From the time I was a little kid to just a few years ago, I was constantly around the presence of science either through the time I spent with my dad while he was building houses or the time I spent reading about cars and eventually racing them. A large part of my motivation to pursue my Mechanical Engineering degree was from the influence of people in my family, mainly my Step-brother and Step-dad and racing my car. It wasn’t until I started college and lost most of my time being at home and hanging out with my brother and racing my car that I started to lose interest in my ME degree and realizing that it wasn’t something that I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Even though I had already completed 3 years of my degree, I decided to change it to something that I really liked and could see myself doing for the rest of my life and that was getting a degree in Japanese and Japanese culture and so last semester I changed my major from ME to Japanese (I’m a senior now and surprisingly graduating on time this year).
At first glance it is almost like I started out as a ‘Blank Slate’ and what was written onto me were the ideas, views and expectations of my family and friends from the time I was little to pretty much the present me. This would be a pretty good example of the ‘Blank Slate’ idea until the sudden change in my way of thinking as soon as I spent a majority of my time away from those influences. In my opinion, this would be a pretty good example that the idea of a ‘Blank Slate’ and that our ideas and views are ‘written’ onto us from when we are children is a concept that isn’t really true. People may grow up around certain influences their entire life but that does not mean that they will have those ideas and views when they are an adult.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Does ink run through my veins?
hi, I am Alex and I am an art student. For as long as I've been drawing, people (mostly relatives) have been asking me where my creativity comes from. People on my father's side of the family tell me that is certainly did not come from my dad, because he can't even make stick figures look good. My mom's relatives say that I must have got it from my grandmother or great aunt so and so, because they were artists also.
For the most part, my dad's family is just a big group of logical thinkers. They are very business minded and straightforward. My mom's side, however, are a bit more outside the box. They are muscians, artists, and educators. According to Pinker, it would make sense, then that I would inherit the "creative gene" from them.
But what if there is no "creative gene?" Thinking about my past, I've realized that I hadn't just one day picked up a pencil and created masterpieces. Before my mom became an elementary school teacher, she was a daycare provider. I grew up surrounded by play dough, forts under the table, crayola crayons, and sing along tapes. From the time I was old enough to walk up until middle school, I was surrounded by arts and crafts. Now that my mom works outside of the home, she doesn't do many artsy related things. It makes me wonder if I had been brought up differently, if I hadn't been introduced to all of these new ways of thinking, if my "blank slate" had been filled with something other than glitter glue and feathers, like, maybe, soccer or croquet, would I have turned out differently?
Thinking about all of this nature Vs nurture stuff makes my head spin and I've come to realize that it's nearly impossible for me to come up with a definite answer.
For the most part, my dad's family is just a big group of logical thinkers. They are very business minded and straightforward. My mom's side, however, are a bit more outside the box. They are muscians, artists, and educators. According to Pinker, it would make sense, then that I would inherit the "creative gene" from them.
But what if there is no "creative gene?" Thinking about my past, I've realized that I hadn't just one day picked up a pencil and created masterpieces. Before my mom became an elementary school teacher, she was a daycare provider. I grew up surrounded by play dough, forts under the table, crayola crayons, and sing along tapes. From the time I was old enough to walk up until middle school, I was surrounded by arts and crafts. Now that my mom works outside of the home, she doesn't do many artsy related things. It makes me wonder if I had been brought up differently, if I hadn't been introduced to all of these new ways of thinking, if my "blank slate" had been filled with something other than glitter glue and feathers, like, maybe, soccer or croquet, would I have turned out differently?
Thinking about all of this nature Vs nurture stuff makes my head spin and I've come to realize that it's nearly impossible for me to come up with a definite answer.
I'm sick because the TV says so
What can I share from my own experiences that ties into our first couple weeks of class... I sleep a lot, I eat and drink too much, I watch a lot of TV, and I'm waiting until a half hour before this post is due to write it... If only the first two weeks had been about laziness and procrastination!
I think some of the best examples for theories, ideas, agendas, etc. can be found in places we wouldn't normally look. For example, the TV series South Park, as crude and childish as it is, still manages to make some excellent observations on society from time to time. In a season 9 episode "Bloody Mary," one of the characters, Randy Marsh, is diagnosed with alcoholism after being arrested for drunk driving. While the diagnosis of alcoholism is a helpful nudge towards recovery for many, the "disease" of alcoholism is an enabler for Randy. Since he is now powerless against his illness, he begins drinking even more and relegates himself to a wheelchair. While the episode is still very much "South Park" with its toilet humor, the observations on disease labeling and public perception are interesting. While identifying diseases such as apotemnophilia or alcoholism may be beneficial for some (Ryan had a good post earlier about his own addiction problems and how a program helped him), I think it can give some people an excuse for how they act, which just facilitates more drinking (in the case of alcoholism) or a more determined attempt at limb removal (in the case of apotemnophilia). He also uses his disease to garner favors from others, which shows how a person may be treated differently after the discovery of a disease such as an addiction, even if their appearance and personality hasn't changed from before the diagnosis.
