Perception: Influences of Science v. Culture

I've always thought my life has lacked any readily apparent illuminations of science. However, the first two weeks of this course have (already) made me realize that even my perception of my personal history is an example of the convergence of cultural and scientific thought.

One example is how  I perceive the differences between myself and my twin brother. We are fraternal, or dizygotic, twins. Now, I realize that this means that we are not genetically identical. This is very apparent upon looking or talking to us; however for the longest time - as a child - I firmly believed this was due to nurture and not nature. Although this revelation that genetics was responsible for our dissimilarities is not hard to ascertain, this example of science illuminated something that had an impact on my life. Instead of blaming unequal attention or differences in our weight at birth (granted, silly things), I was able to pinpoint why we were different to a concrete fact. Consequently, I was then able to deal with our differences in mental health and academics more maturely later on in life.

Another is  my struggle with depression. I'm usually happy, content individual, even despite typical  family drama like divorce and separation. However, during my first years of high school, I was diagnosed with clinical depression amongst other things. I had never been ignorant of how depression works, but it still seemed strange to me that I felt to miserable, and so abruptly. Why was there a chemical imbalance at that point in time? What changed to bring it about? Even more troubling was the reactions of family and friends. The perception of how depression works is markedly different across the board. Some blame the inability to 'suck it up' or faulty parenting. Lewontin's s article reminded me of these different reactions I received, given his argument that genetic problems are misconstrued  by social discourse and composition.

Given my two examples of illumination via science, I am very interested in delving into how culture has perpetuated myths and speculation about medical differences and disorders.

Where does Happiness come from?

While reading Pinker's article I found the section where he talked about the different types of twins and their similarities and differences to be interesting. It is amazing to find two people that share common genes yet have never met before to be so much a like. Sparking my interest I began to stumble through the internet and found an article discussing a possible "happiness" gene.

Although the article talked about how the genes inherited to us by our parents help to influence our personality traits it is possible to defy the happy genes given to us to train ourselves to be happier, if we weren't fortunate enough to get those genes from our parents. Learning that it was possible to practice pushing the limits of our genes I reflected on my past to see this could come to a reality for myself.

In addition to making people happy, or happier, happiness can also make you smarter, and happy people tend to live longer. I believe to experience that with my family. Whenever we all get together around the holidays or vacations everyone is smiling, laughing, loud, and just plain enjoying themselves. It seems that the pursuit of happiness has blessed the elders in my family with especially long life spans. Still being fortunate to have three grandparents alive today, one at 84 two at 86 going strong, as well has having a joyful great-grandmother around until a few years ago when she was 99. While genes may not be everything, it is interesting to see how each of us turns out in correspondence with the others in our family, and to see how we can practice and alter the odds of our genes at times.

Patterns

Being human, I have always found patterns (meaningful or otherwise) in most everything. Specific to my topic here, I have tried throughout my teenage and adult life to draw parallels between my parents and myself. Height, eye color, hair texture, squareness of head, taste in music - anything is fair game to my dot-connecting.

After saying that, I'd like to add that biological determinism doesn't sit well with me, and neither does the blank slate. I could take them if they reached a compromise but not as they are in their pure forms.

To start, here's a brief autobiography:
In elementary school, I was quiet, reserved, bookwormish, with HUGE, plastic frame, Medicare-provided eyeglasses. No kids made fun of me because I never said anything stupid (never said anything at all really) and I gave them the answers to tests. I branched out a little when sixth grade came around. Music was much more a part of my life and I dressed "alternatively." All said though, I was still quiet, and you could still get all the right answers off of my test, but don't count on copying the homework because I didn't complete that...

So far in my tale, I appear to have turned out a lot like my mother - passive but witty when the circumstances were right. I even took a cue from both of my parents and started drinking when I was twelve. School is something I missed when I could. I was on the right (Pinker's) track!

Fast forward! It's eleventh grade. I got some different friends, and I don't drink, and I don't smoke pot anymore. I start drinking coffee. The summer passes, and senior year comes with a lot of surprises. Over the summer I must have caught a charisma bug because suddenly I'm an extrovert. There is ease when I speak to people I don't know well, and sometimes they even laugh at my jokes! Senior Class President, Editor-in-Chief of the school newspaper, etc., etc., the list goes on.

But classes still weren't a priority to me. I took advanced classes, but I don't think anyone took my being there very seriously. When our class took the ACT, however, I received the highest score. People were pissed, and I can't say I blame them. These peers of mine worked very hard in school and even studied for the big college tests, while I maintained a lackadaisical course through school and all of life.

Eventually, through inspirational teachers and a lot of growing up, I got to college and started to do my homework.

