or my brain's) attempt to manage the endless chaos of life, this blog posting conveniently "slipped my mind". After a dutiful bout of self-criticism, I've been left with the following things to think about.

-Are we in control of mediating the chaos of life? To go even further, are we in control of our reactions, thoughts, words, feelings, actions, etc.?

-Why is it that the brain can keep a body functioning nominally while the "self" (whatever that may be...the "ghost" in my head, perhaps) can forget / displace the need to mediate social requirements like this assignment?

-Is it accurate to make a distinction between the mind and body? Is there one to be made, even?

Of course, I'll take the epistemological high ground and argue that "I don't know" should be the sufficient answer to all the questions above. If anyone ends up reading this late post, hopefully they'll want to debate over the warrants.

Otherwise, I'm here to argue that when approaching these complex, scientific/philosophic questions, it is best to assume we know nothing about what we're approaching so that we may hope to avoid alternative methodologies of inquiry - like this blog. If we classify various phenomena into closed sets of "known" and "unknown", we will necessarily be replicating the problematic idea of scientific "finitude". So instead, I say let's place knowledge into a new category in between the known and unknown, and leave it at that. Knowledge can be read as a spectrum with no definite beginning or end.

Beyond any moral justifications for an epistemology of "I don't know", I wish to justify it also with a concept from neuroscience that was explained to me by my girlfriend. It made me second-guess not only the idea of "knowing", but of "consciousness" as well.

"The Readiness Potential". (I included the wikipedia link for quick reading) Ultimately, the readiness potential is a signal that is sent inside your brain (or, remember, your "self") that precedes conscious awareness of it being sent. Generally speaking, your brain is sending signals that you aren't aware of. Sounds obvious, right? We have a brain stem that manages the more perfunctory tasks of managing a fleshbag - you must keep the heart beating, the lungs breathing, the temperature at a steady whatever...etc. - But how about this: Remember that time you decided to call your friends to see a movie - were you ACTUALLY in control of that decision? Or how about your desire to go eat Taco Bell instead of Taco John's? etc. etc.

A more personal example: By the time I took the action to make this blog post, a potential in my brain had already preceded my conscious awareness of the fact, and then in some sort of "eureka!" moment, I, (or my "self) became consciously aware that not only do I have a blog post to make, but that my blog post is late! I then made this blog post. I assumed that it was in my rational, conscious desires, but it in fact it originated from my subconscious.

This of course obliterates, or in a more formal tone, completely inverts the concept of conscious awareness in that if our desires and actions are guided by brain activity that we can't ever be consciously aware of, what are we to say about free will? And to tie it into my argument above, how are we to ever "know" that we "know" something if we can't maintain an active conception of "free will"? Is embodiment of "knowledge" even within our willful grasp? If our brain is subconsciously calling the shots - let's say the desire to learn more about a particular phenomena, does that mean we don't know "enough" about it? Will our brain ever "let us know" if we don't?

Recall from above that this assignment "slipped my mind". What is it, after reading this idea of the Readiness Potential, to have something "slip your mind" if you're not even consciously aware of the fact to begin with?

These are all questions that are haunting me, given that if science can "disprove" "free will", what kind(s) of politics can exist in society? Is democracy an attainable ideal if "free will" is a false idea? Or do we inevitably fall to our subconscious whims that soon after firing in the brain's synapses become visible to our conscious self? This of course then brings in the next big concept to make scientists and cultural theorists bang their heads in collective frustration: that of .human nature". (As you can tell, I like a prolific use of quotation marks.)

This isn't to say that we don't have control, because we do have the ability to choose what we actually do, once we become consciously aware of something. A 'veto' power, as stated by the wiki article for any of you who clicked it.

So yeah, free will. Hmph.

squirrels

I've been trying to think of how science jives with my life. So I started to make a list of elements in my life that are scientifically determined. My genetics, including my naturally way-too-blonde hair; my daily activities, including the chemical compounds in milk that when activated by heat allow me to make awesome latte art. Or that I like pickles and drugs. And my curiosities, like with fish and how they see and this albino squirrel that hangs around. That I believe more in primordial soup than anything divine. And how I can't believe that dinosaurs ever existed, and how I'm so sad I missed it.

But when I hear a violin, I don't think about what is reverberating in my ear to allow me to smile so hard. Or when I fall in love, what chemical is being released from what gland. Or when I dream, that I am having mental misfires. Science is the mode by which people discover how these things happen, and uncovering this mysterious magic. I bet that if man had not created the discipline of science or had this 'drive to discover' (lol) the objects of that discipline would go on doin' its thang anyway. We'd still be hearing violins and squirrels would still be albino sometimes. So what do you call all of that before science came along? Was it just the world barreling down on a track? Is that what people call "nature"? Does that mean things just...happen? What is really going on?

These questions really don't get answers. For some, that means they give up right there. There's a saying, it goes: "shit happens". One thing I'm sure of is the opposite: shit is caused. And that is the jumping off point of science, that a cause and effect play out in the world and it is possible to understand. 'Whys' and 'hows' are worth being asked, because when those questions are answered, we are a step closer to truth.