What am I trying to get at here? I don't think I know. Pinker would say the labeling is just going to expose more people to something they don't actually have, creating cases where there is no such case, and Lewontin would write 35 pages on why alcoholism isn't genetic and shouldn't be used to determine a person's role in society. In the end, if you are reading this and hoping to make the 12:00 deadline, you're probably screwed, but good luck anyways!
I think some of the best examples for theories, ideas, agendas, etc. can be found in places we wouldn't normally look. For example, the TV series South Park, as crude and childish as it is, still manages to make some excellent observations on society from time to time. In a season 9 episode "Bloody Mary," one of the characters, Randy Marsh, is diagnosed with alcoholism after being arrested for drunk driving. While the diagnosis of alcoholism is a helpful nudge towards recovery for many, the "disease" of alcoholism is an enabler for Randy. Since he is now powerless against his illness, he begins drinking even more and relegates himself to a wheelchair. While the episode is still very much "South Park" with its toilet humor, the observations on disease labeling and public perception are interesting. While identifying diseases such as apotemnophilia or alcoholism may be beneficial for some (Ryan had a good post earlier about his own addiction problems and how a program helped him), I think it can give some people an excuse for how they act, which just facilitates more drinking (in the case of alcoholism) or a more determined attempt at limb removal (in the case of apotemnophilia). He also uses his disease to garner favors from others, which shows how a person may be treated differently after the discovery of a disease such as an addiction, even if their appearance and personality hasn't changed from before the diagnosis.
What am I trying to get at here? I don't think I know. Pinker would say the labeling is just going to expose more people to something they don't actually have, creating cases where there is no such case, and Lewontin would write 35 pages on why alcoholism isn't genetic and shouldn't be used to determine a person's role in society. In the end, if you are reading this and hoping to make the 12:00 deadline, you're probably screwed, but good luck anyways!
Small town, big lesson
Blog 1- Lauren Daggett
Growing up in a small town of 1284 or 1377 people (depending on which way you drive into town), I think it is safe to say I was not exposed to much culture. My life was boxed in boundary work of religion, politics, and culture. Either you were Lutheran or Catholic, Democratic or Republican, and White, or not White. High school made those boundaries even smaller. Your last name, brand of clothing, and way of transportation all defined the person you were, which led to the fear of imperfection (Pinker describes as irrational). Constantly worrying about how others viewed me, and living with mindset of seeking perfection was a heavy load to carry. These tight boundaries gave me the need to jump the fence and move to the “big city”, with the idea that life would take a 180. To my surprise, that was not the case, and to my surprise I am happy with that. My small town, along with my upbringing, created the person I am today, and no matter my surroundings, my personality is the same, which is perfect for me. My setting was not what needed to be changed, but rather my mindset.
Growing up in a small town of 1284 or 1377 people (depending on which way you drive into town), I think it is safe to say I was not exposed to much culture. My life was boxed in boundary work of religion, politics, and culture. Either you were Lutheran or Catholic, Democratic or Republican, and White, or not White. High school made those boundaries even smaller. Your last name, brand of clothing, and way of transportation all defined the person you were, which led to the fear of imperfection (Pinker describes as irrational). Constantly worrying about how others viewed me, and living with mindset of seeking perfection was a heavy load to carry. These tight boundaries gave me the need to jump the fence and move to the “big city”, with the idea that life would take a 180. To my surprise, that was not the case, and to my surprise I am happy with that. My small town, along with my upbringing, created the person I am today, and no matter my surroundings, my personality is the same, which is perfect for me. My setting was not what needed to be changed, but rather my mindset.
I play the harp, yo.
So it all seems to come down to the Pinker side out there and the Lewontin followers. While I may have oversimplified that to some extent, I am rather pressed for time…it seems that every prof I have this semester is shoveling out the 11:59 Sunday night deadlines. Oh well.
My mother did the same things in college. She wrote papers at the absolute last second that was humanly possible. My father, however, did not. He was a planner. Who am I supposed to be? It seems that Pinker would want me to believe that I should be like one of my parents…probably like the one who had the dominant trait, right? (I know absolutely nothing about genetics past the little squares that I drew to find out why I had green eyes in high school biology. I am sure that someone will explain it to me) Lewontin, on the other hand, would want to explain to me that the reason I am writing this at 10 rather than 11 is because I’ve found some sort of happy medium between my parents.
I really don’t know what to believe in this situation. Almost everyone in my family is somehow tied up in some heavy-duty science. My grandparents were both physicists that worked on the Manhattan Project and both my parents were both trained scientists. My bother also followed suit and works for NASA (go Pinker team, yes?).
BUT WAIT.
I play the harp. I am a musician. Tell me how that fits into all of this! This whole class was attractive to me because I got to do the two things that were so much at war in my life until now. I guess even now. I wanted to be an astronomer but I also wanted to play the harp. The one place with a halfway decent harp teacher AND a good physics/astronomy department was here. However, once I got here they decided that music trumps all and science needs to be placed on the back burner. It wasn’t as if I hadn’t heard that one before.