Am I just the result of two people's DNA combining and forming another? Yes, Pinker, that is correct - but wait, there's more! What happened to me when I started hanging out with the "Straight Edge" kids and stopped doing drugs and started getting social? There was a marked change in my behavior. If I had continued to hang out with the same people I strongly doubt (though in no way can prove) that I would have continued on as I was. And if I would have continued that way, I very well could have ended up like my mom: single, four kids, job at a bar, etc., etc. (yet still a great woman).

I also mentioned some of my academic tendencies. My attitude toward homework and going to class seems to have been inherited, or perhaps learned in one way or another very early on in life. It's hard to tell. Scholarly pursuits, though, certainly seem to belie my genetic makeup. Had it not been for the subjectivity and concern of teachers, and new friends, I probably would have followed the beaten path toward an impoverished lower class.

There are so many other examples it would be possible to write about, but I think this one shows enough. I carry many traits from both of my parents (I really do have a square head,) but social interactions have also impacted me immensely. Neither can stand alone.

My senior year of high school I participated in a year long course that studied developmental psychology paralleled with teaching strategies and ideology. With that being the context, I was allowed to take a free period and work with students that went to the same high school as myself, St. Paul Central, but had math, reading and or writing capabilities equal to that of an average seventh grade student. Objectively, the students were all minorities. Each student had been diagnosed with some specific learning disability and this was evident and publicized among the students throughout the classroom. It was unsettling to set myself into an environment such as that with such obvious differences separating me from these students, my peers: race, gender, speech patterns, shoes, friend circles, academic abilities, class schedules, and most subtle yet important obvious authority I achieved as an outsider there to give 'help'.

This experience for me was extremely beneficial in terms of my own learning to apply what I was learning in my own coursework and literally explore different learning habits of those different than myself inside of a classroom. The way students my own age could understand or not understand a concept such as basic sentence structure and the how's and why's that went along with that ability were very curious. But this got me thinking about genetics combined with environment. Whether a student I was working with could or could not identify where a period should go in two sentences might have to do with genetics. Perhaps their parents did not graduate high school and didn’t care about their schooling. Maybe their grandparents were immigrants and illiterate in English, therefore less fortunate economically as well as academically. In comparison both of my parents attended college and were able to support me in a nourishing and academically stimulating environment. However, genetics aside, we all ended up at the same place.

Yes, Steven Pinker makes a great argument for genetics. There is no doubt that those we share a similar genetic make up with we will also share similar qualities with—mannerisms all the way to inherent intelligence. However, to tie in my point above, this classroom I worked in, it was in the windowless basement of my five-story high school. These students were not given the same free periods, such as myself, to spend learning about college and future academic options. The students who have similar situational backgrounds as those I worked with, but who may live in Chicago, will have a classroom three times as large as the one I was working in with out the amount of communicational help and therefore lack of variety in ways of reaching those who learn differently. Placing someone in the basement where those who are ‘succeeding’ in school are on the top floor sends a very obvious message and create an irrevocable barrier between the two.

Whatever their genetic disposition, any person can learn to write a sentence, can learn to do algebra, can make it to medical school. But the person that cannot do these things are those who are never exposed, who are in an environment that lacks opportunity and variety in communication. A special educational, as I saw, will slowly learn to not speak with the student in IB classes and it is this environmental impact that affects the growing world today. So genetics aside, I see endless ways how environment and communication habits have a huge impact from day one and forward.

Personality: Nature vs. Nurture Argument

What makes up someone's personality? Is it genetics or is it the people you are around that effect the kind of person you are? These are questions I have always wondered. Many people would obviously say both genetic and environmental factors make up a person's personality but I often wonder which is more prominent. I would describe my personality as shy when I first meet someone but then once I am comfortable around people I am quite sociable. I like being around people but also enjoy some alone time. I love taking risks and trying new things. I like helping others and I love animals. Is this who I would have been no matter where I grew up or who my family and friends were? If I had grown up in a different household and in a different city, I wonder if my personality would have been completely different. I think that the people you are with have a lot to do with how you behave. I think if I would have had different friends growing up I would be different then how I am now. Steven Pinker would argue that it is all genetics. Who we are is determined by our genetic makeup and other people or places don't affect us greatly. On the other hand Richard Lewontin would say that it is not all about genetics and that there are other things that should be considered.
Twin studies have been a huge help in figuring out this mystery. Identical twins who have been raised in different families and in different cities often have the same personality traits. I think this is fascinating that two people who grew up apart would have so much in common that they even name their children or pets the same names. This shows that genetics definitely makes a difference in who we are. Although this shows striking evidence towards the nature side of the argument I still believe that the people you are surrounded by and the place you grow up in makes a big difference on the person you become. I think the nature vs. nurture debate is very interesting and would like to learn more about both sides of the argument in the future.

