relationship between genes that cause behaviors that are self -destructive

This article addresses the connection between genes that generate self-destructive and antisocial behaviour and humankind’s extraordinary flexibility and evolutionary success. One of the most important and prominent theories in contemporary psychiatric research discovered that specific variants of behavioral genes that alter brain development render people susceptible to personality and psychiatric illnesses, as well as particular moods. Doobs analyzes prior research in this field, which is based on treatments to improve the behavior of children who exhibit aggravating behavior and their impact on their social and academic lives. Doobs mentions that of the 2408 children studied, lab behaviors confirmed that 25 percent of this children are extremely uncooperative, and willfully uncooperative to requests, therefore, acquiring staple behaviors. Ellison also states few programs have changed the parent-child dynamics and their effect on successful outcomes. Doobs attempts to gauge the efficacy of the interventions based on the fact that genes shape behavior and leads to behavioral dysfunction and human evolution.

 Hypotheses:Doobs mentions the fact that parent-child dynamics can become more efficient through testing about how genes shape the behaviors of such behavioral dysfunction children. Of special interest to the research was that certain variants of the behavioral genes present in human DNAs make people more vulnerable to such psychological disorders.

Data Source and Method of Collection: Doobs mentions in his study that two types of Rhesus monkey were used for the study. The two types included the monkeys with trouble managing relations with other monkeys, “depressed” and another one ”bully” monkeys that were indiscriminately aggressive. Additionally, they used tools for the study of genes at the University of Chicago to examine the balance between the genes.  

Variables:Doobs suggests that to find out which of the personality traits were passed through the genes, the scientists took the infants that were raised by nervous mothers. These babies were standardized newborns that were used for testing as they were already in a jumpy state themselves. They were then given to nurturing mothers that were termed as ”supermoms.” On the contrary, Dario Maestripieri of the Chicago University secured the high scoring infants from the mothers that were nurturing in nature and placed them in cages so as to be raised by abusive mothers.

Method of Analysis:To directly examine the balance between the environment the infants were raised and the genes from their mothers the tools for studying the genes disparities were used. In the study, human serotonin transporter genes and the development of the infants that shaped their behaviors were the basis of analysis. The genes were separated into three variants which were categorized as either short/short, long/long alleles and lastly short/long. The controls used were the genotypes of Suomi’s monkeys rather than rhesus monkey. The genotypes variants were the same as that for the rhesus monkey.

Major Findings:

Doobs pointed out several major findings in the research. The kids with risk allele did worse than those with short/short. Though there was a slight difference. The genetically protected kids had their scores reveal that only 11 percent were the behaviors passed from their mothers and 7percent increased their behaviors with the surrounding stressful environment. The gains were modest although it was statistically significant leading to the difference in the two groups becoming unnoticeable. This, therefore, meant that the serotonin transporter gene that was named as SERT gene helped in the regulation of the chemical messages that was essential in moderating the moods of an individual. The cut of their externalizing scores showed a rise by 27 percent in reduced behavior during testing. Additionally, the other two genes. Short/short and long/short have the effect of magnification of the risk as a result of depression. This is because the scores were only a mere 11 percent in the population group. 

Conclusions: Please use the first personal pronoun ”I” in drawing your conclusion and opinion.Several conclusions were drawn from this research, supporting the notion that one of the most important and influential ideas in recent psychiatric research determined that certain variants of behavioral genes that affect the development of the brain make people become vulnerable to personality and psychiatric disorders and certain moods. I found out that the rarest and riskiest gene of the serotonin transporter had the effect of regulation of moods. When an individual is surrounded by aggressive people the risk becomes more valuable and the prevalence rate of having aggressive behavior increases.

Ohlson, Kristin. ”The Great Forgetting.“ aeon . 30 July 2014. Accessed 27 November 2017.

Basic Summary:

This article discusses childhood amnesia in the first three to four years and the paucity of adults having solid memories until seven years of age. In the early years of our paucity research has suggested that those memories that were formed in the infant’s brains simply disappear. Ohlson argues that we repress our earliest memories as a result of the trams we are exposed to while growing up. However, according to a research conducted by Robin Fivush of Emory University revealed that children from as little as five years of age could recall six months from their past. Ohlson suggests that most people believe they cannot recall past memories due to the fact that they’re just too far back. From a study conducted by Carole Peterson Ohlson tries to pinpoint the age where the memories simply vanish and one cannot recall anymore.