So. Lewontin seems to have a point. I took this class. I seemed to have found the happy medium. The environment that I was in when it came time for me to decide what to do with my life was void of my family’s direct influence. I was living in the middle of Long Island by myself. I decided that I was going to play the harp.
So. That is what my life story boils down to. I play harp, man. I play jazz harp. I am most definitely not the physicist that my relatives were and that my brother is. I went differently and chose things from both disciplines; I am just not sure why I did. I play jazz, but here I play classical music. I wanted astronomy; instead, I chose philosophy of science? Hmm. I guess there may be some sort of Lewontin force at work here. The environment I grew up in until I was 10 seems to have set some heavy influence on my life. I just feel like I didn’t get a say in any of it. Maybe that’s some Pinker?
If it wasn’t clear before, I am a tad bit conflicted. I think I find some truth in both sides of this. Or maybe I am full of shit; I guess you guys can decide.
Cut Cleave Divide
In 2005 I found myself in a rut. I was starting my junior year at the Carlson School of Management with no idea why I was there or what I wanted to do with a business degree. All through my earlier life things had come easy. School, friends, happiness and fulfillment had all somehow balanced themselves on their own in my life. College shook them all out of place.
I was struggling and about to fail all my classes that fall. I had missed more classes than I attended. I knew I was depressed, but also believed it was self-induced resulting from too much booze, pot, and a horrible run of cards that cost me friends and money. Not knowing the stem of this self implosion worried my parents. They recommended I go see a doctor.
I told the doctor the results of this depression and left out some of the contributing factors. He saw the disruption in my life performance and immediately prescribed me an antidepressant and recommended I see a psychiatrist. He was quick to classify me like so many others who have been diagnosed. I never took the drugs. Instead I began to research a little bit about depression and its recent ascent to one of America’s biggest health problems. The psychiatrist, who I visited once, further classified me a low-utilyzer. I still don’t know what that means.
I couldn’t help but think back to those times when reading pieces of the works for this class and in some of our discussions about boundary work. I read years ago that depression cases now are ten times more frequent than in 1945. Is the world really that much harder on us now than it was on previous generations? I doubt it. Carl Elliot states “By regarding a phenomenon as a psychiatric diagnosis—treating it, reifying it in psychiatric diagnostic manuals, developing instruments to measure it, inventing scales to rate its severity, establishing ways to reimburse the costs of its treatment, encouraging pharmaceutical companies to search for effective drugs, directing patients to support groups, writing about possible causes in journals—psychiatrists may be unwittingly colluding with broader cultural forces to contribute to the spread of a mental disorder.” I agree with Elliot. I didn’t need to be classified that day at the doctor’s, I just needed a kick in the ass.
I could continue for another 500 words or so about Pinker and how he is sure this phenomenon is biologically driven and genetic. I could continue about how different social groups or settings where an individual’s problems become community problems (such as the Amish) report little to no major depression. Maybe they have better genes. Maybe they have better social practices. I don’t claim to have the answers and definitely don’t intend to suggest medication has not helped many people. I know I eventually got through that rut without medicating myself and am happy I never chose to take the pills my doctor was so quick to prescribe.
I was struggling and about to fail all my classes that fall. I had missed more classes than I attended. I knew I was depressed, but also believed it was self-induced resulting from too much booze, pot, and a horrible run of cards that cost me friends and money. Not knowing the stem of this self implosion worried my parents. They recommended I go see a doctor.
I told the doctor the results of this depression and left out some of the contributing factors. He saw the disruption in my life performance and immediately prescribed me an antidepressant and recommended I see a psychiatrist. He was quick to classify me like so many others who have been diagnosed. I never took the drugs. Instead I began to research a little bit about depression and its recent ascent to one of America’s biggest health problems. The psychiatrist, who I visited once, further classified me a low-utilyzer. I still don’t know what that means.
I couldn’t help but think back to those times when reading pieces of the works for this class and in some of our discussions about boundary work. I read years ago that depression cases now are ten times more frequent than in 1945. Is the world really that much harder on us now than it was on previous generations? I doubt it. Carl Elliot states “By regarding a phenomenon as a psychiatric diagnosis—treating it, reifying it in psychiatric diagnostic manuals, developing instruments to measure it, inventing scales to rate its severity, establishing ways to reimburse the costs of its treatment, encouraging pharmaceutical companies to search for effective drugs, directing patients to support groups, writing about possible causes in journals—psychiatrists may be unwittingly colluding with broader cultural forces to contribute to the spread of a mental disorder.” I agree with Elliot. I didn’t need to be classified that day at the doctor’s, I just needed a kick in the ass.
I could continue for another 500 words or so about Pinker and how he is sure this phenomenon is biologically driven and genetic. I could continue about how different social groups or settings where an individual’s problems become community problems (such as the Amish) report little to no major depression. Maybe they have better genes. Maybe they have better social practices. I don’t claim to have the answers and definitely don’t intend to suggest medication has not helped many people. I know I eventually got through that rut without medicating myself and am happy I never chose to take the pills my doctor was so quick to prescribe.