Is anorexia related to genetics?

I have always been interested in genetics my entire life. I find it fascinating that scientists and doctors are beginning to find links to a person's genetic make up and specific disorders.

About a year and a half ago, one of my best friends began to show signs of becoming anorexic. She began to distance herself majorly from the rest of the world; she would barely eat anything or just play with her food, pushing it around her plate to make it seem like she had eaten; she lost a significant amount of weight; and she could barely make it through a full day of school.

Now my friend has never been fat or overweight. She is barely five feet tall and and weighed less than a hundred pounds to begin with, and her whole life everyone has always told her how tiny she was. Most girls who are anorexic are very self conscious about their body image and what they look like. With Hollywood the way that it is today, there are so many models and actresses who are stick thin and many girls would give anything to be as skinny as these celebrities. Here in turn then comes the problem of eating disorders. My friend, however, knows that she has always been tiny and never ever thought that she was fat or needed to lose weight. So for her, her problem did not seem psychological, in the way that she felt the need to follow what society says is beautiful- being skinny.

Many scientists and doctors are beginning to see a link between eating disorders and genetics. They at first were looking for a a gene for anorexia, but then focused more in on the serotonin system and and how it played into eating. Doctors began to see that girls that were anorexic were twice as likely to have variations of the serotonin receptor gene than girls who were not anorexic. People with high levels of serotonin tend to be very anxious. My friend has always been a very anxious and stressful person as long as I've known her. She feels the need to control everything, and if something does not go right, she gets very stressed and anxious. Studies have shown that serotonin in high levels can also suppress appetite, which can then lead to eating disorders.

So, does anorexia and other eating disorders have genetic links?

Pinker would agree that eating disorders are genetic, either in the way that I explained with having a specific gene, or by running in the family. He would not believe that it had to do with the environment. Lewontin would probably say that it is the environment that is the contributing factor to eating disorders, and the big roles that culture and the media plays in people's everyday lives. I find it very interesting that there may be a genetic link to anorexia and it might not be entirely based on the environment and society.

Is there a criminal gene?

Is there a such thing as one having a predisposition for criminal behavior due to genetic makeup or is it purely environmental? For me, this notion became an intriguing subject as I partook in a sociology class last semester. We, as a class, were required to read a book that directly addressed this issue through a biographical story of a notorious criminal, Willie Bosket, Jr. I immediately took a strong interest in his story while reading this book, and it successfully shed light on both arguments. Is it nature vs nurture, that is, is criminality genetic or does it strictly depend on one's upbringing? Well I believe it's a hybrid version of both arguments: science and culture.

There have been studies done with attempts to analyze both arguments, for example, is there any truth when a mother says to her son "you're going to end up in prison just like your father."? Well in 1997, 48% of state prisoners reported that family members had been to prison, according to a Justice Department analysis for USA TODAY. But a critical question when coming to any conclusion from this analysis is: were these family members actual members of the same household, and if they weren't, would genetics justify this reasoning? There have been some studies dealing with the correlation between neurochemicals in the brain and criminality/antisocial behavior. In a nutshell, these findings revealed that there are neurochemicals in the brain like serotonin that play an important role in the personality traits of depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. "Studies point to serotonin as one of the most important central neuro-transmitters underlying the modulation of impulsive aggression" (Lowenstein, 2003). Similarly, low levels of serotonin have been found to be associated with impulsive behavior and emotional aggression.

This study presents a relevant argument for genetics, but what about one's environment? It's fathomable that genes may possess importance, but combined with environmental stress like being maltreated as a child, abused, or limited to a single parent all may very well contribute to the high risk of becoming a criminal. And could these genes simply be predispositions for being bold, courageous, and fearless? In this sense, could these genes be effective or important when considering honorable soldiers who will fight for our country?

Although these are all interesting aspects, there can't be enough possible evidence to specifically conclude that it's genetics over environment or visa versa, but regardless these types of personalities or characteristic traits must be addressed; not to the extent of controlled breeding, but through behavior modification at early signs or stages of life.

Autism - a result of genetics?

When I was about twelve years old, my two year old cousin was diagnosed with autism. As many of you probably know, autism is a disorder of neural development that causes impaired social and communication skills. These developmental deficiencies started showing up around 18 months when CJ hadn’t begun speaking as most his age had already mastered. From there, we began to see other characteristics of autism play out heavily – repetitive behavior, atypical eating, and restricted interests. In the last ten years, CJ has tried a gluten-free, casein-free diet, a plethora of supplements, occupational therapy, sensory attention, verbal behavior aid, and applied behavior analysis to name a few.