What I've noticed that keeps getting forgotten is that science is not static -- year to year the latest science keeps contradicting itself. One year, we are told to eat margarine on our toast because butter is really bad for you. Two years later, butter isn't so bad, and stop eating that margarine! Our scientific truth keeps changing. So while truth is merely a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms, people keep looking for it anyway. I wish them the best of luck in finding it.

Standardized Tests

I have a complicated relationship with standardized tests (things like the SAT; things not like AP tests or the MCAT). We are to assume that standardized tests give a quantitative indicator of potential (ignoring, for the time being, the sociocultural bias that these tests have). Grades earned, on the other hand, can be an indicator of behavior (study habits, self-discipline, etc). During the undergraduate application process, I found it incredibly interesting how universities made their selection from among my friends based on these two variables- standardized test scores and grade point average.

Within my social circle, it appeared that institutions assigned a greater value to the apparent innate potential indicated by standardized test scores than to the behaviors indicated by grade point average. This was especially evident in the scholarships offered by our primary state school based on a particular test's score. While my GPA was far below a 4.0, I was offered a full ride based on my standardized test score. On the other hand, a friend of mine, who took much more difficult classes, maintained a 4.0, but missed the cutoff for the standardized test by 1 point, was offered almost no scholarship. Although he certainly had what would be considered "high" test scores, he was denied admission to a more selective institution into which a friend of mine, with a lower GPA, higher test scores, and a comparable extracurricular resume, was admitted.

I would argue that this indicates a general belief held in the world of higher education that preference ought to be given to innately "smarter" individuals, with smart being defined as an ability to understand and perform well on quantitative and qualitative reasoning questions within a short period of time. These tests, however, are hardly representative of what students will be asked to do in their courses in universities, and indeed in the real world. My friend who missed out on a full ride and admission to a prestigious university has done exceptionally well in all his classes and will be earning $80,000 next year. I still struggle with forming effective study habits and my other friend, the one admitted to the selective university, was kicked out after his freshman year and has dropped out of school all together. While this is obviously anecdotal, it is certainly the case that standardized test scores do not correlate with performance, and my high performing friend would have been a much better investment for the university's full tuition scholarship than I would have been.

Once again, while universities don't see the tests themselves as infallible, they do see them as indicative of the more important determinant: innate potential, rather than demonstrated performance.

I don't think that Pinker believes that all behavior is entirely determined by genes. He may believe that certain capacities and abilities are limited by inherited materials, but I do not believe he conflates this with behavior itself. Nor do I believe that he and Lewontin are completely opposed in their beliefs about the nature of individuals and behavior. I would like to suggest that if we are to argue about what determines behavior and traits, we need to propose a more specific definition of these categories than wearing the same clothes as a long lost twin, killing someone, or wanting to cut off your arm.

Catholic School Girl No More

"I don't want to be a product of my environment, i want my environment to be a product of me..."

There were several elements that factored into my ultimate choice to attend the University of Minnesota, but by far the most prominent was my desire to "pop my rochester bubble." For those of you who don't know, Rochester is a Minnesota city of about 100,000 nested in the south eastern part of the state, and home of the worldly revered Mayo Clinic. While absolutely delightful to grow up in Rochester it was and remains a conservative Midwestern town filled with immense brainpower and Republicans. I am a proud alumni of Rochester Lourdes, with a graduating class of 142, a Catholic high school where, in the midst of all the right-wing mindedness that is Rochester, Jesus Christ and eagle hockey shared center stage. By no means am i mocking or belittling my faith, rather quite the opposite my experience at Lourdes was absolutely pivotal in shaping the person i've become today (and it is my belief that I turned out alright) however the facts remain. Lourdes, being a Catholic community, I was raised with the principles that the Bible is the Word of God, abortion is murder, and the biological reductionist thinking is a one way ticket to hell. So in accordance with my past Pinker is probably the equivalent of the anti-Christ. (slight exaggeration) Hence, my decision to attend the U of M, in an effort to expose myself to another side of life (and Democrats) while semi-pursuing a degree in some field of social science (as law school looms dauntingly)

Thus, in light of my Catholic background I was very fundamentally disturbed when Steven Pinker in one fell-swoop eliminated culture, politics, and religion. Highlighted by the snide comment, “many people are sorry to ‘lose God.’” For Pinker its all in the genes, dubbing neuroscience as sovereign over all other aspects of life, a principle I have a difficult time wrapping my head around. I feel eliminating environment completely is to be blind to the world around you. Having been born into the heart of the science and medical world, an interesting paradox arises and is played out within my community, God vs science, with parents who by night preach the ways of the Bible and by day tamper with stem-cells in an on going effort to reveal scientific truth. Truth we are, at this time, not capable of understanding in its entirety. Pinker does in a sense encroach on traditional God territory, yet he is forthright, but I no longer know if the same is true for every member of my former world…?