Can't We All Just Get Along?
When I was looking through the spring 2010 classes being offered here at the university I had one thing in mind; get that last lib ed out of the way. My boyfriend then suggested that I take a class with him, but that it must be a 3000 level or higher course. So I narrowed my search, and when I found this class I was immediately interested in what material might be covered.
As an aerospace engineering major I base many of my interpretations of the world around me on logic and reasoning. However, I truly enjoy debating issues of a more philosophical nature. Even before this class started my boyfriend and I were talking about the apotemnophilia article by Carl Elliot, and I was eager to share the information with my mother, roommates, etc. Before we even began debating nature versus nurture discussion immediately turned to the issue.
I, though claiming to be very scientifically minded, find myself unable to commit to one side or the other. My instincts tell me that science will always prevail, provide concrete answers to the many forms the big question "Why?" takes. And yet, with matters of psychology, I think that the idea that the environment someone lives in or grows up in can have an incredible influence on his or her character. While reading Pinker and Lewontin I found myself avidly agreeing with what both were saying, despite the differing viewpoints on human nature. Both arguments make sense to me.
Before meeting my boyfriend I would have told you that science can explain everything, I would have told you that psychology is silly and the only way to explain why people have any type of disorder could be explained by a neuroscientist. But when you date a psychology major, your eyes open up to many other possibilities.
In my own little way I have a problem that I could logically explain using either argument. I hate fish. Can't eat a single bite of any type of seafood. According to the nature argument expressed in Pinker's article, I might have some wiring in my brain that makes the smell of any seafood seem incredibly unappealling. And yet Lewontin's nurture argument could also explain the situation. At the age of three I watched my dad skin and prepare a live fish. The experience could have left me unable to eat something after seeing how it became my food. I see the logic in both arguments, so my logically approach to life seems to fall a bit short, unable to offer the one true solution.
So now I find myself torn between the two possibilities explaining human nature. I hope that the discussions in this class will help me find a more concrete argument to stand on, but until that point I will maintain that a healthy balance must be found between nature and nurture to fully explain this incredible thing called the human condition.
As an aerospace engineering major I base many of my interpretations of the world around me on logic and reasoning. However, I truly enjoy debating issues of a more philosophical nature. Even before this class started my boyfriend and I were talking about the apotemnophilia article by Carl Elliot, and I was eager to share the information with my mother, roommates, etc. Before we even began debating nature versus nurture discussion immediately turned to the issue.
I, though claiming to be very scientifically minded, find myself unable to commit to one side or the other. My instincts tell me that science will always prevail, provide concrete answers to the many forms the big question "Why?" takes. And yet, with matters of psychology, I think that the idea that the environment someone lives in or grows up in can have an incredible influence on his or her character. While reading Pinker and Lewontin I found myself avidly agreeing with what both were saying, despite the differing viewpoints on human nature. Both arguments make sense to me.
Before meeting my boyfriend I would have told you that science can explain everything, I would have told you that psychology is silly and the only way to explain why people have any type of disorder could be explained by a neuroscientist. But when you date a psychology major, your eyes open up to many other possibilities.
In my own little way I have a problem that I could logically explain using either argument. I hate fish. Can't eat a single bite of any type of seafood. According to the nature argument expressed in Pinker's article, I might have some wiring in my brain that makes the smell of any seafood seem incredibly unappealling. And yet Lewontin's nurture argument could also explain the situation. At the age of three I watched my dad skin and prepare a live fish. The experience could have left me unable to eat something after seeing how it became my food. I see the logic in both arguments, so my logically approach to life seems to fall a bit short, unable to offer the one true solution.
So now I find myself torn between the two possibilities explaining human nature. I hope that the discussions in this class will help me find a more concrete argument to stand on, but until that point I will maintain that a healthy balance must be found between nature and nurture to fully explain this incredible thing called the human condition.
Genetic and Environmental Influences
I was raised by a mother who is a public health nurse, and a father who is a guidance counselor. I feel that each would take a very different stand on the nature vs. nurture debate. My mom works in healthcare giving shots, and making baby visits. My dad helps high school kids with everything from getting into college to family problems at home.
If you were to ask my mom if she felt there was a specific gene for any given 'condition' I am sure she would say definitely say yes. My mom loooves to diagnose everything and anything. If I called and complained about a stomach ache it would mean I probably had an ulcer, if I mentioned I was very tired it meant I was anemic, and a cold was of course the swine flu (one of her most recent favorite diagnosis). She obviously feels the need to name whatever symptoms that I, and any other individual has. She loves being able to point to something and know what it is. As we talked about in class, categories comfort people and this is definitely the case for her. If she can point to a specific name, or biological cause she is completely satisfied.
My dad on the other hand, looks more at the nurture aspect of things. He sees broken homes and how it affects the children in that family. I always here him say "He/she never had a chance growing up in such a destructive environment". He's the person who calls social services and sees how an environment can really affect an individual.