CJ has come an incredibly long way in ten years. He is now in fourth grade and the majority of his school day is mainstreamed. He is removed from the classroom for certain subjects and still has his autistic “quirks.” Lately, he is fixated on the family car. No one can touch it, sit in it, or even go in the garage and we’re not quite sure where this obsession came from. But no matter how far CJ comes, he will never reach the potential of a “normal” child.

For those familiar with the autistic world, the question still remains heavily on every parent, grandparent, teacher, and friends mind – how did this happen? There is still no determined cause of autism, yet as time goes by, it has become more common. About every 1 in 110 children is now diagnosed with this disorder. It is assumed that autism is caused by a combination of many things, one being genetics.

Tying autism into the material we have discussed so far, I think it is easy to assume that Pinker would agree that autism is a result of genetics. My question would then be why are CJ’s parents considered “healthy” individuals? Is the increase in autism diagnosis a result of giving the disorder a name? Is it possible that many of our elders, perhaps my aunt and uncle, may have some small degree of autism but were not diagnosed due to the fact that autism had not yet been given a name? I would have to completely agree that autism is a result of genetics to some degree. Most children are diagnosed within the first 6 months of their lives, which does not give a lot of room for the “nurture” component to play a role. Lewontin would argue that environmental factors during pregnancy, which are also suspected to play a role, are the cause of autism over genetics.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

While watching the State of the Union address I was reminded of President Obama's pledge for change, policy change to be more exact. The Don't ask don't tell policy has been the topic of conversation in the gay community ever since it was brought into legislation in 1994. President Obama, during his speech at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner, claims that he will put an end to the don't ask, don't tell policy. For those of you who don't know what the don't ask don't tell policy is, it's a policy that bans all openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from joining the U.S. Armed Forces. Since recent advancements in science and technology we have been able to better understand the way people think, and thus, the way people behave. Because of these reasons, and President Obama's recent vow to end the Don't ask don't tell policy, I am looking to re-evaluate what it means to be a homosexual, and give my opinion on a seemingly outdated policy.
Is being a homosexual biological or not? This is the question that causes all of the strife between politics, religion, and sometimes everyday conversation. With recent innovations in the fields of psychology and genetics, we are better equipped to answer this difficult question. From what i have read, recent research has shown some promise that homosexuality is linked to genetics.
The American Academy of Pediactrics states that, "The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation." However, for easily over 100 years the view about homosexuality is that sexual orientation is purely based on the choice of the individual. And it seems that this view will be held until science disproves it. I personally believe that being gay is genetic, and ultimately not the individuals choice. Perhaps this is why I believe that science will disprove the long held belief.
Now, the Don't ask don't tell policy was created because of the belief that having an openly gay indivdual in the military would create "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." To me, this seems that any strong difference in opinions between individuals could effect the "morale and unit cohesion" of the military. Studies on the effects of homosexual behavior on performance of tasks shows no cause for concern. The American Psychological Association states that, "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention." When serving in the military, everyone shares a common goal. Protect your country, and survive. This goal does not change based on an individuals sexual orientation. If I need someone to save my life or my country, i would not care who they were. They could be an alien for all I know. I think that the Don't ask don't tell policy is bogus, and I think that it should end.
I have only touch the surface of the debate of homosexuality in the military and whether it's biological or the individuals choice. There are many more topics of gay rights, discrimination, and science to be considered here, but I will leave that to be discussed.

Is your personality genetic?

As a genetics major, I am a firm believer that your personality and physical characteristics are based on your genes.

My favorite evidence of this genetics as the basis to your personality are those pictures of twins, each with similar posture, arm placement, and smile without being told to sit in any position. One of the first of these pictures that I have ever seen was in my genetics book. It was a picture of around 20 sets of identical twins, not told to sit in any way, but all having same posture and look. This is fascinating to me. Also, hearing about twins separated at birth found to have very similar mannerisms and habits is extraordinarily amazing. Genes must be the basis to these quirks. It would be hard to attribute the nurture aspect to these quirks because they grew up in different households.

As an example, I have a sister, who is almost the same age as me, raised in the same environment, etc. Our personalities are night and day different. To be short, I am very outgoing, love big cities, and am very independent. She, on the other hand, is more reserved, would be perfectly content in the middle of nowhere, and is much less independent . I believe this difference in an outcome of the differences in our genes. I don’t believe that there was much difference in the way we were raised and therefore it would be hard to attribute our differences to “nurture”. We do have some similarities. We obviously look very similar and we are both very dedicated to our educations. I hope to go to medical school and she is now in her first year in veterinarian school. I think these similarities are due to us sharing some of the same genes.