Environment's impact on us

Naturally, i will say that i am a soft spoken person. When i was in my country, it was not that bad. I was shy, but i was into stuff and i spoke my mind. I was not loud like others, but I had friends and i was into working and helping others. I later realized that i was the way i was, because my father is like that too. He doesn't talk much either. So i can say that it is in my gene like Steven Pinker says. I didn't have a blank slate when i was born. I took after my father in his character.
But i realized that now that i am here in the USA, the soft spoken person that i am has grown softer. Now i am really shy, i can't speak my mind. It is probably, the change of the country. The environment that i am in now has forced me to be even more soft spoken. So what i think is that first, we have our genes that play a part into who we are then our environment also plays a part in our life.
For me, naturally i think all humans are nice people. Later in our lives we decide for ourselves to be bad or to be good. When some things look like we have taken after our parents, it is probably because we are living with them and decide to do things like them. As we grow up we can decide to not be like them. My brother for example doesn't do anything like our parents. One example also is the Nigerian kid that decided to bomb the plane on Christmas day. He was not a bad person, it is the environment that he found himself in that put things like that into his mind. As human we can decide to be bad or good, no matter how we were brought up.

Premature, Persistent, & Pinker

My life has always been a bit hectic, but it was especially so on the day I was born. My parents were on a road trip on their way to Florida from Wisconsin. My mom, being only 6 months pregnant, didn't think traveling would be an issue. Little did they know, just as persistent and impatient as I am now, I thought that this day would be the perfect day to make my entrance into this world. My mother had to be flown in a helicopter to the closest hospital which happened to be in Cincinnati, Ohio where they had a brand new preemie ward built.



My intended birth date was supposed to be January 19th, ironically my mother's birthday, but I chose October 19th instead. Being prematurely born three months early, I came out at a whopping 2 lbs, 4 oz, and 13 inches. Being as small as I was, I made a pretty big entrance. Fortunately, I was very healthy and actually breathing on my own.



The question I've always wondered is why was I so premature? The specific cause of premature labor is unknown. Some direct it towards medical risk factors such as uterine/cervix abnormalities, high blood pressure, kidney disease, diabetes, clotting disorder, etc. Others appoint it to lifestyle risk factors such as smoking, drinking, drug usage, domestic violence, stress, low income, etc.



Pinker would probably agree with the medical outlook, as he is pro biology-and-genetics-determines-everything. He would probably concur that my mother was prone to premature labor because it lay somewhere in her genetic makeup. He would also add that premature labor is one of the factors of adaptations to survival in the evolutionary theory and from this, premature babies have a lowered chance at surviving.

Lewontin, taking an opposite view, would agree that environmental factors are key to premature labor. He would argue that not everything lies within the lines of science. The relationship between the environment and a person's life is very important in the nature of the developing human.

Elliot may look more closely at the definition of premature labor and what that entails. He may look at how premature labor is presented in the media and how that effects mothers-to-be.

I don't really know the cause of my premature birth; all I do know is that I am thankful that I am a happy, healthy human being that I didn't end up with any chronic birth defects.

Music has had a presence in my life in some form or another for as long as I can remember. The relationship I’ve had with music and how I’ve expressed it has changed throughout the years, but always remained, at some level, intact. Since I was old enough to hold myself upright, the electric pianos in our house were a source of endless fascination and entertainment, starting with the red light that turned on and off with the power button, and eventually moving on to discover that (who knew?) sound came out when I pushed the black and white keys. According to my parents, at age eight I took the initiative to ask for lessons after several years of determined effort to teach myself to play. For years after that, my piano was my most valuable possession. For a while I wanted to be a concert pianist when I grew up—who knows if I would have ever reached the skill level necessary for that, but music was something I was at least sure would be with me for the rest of my life.

Where does this come from? What determines the things we will become interested in and possibly perceive ourselves as being good at? My father has been a professional jazz percussionist for about 40 years. Something he said to me once when I was younger stuck in my memory: He told me that, unlike him, I had a lot of natural talent when it came to playing music. That didn’t necessarily mean that he couldn’t be a good musician, but that to me, it came more easily. I don’t know if I believe that, but it makes me wonder if musical ability, or even interest, is in my blood. Looking at the situation I’m coming from, Pinker would likely see this as the obvious conclusion. My dad is a professional musician, of course that’s where my interest would stem from. But what about my dad? Neither of his parents had any musical inclination, at least none that was ever expressed. For me, thinking about this has raised questions about why and how we differentiate so sharply between the ideas of “nature” and “nurture” when it comes to what shapes our personalities and the people we become. Growing up with a musician for a father, I always had access to his instruments and equipment, and was constantly surrounded by the sound of jazz music floating up from his studio in the basement. Isn’t this all part of my environment, one that could have formed very differently had he been a math teacher or manager or one of many other numerous professions? Would Lewontin take this in itself as being a legitimate explanation for my interest? I’ve never thought it possible to reasonably argue that we are shaped solely by one or the other; I think environment and biology both have necessary, if not always equal, parts to play in the construction of human identity. Now, though, I wonder to what extent they are intertwined, and where, if at all, they begin to separate, rather than being two distinct forces that act on us independently.