Therefore, I do not totally agree with Pinker in saying everything is genetic, and I also do not necessarily believe that someone's experiences play totally independently of their genetics. But, like my mom I also feel comfortable knowing that there is a specific cause to a condition even if that cause is a mix of environmental and genetic influences.
Conflicting Interests
I have always taken science very seriously. As a child I much preferred museums, zoos, and video games to sports or "socializing." My family was loosely Christian so it was very easy for me to discard religion at a young age. While I drifted a bit deciding what to call myself, I eventually settled upon the title of atheist (and given our reaction to the Brang article, that name probably brought some comfort to me). While I insist that I have no religion, my girlfriend reminds me that atheism is my religion. She may have a point; I'm unsure if I've discarded spiritualism and filled the void with science (my reason for being an atheist), or if I am partaking in science spiritually. While I have her to thank for making me realize spiritualism has validity in many peoples' lives and is something I am going to have to deal with on occasion, I am still fascinated and frustrated by the fact that many people appear to ignore scientific findings, or suspend their belief in science while partaking in religion. (Stephen Jay Gould calls it non-overlapping magisteria, I call it 1984's "doublethink"). While I still see this as an issue today, I can recall a time when I seemed to be having this problem with myself.
In my senior year of high school I began taking my first psychology classes. One class I took particular issue with was a class on social psychology: the way groups and people make individuals behave (looking back this is very similar to our discussion of sociobiology, minus the genetics). While many of the things we were taught seemed like common sense, many things seemed odd to me. Many of the studies conducted on topics like anger and aggression, for example, seemed like they had biased findings meant to support some agenda. Some things I disagreed with because I didn't think they matched the way I thought and felt. It took me awhile, but I think I can finally understand what I learned by relating it to Lewontin's writing on sociobiology. I first had to realize that social psychology/ sociobiology will make generalizations, but they had to be interpreted as data would be for any natural population. A bell curve would be appropriate (if we knew how to adjust for emotions and behavior on a numbered scale), and so deviation from the average findings should be expected. Because of the way emotions function, it is difficult for us to truly test them in a scientific environment. We can see that chemicals activate when a person is angry, or a gene is present in unstable individuals, and until we can better decide how to interpret emotion these are the things we will test. Of course, as Lewontin points out, there will be bad science, biased and funded by a cause that is looking for someone to find results that have already been determined, but this is no reason to distrust science. It merely requires critical analysis; always check new studies to see if they are elaborate enough, are replicable, if they actually test what they say they do, and if they make conclusions that are reasonable based on the data collected. Never trust findings that hide their data, as far as I'm concerned, and when shown evidence that supports a claim, don't ignore it.
For these reasons, I have drawn a conclusion that is closer to Pinker's than Lewontin's. I dislike the "bad science" that we frequently see funded, but I think the concept that behaviour is influenced by both biology and "culture" is undeniable. I think Lewontin's handling of the situation ignores scientific evidence in favor of a noble answer; noble, yet incorrect.
In my senior year of high school I began taking my first psychology classes. One class I took particular issue with was a class on social psychology: the way groups and people make individuals behave (looking back this is very similar to our discussion of sociobiology, minus the genetics). While many of the things we were taught seemed like common sense, many things seemed odd to me. Many of the studies conducted on topics like anger and aggression, for example, seemed like they had biased findings meant to support some agenda. Some things I disagreed with because I didn't think they matched the way I thought and felt. It took me awhile, but I think I can finally understand what I learned by relating it to Lewontin's writing on sociobiology. I first had to realize that social psychology/ sociobiology will make generalizations, but they had to be interpreted as data would be for any natural population. A bell curve would be appropriate (if we knew how to adjust for emotions and behavior on a numbered scale), and so deviation from the average findings should be expected. Because of the way emotions function, it is difficult for us to truly test them in a scientific environment. We can see that chemicals activate when a person is angry, or a gene is present in unstable individuals, and until we can better decide how to interpret emotion these are the things we will test. Of course, as Lewontin points out, there will be bad science, biased and funded by a cause that is looking for someone to find results that have already been determined, but this is no reason to distrust science. It merely requires critical analysis; always check new studies to see if they are elaborate enough, are replicable, if they actually test what they say they do, and if they make conclusions that are reasonable based on the data collected. Never trust findings that hide their data, as far as I'm concerned, and when shown evidence that supports a claim, don't ignore it.
For these reasons, I have drawn a conclusion that is closer to Pinker's than Lewontin's. I dislike the "bad science" that we frequently see funded, but I think the concept that behaviour is influenced by both biology and "culture" is undeniable. I think Lewontin's handling of the situation ignores scientific evidence in favor of a noble answer; noble, yet incorrect.
Am I simply my father's son?
There's a picture from 1963 of my father, dressed in bell-bottomed blue jeans, a white t-shirt and the white hats that sailor's wear; he's sporting his typical crooked grin that people immediately recognize as Harley's - that's right my dad's name is Harley, hilarious. My sister found it 40 years later when I was home on military leave and asked me why I was wearing old-fashioned glasses in the photo; you see, my father and I look like twins who were victims of some weird temporal hic-cup, each coming to life 35 years apart.