I believe that genetics is a framework to the person that you become. To some extent, yes, living in an abusive/neglecting/fill in the blank household, may affect you, but I think that much of who you are is based on the DNA you inherit.

Side Effects, Synapses, or Silent Savage

I grew up as an only child in a family with my two parents who were both very passive and reserved. From a young age I have always been quiet and non-emotional. There was never any arguing or impulsive behavior in my house, so until I was in about seventh grade I figured that that was how all family's acted. All kids start to gain their own strong personalities around age 13, including me.

During these early years of adolescence I had acne that was so bad I couldn't stand it. I went to the doctor and got prescribed to a drug called Accutane. The doctor warned of the side effects of the drug were very uncommon with warnings of birth defects, hair thinning, severe depression, and subsiding of emotional reaction. I didn't care what the side effects were I just wanted my acne to go away. Months later I was noticing that I was indifferent to almost all things and the decisions I made were based purely on logic. At the time I didn't think that it could be a side effect of accutane, I thought that I was just getting more mature.

Coexisting with other people, be it at school, work, or any gathering requires a lot of passivity. Personal opinions must be withheld until you know the people that you're around well enough to be open and trusting. Society puts an emphasis on peaceful interactions based on being politically correct and not acting self centered. Emotions make people act towards their own self interests, so to have more proper interactions with others it is necessary to be able to suppress emotions.

With three possible causes (or mixes of causes) to my quiet behavior it begs the question, which one is the most prominent reason. Steven Pinker would say that the reason for my reserved behavior is all in my genes. My parents act in a very humble way, so in turn I will act the same way as they do because it is just a fact of genetic determinism. He would say that if I was to act in an outward opinionated fashion I wouldn't be acting as myself. Lewontin would say that being given drugs with the preconception that they will mute my personality would influence me to act as so. Hobbes would attribute my behavior to the necessity of interaction that doesn't lead to a "solitary,poor, nasty, brutish, and short' life. The other reason that those who understand chemical effects on the brain would claim as most important would be the effect of the drugs on my brain after 9 months of use. But thinking in the way of the "blank slate" theory, I act reserved because I was raised in a house hold where I was expected to act as so.

I believe that it is a combination of all because all the theories have very convincing points, but even though some claim to be able to rule out the other ideas, it would be ludicrous to say that any of these ideas carry no merit. None of these can be changed at this point, I've already grown up, taken the drugs, continue to live in society, and still remember that Accutane comes with side effects.

I hope that in the future our class learns about theories of radical behavior change, to strengthen or weaken the ideas that we have already covered.

Science in my life

My whole life from age 8 to last semester has been about sports. All throughout my life I have played as many sports as possible. In elementary school it was football baseball basketball, in junior high it was football basketball and track, in High school it was football and track. Then in college I continued the pattern and play D2 football at Concordia St Paul. I finally realized that I didn’t want sports to be my entire life so I transferred to the U and now this is my first semester here. In High School it always fascinated me how some people who work so hard can still stay so un-athletic and vice versa. I had an open assignment in tenth grade and I decided to research how supplements can greatly affect a person’s physical capabilities and why it does so. Through my research I found that there are so many different views and opinions and that it was almost impossible to uncover the truth. There were the people who I believe would be a lot like pinker, saying that creatine, glutamine, testosterone boosters, and the various amino acids have very little impact on the human body. Everything is genetic and either your amount of working out really shapes your athleticism or it doesn’t but the extra supplements don’t help. There were also the people who said it makes a great deal of difference. And those who said they definitely help but it’s the placebo effect and not actually the supplements.

I decided I needed to do more research and test the supplements myself to realize where I stand. I did a huge amount of research on all the different types of supplements, figuring out which ones were safe and which ones weren’t, which ones to stack together and which combinations to stay away from. I came out with the perfect combination for me. I came up with a 3 month workout and measured my gains. Then I went on the supplements (nothing illegal) and measured my gains doing the exact same workout. Whether it was the placebo, or not, I found that the supplements definitely had a huge impact on my gains and overall athleticism. I believe Lewontin and I would have had the same beliefs about this in the fact that most people would say my athleticism hadn’t gone up at all but really it was only my strength that had. I believe that knowing my strength had gone up gave me better confidence which therefore along with everything else greatly increased my athleticism. Whether it actually changed something inside my muscles or just change the makeup of my brain , I believed seeing the gains on paper somehow made me more athletic. Now a days i'm not qite sure who i agree with but i have a hard time agreeing with Pinker. It just seems like there has to be something more affecting our lives.

Since then I have used science to increase the outcome of all my workouts and for making sure I’m doing everything as efficient as possible. Besides that and the few science classes I have had I really haven’t had much other experience with science. Because of that this class seems like it will be very interesting and actually quite challenging; however I look forward to the challenge.