Dad is a handy guy to have around when you something - nearly anything really - this guy can fabricate it from stuff laying around the garage... he made an aquarium once just by "eye-balling" one in an aquatic store. He always focuses on the details of projects, meticulously making sure everything is just right. The guy has enormous patience, too; insert some lame joke about the strengths of a man being developed from the faults of his wife - I wouldn't have been able to stand my mom but I'm glad the two of them "got it on. He’s not a very educated man, aside from technical college for auto body repair but he still has a curious mind and we occasionally have interesting conversations.
When I was six or seven years old I was given two electrical toy cars that within two months had been taken apart and then combined into a single toy that looked like one of it’s progenitors but had the functionality of both. I’ve always had a knack for figuring out how things work. I’ve also inherited my father’s patience. Since moving back home to Minnesota, my girlfriend has commented on several occasions of how much my mannerisms remind her of my father; the way I ask questions, how I talk to our cats, how I mumble/grumble while not expecting any response from others.
So, I look like my dad, sound like him, act like him, and have similar talents. The biggest difference between the two of us is that he just got diagnosed with leukemia a few months ago, which according to the doc he’s had retrospective indicators of for the last ten years. So how much of my talents, abilities, and future has been dictated by our genetic link. I have my notions based on my own personal beliefs and the little knowledge I’ve acquired over my life but now I find myself questioning the validity of these presumptions – both sides of the man vs. machine debate are tainted with accusations of lies, deception, and manipulation driven by the darker traits of what it means to be human so how can I trust either side of the argument?
Dad is a handy guy to have around when you something - nearly anything really - this guy can fabricate it from stuff laying around the garage... he made an aquarium once just by "eye-balling" one in an aquatic store. He always focuses on the details of projects, meticulously making sure everything is just right. The guy has enormous patience, too; insert some lame joke about the strengths of a man being developed from the faults of his wife - I wouldn't have been able to stand my mom but I'm glad the two of them "got it on. He’s not a very educated man, aside from technical college for auto body repair but he still has a curious mind and we occasionally have interesting conversations.
When I was six or seven years old I was given two electrical toy cars that within two months had been taken apart and then combined into a single toy that looked like one of it’s progenitors but had the functionality of both. I’ve always had a knack for figuring out how things work. I’ve also inherited my father’s patience. Since moving back home to Minnesota, my girlfriend has commented on several occasions of how much my mannerisms remind her of my father; the way I ask questions, how I talk to our cats, how I mumble/grumble while not expecting any response from others.
So, I look like my dad, sound like him, act like him, and have similar talents. The biggest difference between the two of us is that he just got diagnosed with leukemia a few months ago, which according to the doc he’s had retrospective indicators of for the last ten years. So how much of my talents, abilities, and future has been dictated by our genetic link. I have my notions based on my own personal beliefs and the little knowledge I’ve acquired over my life but now I find myself questioning the validity of these presumptions – both sides of the man vs. machine debate are tainted with accusations of lies, deception, and manipulation driven by the darker traits of what it means to be human so how can I trust either side of the argument?
Drug Addiction and Spirituality
Growing up in New Jersey I was always a well-liked kid. I did well in school, played sports, and was even in my school’s band and choir. My parents were so proud of their little prepubescent teen. The sky seemed the limit for me, and my teachers, friends and family seemed to agree. Life changed for me when I was fifteen. A friend of mine suggested that him and I try some of my Grandmother’s medication—Tylenol 3 (Tylenol 3 is an opiate consisting of acetaminophen and codeine). You often times hear drug addicts describe their first experience with their drug of choice as “the answer they’ve been looking for”, or compare it to “falling in love”. The same was true for me; it was an experience I’ll never forget. Fast-forward three years later, I was battling with a full-blown Oxycontin addiction.
I was very good at hiding my problem. I used to be ambitious, funny, outgoing, and halfway good looking (may be not). But now my parents were struggling with what had happened to their little boy. I was no longer any of those things. My personality had completely changed. The thought of having to talk to anyone seemed unbearable. I just wanted to be left alone with my drugs. My mom thought that I was suffering from depression, but couldn’t explain why she was constantly missing money, or why I didn’t “look like myself.” I’ll save the details, but lets just say it got so bad that I broke down and sought help.
Two days after I broke down and told my parents everything that had been going on with me, I found myself in my first treatment center. Upon entering the facility I was subjected to an intake process: one in which I was asked a series of question to help with the diagnosis process. It turns out I qualified! I was formally diagnosed with drug addition, and that was a good thing because now my parents’ health insurance would cover my treatment. I learned a lot about the ‘disease’ concept. I’ve come to think of it as a physical allergy to any mood or mind-altering substance: once I take it into my body, I have an abnormal reaction to the drug—all I want is more, and I’ll go to any lengths to get it. In addition to the disease concept, I was taught a spiritually based twelve-step program. Spirituality was foreign word to me. I grew up a Roman Catholic, and I associated spirituality to sitting and standing in church, and I didn’t really like the idea of spiritual aerobics. The bottom line is this: when I came home from treatment my ‘disease’ had been “legitimated” as Lewontin would put it. I viewed myself differently, my friends—the few I had left—viewed my differently, and my parents had no idea what to do with me. Suddenly everything made sense, I was a drug addict, and therefore, a thief, and liar, and a con artist. Furthermore, my friends’ and family’s suspicion of me as a ‘different’ kind of person was not only legitimated or accepted into reality, it was also just. I was experiencing, as Lewontin would call it, “the legitimation of inequality.”
My mom told me that I had inherited my addiction from her father who died of alcoholism. I can’t be sure, but if Pinker is right, and there is an alcoholic/drug addict gene I guess I can thank my mom’s father for my ‘disease’. I’ve got a bone to pick with Pinker, but we’ll get to that later.
So as I said, I wasn’t very excited about the idea of spiritual aerobics. I didn’t listen to any of the suggestions of my counselors; I just thought that I would stop using drugs and continue to live my life the way I saw fit. Turns out that didn’t work out so well. I relapsed. Life got bad again, and all of my character defects were very much alive and bursting at the seams. I didn’t want to follow the twelve-step program. I saw it as an inconvenience: one that interfered with my life-style. So as an alternative I sought more medication—suboxone. Suboxone is an opiate blocker. All that means is that when I take suboxone it prevents a drug like oxycontin from working. I don’t feel the high. This drug is used to help drug addicts get off opiates. I the prescription filled and it worked for a while, but before I knew it I was selling my suboxone to other drug users (suboxone itself produces a high as well, it is just not as intense as other opiates such as oxycotin or heroin) and used that money to buy more oxycontin.
So I found myself where I left off, miserable, broken, and on a constant quest for more drugs. I opted to go to treatment again. This time however, I entered treatment much more open to suggestion, as I believed that I had my ass sufficiently kicked. After treatment my counselors said I needed more care, and moved me to another treatment facility in Minnesota. It was here that I finally integrated the spiritually focused twelve-step program into my life. I learned a lot. I discovered that spirituality is not necessarily associated aerobics, and perhaps even more astonishingly, that I was not the center of the universe. I developed a concept of a higher power, and incorporated prayer and meditation into my life. I moved into a sober house where I lived for six months, and after my discharge, decided to live permanently in Minnesota. It’s coming up on three now, and I’m still sober.
Returning to Pinker, he refutes the idea of the “ghost in the machine”. He cites Francis Crik’s “astonishing hypothesis” as evidence. Pinker states, “all of our thoughts, feelings, yearnings, and emotions consist of physiological activity in the tissue of the brain” (The Blank Slate, 4). His claim suggests that there is no soul, that our genes effectively govern the nature of our being, and that to think otherwise makes you an ignorant biblical fundamentalist. I’m not so sure. I cannot prove that there is such a thing as a ‘soul’ or that the mind is separate from the body. All I can do is speak from experience. I only know that I began to pray to a God I didn’t understand, and got results I couldn’t deny.
What is alarming to me is the thought of a worldview in line with Pinker’s ideals. Under this context it would be fair to assume that medical institutions would not recommended any sort of spiritual solution for drug addiction. Why would they? A form of a higher power is necessary for the existence of spirituality, and Pinker explicitly refutes the idea of God: “Many people are sort to ‘lose’ God when they hear of these findings…” (5). If I were brought up in such a world, perhaps I would still be suffering from my addiction, and perhaps I would have accepted that there is no hope for me; that, I am destined or programmed to be this way.
Everything I have done up until I found my solution in a spiritually based twelve-step program failed miserably. I cannot explain why, but I know I’m not unique. There are millions of other people like me that have had a similar experience (we’re not all biblical fundamentalist). Again, I cannot prove that Pinker is wrong; I cannot prove there is a God, or that there is a soul. But attacking my disease with a spiritual approach gave me my life back. I don’t know how it works, neither does science, but praying to a higher power helped me to get and stay sober when other methods have failed.
Racial IDs?
So looking back at my race relations class last semester, one question always seemed to resurface in my mind as we'd discuss the benefits, or setbacks, awarded by simply being of a certain race or being portrayed as a part of that race, why did this happen. While its is wholly obvious... for one "race's" benefit (the quotations are there because of the topics depth, I'll get to it later), often at the expense of another, most of the time the class targeted how people used science to "prove" someone was of a certain race. Showing the contradictions, Indians (Asian Indians, not Native Americans) for example were classified as Asiatic until one man made a case that they were good outstanding citizens, at which point they became reclassified as "white," and therefore granted full citizenship rights in America. This was later overturned, by "science" of course, in which the supreme court argued that "whiteness" was determined by the common man, or the mob as it were, and as these people had actually enjoyed nothing out of the ruling except minimal land ownership and were still treated as Asiatics were treated, their citizenship status as white was revoked (I think roughly 30 years later).