How "science" changed me

At the relatively young age of fifteen, I was considered to be moderately overweight, based on my waist size, wrist size, jean size and BMI. I knew about calories and that, in order to lose or maintain a certain weight, one had to either have a greater expenditure of calories than intake, or balance the intake/expenditure. Despite all this, I still was not convinced that an extra 300-500 calories per day would make or break my attempts at weight loss. It was the intrinsically complex science behind weight loss, calorie maintenance and metabolism that pivoted my life in a different direction. All of a sudden, I was reading the labels on my foods, determining whether or not it would be harmful to consume the number of calories listed on the package, or if I would be able to subsequently “burn” (whatever that really means) those calories through push-ups, sit-ups, or a run.

Now, almost 5 years since this new awareness (or paranoia, perhaps) took root in my mind, the true science behind weight loss is still too complex to fully grasp. Even nutritional experts have a hard time explaining what the “best” thing to do in order to increase weight loss or decrease caloric intake really is. This is because it really depends, they say, on your biological and genetic make-up: body shape and size, along with metabolism and the ability to build lean muscle, is based heavily in your biological and genetic make-up. If height and thinness run throughout your family tree, chances are you’ll be tall, thin and lean, assuming that you don’t gorge yourself daily and participate in a sedentary lifestyle (in which case, it’s most likely that only your weight would be affected, rather than height). This is the determinism that I couldn’t, and still can’t, come to terms with. On my father’s side, there are the chicken-legged grandparents with a tendency towards bigger waistlines, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. On my mother’s side, the fuller-bodied people with rather large muscles, tending to be hidden by more and more body fat as age increases. Where, then, do I fit in? I tend to believe that I take on more of my mother’s side of the body structure than my father, but does this determine me to be a full-bodied person as I age, even if I continue to avidly dedicate myself to calorie counting and regular exercise? Pinker, certainly, would say: YES. It is in your genes, Megan. No doubt a healthy lifestyle can counter the effects of this, but you have been given this body through the genetic materials combined by both of your parents.

If only we could choose the parents with the best bodies and most literate, intelligible minds (not to say we don’t love our parents as they are, but you get the idea.)

As a side note, I have one question: why, then, Mr. Pinker, am I less than satisfactory in most of my mathematical and scientific pursuits, when my father has his masters in mathematics (received before my birth), my mother works in HR and used to work at H&R block, and my brother is majoring in a purely scientific field (environmental sciences and biology)?

Adding on to all of this, there are certain cultural determinisms that can define how you turn out. There are most definitely people in this world who are overweight, yet do not feel ashamed, guilty or put down because of it; in fact, they might be happier with a filled frame as opposed to an emaciated look. Why, then, are others so dissatisfied, angry, depressed or let down about their weight? These determinisms go hand in hand with the cultural ideology of thinness as “normal” and fatness as “abnormal.” Perhaps these happy fat people were never truly exposed to the cultural ideals at a rate that would have affected them, or maybe they just possessed a genetic component that caused them simply not to care.

This science of weight loss is confusing, though. It is not as simple as a college algebra class, wherein all the rules are simply laid out before you, showing you the “right way” and the “wrong way” to do the equation, or lose weight. Weight loss is more like statistics, where there are multiple different ways of interpreting and defining data. There are ideas and concepts tied together, each affecting eachother in a multitude of different ways: RMR, BMR, BMI, metabolism, calories, waist line, weight, etc. etc.

Now add on the technologies that are there to make it “easier” for you: gymnasiums with their expensive equipment, classes and personal trainers who “know” how to help you, fad diets (Atkins, the cabbage soup diet, “negative” calorie diet, even tapeworm (ew) diets), holistic methods (increasing water intake, green tea, meditation/hypnosis, fasting) methods pushed by large corporations (trim spa, weight watchers, hydroxycut), and community organized efforts, including weight loss groups, weight loss blogs, even blogs encouraging eating disorders, providing “thinspiration” to keep starvation and binge/purge addicts going.

How has this science shaped me? Well, for one, it has confused me. At a young age, when influence is greatest and vulnerability its highest, a diet pill seems like the magic trick. On the other side, however, there are the “all-knowing” scientists warning us about the adverse effects brought on by the magical things. All around me, I heard talk of the “obesity epidemic”, something Lewontin might suggest as being a reflection of social beliefs, burdened by headlines hedged with qualifiers, all proposed by a business, the scientific corporations, who need to feed themselves and their families and maintain a good standing within their fields. Why, I wondered constantly, is the focus more on the epidemic rather than the solution itself? It seemed as though there were far more headlines announcing the problem, rather than proposing changes suitable for a solution (and I’m not counting Bill 282 in Mississippi brought forth to ban obese people from dining out in public restaurants as any kind of solution, just an embarrassment and possibly a civil rights problem).