So back the the "race" quote. History buffs know that the idea of "whiteness" was nowhere to be found in early America, until the wealthy upper-class realized that they were severely outnumber by the ready to revolt under-class. So the term white was created as a divide and conqure tactic to pit the lower classes against each other, and 200 years later, New Orleans is declared a "chocolate city"... blah blah blah you know the history.
I just really thought this was of note because when this issue was at its prime, there were no layers of real separation between politics and science (of course the people would say otherwise) but it really brings into question why these two topics were separated in the first place... and brings into question why anyone is falling for it.
So back the the "race" quote. History buffs know that the idea of "whiteness" was nowhere to be found in early America, until the wealthy upper-class realized that they were severely outnumber by the ready to revolt under-class. So the term white was created as a divide and conqure tactic to pit the lower classes against each other, and 200 years later, New Orleans is declared a "chocolate city"... blah blah blah you know the history.
I just really thought this was of note because when this issue was at its prime, there were no layers of real separation between politics and science (of course the people would say otherwise) but it really brings into question why these two topics were separated in the first place... and brings into question why anyone is falling for it.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Understanding Myself
After reading the course material and now that I am prompted with the question of nature vs. nurture, I think back to when I was growing up and how EVERYONE always said, “Wow Paul, you look a lot like your mom.” To this my usual answer would be, “Yeah, well duh” But after reading Steven Pinker’s article I am prompted with the question, “Are Mom’s heritable physical characteristics accompanied by heritable behavioral trains?” It would also by useful to note here that everyone always said that my sister looked a lot like my dad.
Obviously I understand that the bone structure of my face cannot come with a determined work ethic, or my straight, thin hair is not what causes me to stress over minute instances or worries that to other people would be disregarded. But these are characteristics that both my mom and I possess that are independent from my dad and my sister. So here we are, paired to our distinguished parent for life. Pinker would argue that the behavioral traits are partially heritable, and there is no such thing as “The Blank Slate.” My traits, however, could be due to my lifetime experiences and upbringing, which is argued by Lewontin.
The way that I make sense of myself, then, is to compare my upbringing with my genetics. As for my upbringing, my parents were never the type to force me to do anything. In school, they left it up to me to study and let me sort of govern myself. The environment was completely pressure free. They would love me whether I got an A or a C, as long as I did my best. I believe that my sister was raised in a relatively similar environment, although she is 3 years older than me. So I can conclude that we have grown up in similar environments
As for the genetics, I similar to my mom and my sister to my dad, I would say is basis to conclude that traits are partially heritable. Recently I learned that in high school, my dad was smart but did not try hard and my mom tried hard but was not that smart. My parents always told me that I got the “best of both words,” but upon further review I think that it would be more correct to say that I got the “best proportions of both worlds.” I, being more like my mom, am more prone to do my best and try my hardest than to just rely on shear intelligence. This leads me to think that Pinker may have been on to something when he claimed that behavioral traits are partially heritable. I received my traits similar to my mom than I did my dad, and in turn act more like her. My sister is the same way like my dad, as she is more prone to rely on intelligence than hard work.
I agree with Pinker and that we are not Blank Slates and our tendencies can be heritable. Genetics are certainly not the only determining factor, but I have shown that genes can play a substantial role in determining how you act and who you are.
Obviously I understand that the bone structure of my face cannot come with a determined work ethic, or my straight, thin hair is not what causes me to stress over minute instances or worries that to other people would be disregarded. But these are characteristics that both my mom and I possess that are independent from my dad and my sister. So here we are, paired to our distinguished parent for life. Pinker would argue that the behavioral traits are partially heritable, and there is no such thing as “The Blank Slate.” My traits, however, could be due to my lifetime experiences and upbringing, which is argued by Lewontin.
The way that I make sense of myself, then, is to compare my upbringing with my genetics. As for my upbringing, my parents were never the type to force me to do anything. In school, they left it up to me to study and let me sort of govern myself. The environment was completely pressure free. They would love me whether I got an A or a C, as long as I did my best. I believe that my sister was raised in a relatively similar environment, although she is 3 years older than me. So I can conclude that we have grown up in similar environments
As for the genetics, I similar to my mom and my sister to my dad, I would say is basis to conclude that traits are partially heritable. Recently I learned that in high school, my dad was smart but did not try hard and my mom tried hard but was not that smart. My parents always told me that I got the “best of both words,” but upon further review I think that it would be more correct to say that I got the “best proportions of both worlds.” I, being more like my mom, am more prone to do my best and try my hardest than to just rely on shear intelligence. This leads me to think that Pinker may have been on to something when he claimed that behavioral traits are partially heritable. I received my traits similar to my mom than I did my dad, and in turn act more like her. My sister is the same way like my dad, as she is more prone to rely on intelligence than hard work.
I agree with Pinker and that we are not Blank Slates and our tendencies can be heritable. Genetics are certainly not the only determining factor, but I have shown that genes can play a substantial role in determining how you act and who you are.
Friday, January 29, 2010
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.
• 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')
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')
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to "Science and the Humanities -- Working Group Three"! 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)