I, myself, started leaning in the direction of alternative weight loss methods (and remain there even today, to maintain my weight). There is much hype placed in the methods of fasting and herbal remedies, although I myself am not even sure how scientifically these claims are based. The methods claim spiritual rejuvenation on top of physical detoxification and weight loss/maintenance. These people may or may not believe in the mind-body dualism concept ascribed to Rene Descartes, where their bodies and non-physical minds both benefit from a willful abstinence of food. My guess is that they do not, it being that the mind and body are somehow inseparable in this concept of “spiritual and physical detoxification.”

I won’t say that the science of weight loss is as much in the front of my mind as it was those years ago, however my sudden realizations and physical transformations have changed the way I interact with my own body and fuel sources. What makes this “science” so complex is the blending of several different kinds of sciences into one: the labels and technologies within the science of weight loss, the cultural phenomenon and awareness of an “epidemic,” and even the psychological science behind sex appeal and contradictions within marketing. If only their boundaries could be more clearly defined; if only this were a matter of simple equations rather than finite interpretations. No wonder it is so hard these days to truly know what healthy means.

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')

Raw or Not? Continuing the discussion...

I'd like to respond to Jenny's post about the advantages of cooked foods over raw foods. I would have just left this in the comments section, however I think I'd like to expand on it a little bit more than at a comment's length.

I can understand the position that Mr. Wrangham takes. Certainly, with the ability to cook their meals, primitive humans could spend less time chewing and chewing at bits of raw meat, as well as crunching through nuts, vegetables, etc. A softer food is most certainly an easier food to take in.

However, the point I disagree with the most has to be the first point, that our digestive tracts are able to digest the nutrients from cooked foods more efficiently. First of all, let me use an example given by Arthur M. Baker, M.A., in his article written in 2000 entitled Raw Fresh Produce vs. Cooked Foods for the living foods website: Excessive heat denatures nutrients. Suppose you burn your finger, or even get sunburn on your back. What happens next? The skin dies, of course. The same applies to cooked foods. When heat is used in excess of 300 to 350 degrees Farenheit, one can imagine what is happening to the structure of the organism being cooked.

There is also evidence from researchers in the Netherlands that, " a link [has been found] between acrylamide, a carcinogenic compound found in cooked, and especially burned, carbohydrate rich foods, and increased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women...Acrylamide is found in cigarette smoke and in carbohydrate rich foods that are cooked at a temperature above 120 degrees Centigrade (250 Fahrenheit). " (Source) So, not only are nutrients denatured, or biologically diminished, but extra carcinogenic elements are produced in the cooking process.

Another piece of literature on the subject that I found to be interesting is the topic of enzyme deficiency in cooked foods. An enzyme, as defined by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, is, "A protein catalyst that facilitates specific chemical or metabolic reactions necessary for cell growth and reproduction." So, basically, it is something that helps to metabolize energy sources. The enzymes in our saliva serve the function of breaking down starches and fats at a molecular level before they reach the stomach, and further on, the enzymes in our stomachs break the food down even further to be used as energy. That being said, most, if not all, foods we eat start off with also have their own enzymes and chemicals that aid in energy production.

Brenda Watson, C.N.C., states in her book, The Detox Strategy, that when foods are cooked at tempertures of 325 degrees for grains and 350 degrees for meats, there is a "wholesale enzyme destruction" occurring at the molecular level. This includes any processed foods, even when they are uncooked, because those processed foods have heat applied during the refining process. Because of this enzyme reduction, Watson says, the digestive system has to work harder to process the foods given to it, lessening the efficiency of our systems overall. This forces the metabolic enzymes within our bodies to perform the function that the cooked and processed foods no longer can, instead of doing their natural job of healing within the body.

As for the question of whether the raw food diet is better or worse for us based on the observation that most people experience weight loss when they switch from a primarily processed and cooked food diet to a primarily raw food diet, one has to consider the fact that many people do not lead the most healthful lifestyles possible, which is the most likely cause for disease and ill health among so many--and I don't think that anybody would really contest the fact that fruits are most definitely more healthful than a can of soda or a side of french fries (Also, let's also note that a raw food diet does not have to necessarily be vegan, though it is most common to find that the people following raw food diets also conform to the vegan lifestyle).

And in this respect, if we can make the assertion that the raw food lifestyle is in fact not as healthy as we believe because it causes people to lose weight, then we can also say that any kind of change in lifestyle that causes weight loss is unhealthy, too. But...wait; that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because don't most people strive to lose weight and gain health in the first place? It is really only unhealthy when extreme measures are taken that cause yo-yo dieting effects and rapid weight loss, a problem that occurs with fad diets and people who are not fully prepared to effectively change their lifestyles for the better, but rather change them for the moment in order to get thin for a high school reunion or a summer at the beach or whatever reason they might have. The ideas encompassing the raw food diet are not to promote "fast and easy weight loss" or to "shrink two sizes in two weeks!" but to encourage an entire lifestyle shift towards a more healthful approach to eating and nutrition.

Now, this is coming mainly from my own personal experience and viewpoint on the issue, however is it not a fact that the rates of obesity in America, if not in most civilized nations excepting a few, have skyrocketed, particularly with the rise in "fast foods" and "fad diets"? When I say fast foods, I do not mean restaurant foods exclusively, but the whole range of foods that are made to be quick, easy and on-the-go, such as the frozen dinners that so many people consume when they're too tired or busy to prepare, or even buy, something that takes a bit more time a preparation, as well as snack foods, diet foods, etc. With so many people being overweight, is it not essential for us to look directly at the cause in order to find a solution? Combined with the rising rates of people with sedentary or only partially active lifestyles, obesity is not doubt the result of a widespread cultural shift towards that which is easy rather than healthful.

And while it is true that many vegans experience problems with their lifestyles due to the lack of nutrients provided only in meats, one does not have to completely eliminate meats in order to live a healthful lifestyle. Even in the case of someone having a diet that is 75% raw and 25% cooked, it is plausible to assume that their health would be far better over someone with little to no raw food intake.

So the question weight loss is, in my opinion, only necessary when the person changing their lifestyle to a more raw food-oriented diet is someone with any kind of underlying health issue that would be adversely affected by a change in diet, or those who have an eating disorder, and only switch to the raw food diet in order to further their weight loss. In the case of an eating-disordered person, I believe that any change in diet that is not supervised by a medical practitioner can be dangerous, even the raw food diet.

Simply, from my own perspective, and from the perspectives of many researchers, a raw food diet is not only healthier, it is more or less the way we are supposed to function. There were many other factors that contributed to the progression of Homo Erectus over the progression of the Neanderthals, which may or may not have to do with whether or not their foods were cooked, but I simply cannot believe that a diet based on cooked or processed foods is in any way more beneficial or healthful than a diet based on more natural, raw components.

Any evidence that might refute this viewpoint is most readily accepted and encouraged.

-Megan

Raw Food: Meant for Us or Not?

Hello,

I wanted to follow up on something that was mentioned today in class. Robin brought up the "raw food" diet fad that has experienced popularity -- the idea behind it is that humans should only eat raw food like the rest of the animal kingdom. Many people lose weight when they begin a raw-food diet, but is that because raw food is better for our bodies... or worse?

Primatologist Richard Wrangham holds that the reason why the neanderthals died out and our ancestors did not is precisely because early humans had learned how to cook, giving them an evolutionary advantage over neanderthals. Wrangham gives two main reasons:

1) Once food is cooked, our digestive tract is able to absorb a lot more of the nutrients from the food. If primitive man cooked their food regularly, their diet became a lot more nutritious, which in turn gave their brains the energy supply they needed to grow into the massively complicated organs found in today's humans.

2) Not only is cooked food better for us, but we have an easier and quicker time eating it, too. Modern primates spend a lot of time tearing off and chewing on tough, raw food -- Wrangham estimates the time spent at half a day! Once our ancestors had more free time, they could put those large brains of theirs to work thinking about other tasks, such as agriculture, tool-making, and developing a social culture.

Because they had mastered the art of cooking, primitive humans, with their large brains and the time to fool around with them, successfully edged out neanderthals in the race to the top. I am led to agree that cooking has been part of our life for a long time, especially once the structure of our bodies is compared to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee.

Our teeth and jaw are much smaller, indicating that our diet is softer and more tender than what chimps have to munch on (assorted fruit, raw plant matter, insects, and meat, in descending order). Our digestive tract is shorter, so if a human ate the exact same food as a chimp, he would not get as much nutrition out of it -- unless the food was prepared in some way to make it more easily digestible. And as was mentioned earlier, our brains are obviously larger, which means our diet has to be high in energy if that organ is to be supplied with ample energy.

Since the types of food we primates have always eaten is roughly the same in type and proportion, something else must have happened a long time ago that allowed humans to extract more value from the food they ate. That "something" was the day early humans started learning how to cook their food.

Wrangham's interview on NPR's weekly "Science Friday" program is available online. If you don't want or don't have time to listen to the podcast, here is a short article which sums up his position.

-- Jenny

Welcome!

Welcome to "Science and the Humanities -- Working Group Four"! 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.