 Hypotheses:Ohlson mentions the fact that very emotional memories would result in children retaining them for more than two years. Additionally, Ohlson suggests that children who were below the age of two would absolutely recall past events and describe their earliest memories correctly.

Data Source and Method of Collection:

Ohlson states that Carole Peterson in her memory test to pinpoint at which age the childhood memories would vanish assembled a group of infants between the ages of four to thirteen so that they would describe their past memories, especially when at the age of two. Moreover, the children were in the presence of their family who would attest to whether the memories of the children were essentially correct from when they to years of age. The same infants were also interviewed after two years had passed to detect changes in their memories. The data source used for the testing was a study conducted by neuroscientists at a hospital for the sick infants. Additionally, neurogenesis data was gathered at the hospital to facilitate the method collection.

Variables

The variables present in this study were a tenuous grip on the chronological events of the infant’s past. Any changes detected in the chronology of events and having a hard time in connecting an event to a specific place the duration and the time were taken. Additionally, the vocabularies that were used in the description of events that would result in a causal narrative would form the basis of a solid memory and therefore have an impact on the study.

Methods of Analysis:

Ohlson mentions that in analyzing the memory traits of the young children, an array of psychological and biological machinery for alignment of the memories was used. The raw materials to acquire the memories would be analyzed from the source to be recalled. These sources include sources of smell, sound, sights, the smell and the taste sensation in which the child experienced at the tender age. Ohlson mentions that for each of the source mentioned that for it to qualify as a memory, they must have undergone a hippocampus binding. This is when the multiple inputs from all the senses to be analyzed in the formation of a single memory would be linked to the similar one the parent of each child associate with. If the parent’s commentaries on the children memories differ then the children’s memories are shredded.

Major Findings:

Ohlson states that more than a third of the children who were investigated two years later those above the age of 10 had retained most of the memories that were asked in the first study. However, the younger infants especially the very youngest that were four years of age during the first research were blank in their commentaries. Most importantly Ohlson mentions that to affirm this they were prompted by the earlier memories, but they responded that it never happened to them.

Conclusions:

From the study what has concluded that most often memory is almost selective about what is to remain and be remembered and what is to be forgotten and fall away. Most of the infants lack the array of psychological stars and biological conformity of the hippocampus alignment and therefore they forget long-term memories. Additionally, the study concluded that young children generally have a tenuous grip to the chronology of most events and they are able to master what’s more important to them such as clocks and calendars and therefore for most of the time they have a hard time connecting an event to a specific place and time.

Blackwell, Trevor, Jessica Livingston and Robert Morris. ”Good and Bad Procrastination.“ Paul Graham. n.d December 2005. Accessed 27 November 2017.

Summary:

Most research has focused on the cure for procrastination. However, Blackwell, Livingston, and Morris suggest that it is impossible to cure procrastination. Further, they suggest that while working on things everything else is not worked on. This makes the best impression of people to be portrayed by the fact that they ignore working on small things that have no meaning and rather focus on working on big things and put all their focus on them. This research, therefore, aims to prove that procrastination is not as others presume t to be, bad. Since it cannot be simply avoided, the research targets at explaining how to procrastinate well.

Hypothesis:

Since there exist three variants of procrastination, Blackwell, Livingston, and Morris argue that you could either be working on doing nothing, doing something which has less importance and lastly, doing something that is of more importance. They, therefore, seek to prove that the last variant, doing something more important is good procrastination.

Data Source and Method of Collection:

The research focused on errands as a data sources. This was termed as ”small stuff” and it included any work which would never be mentioned in one’s obituary. They entail the most familiar duties we are engaged in life like shaving, doing laundry work, cleaning and writing thank you notes. For a collection of the statistics to be used in the analysis, one would offer to do an errand from someone. One of the most important things to factor while doing the errand is to make sure the people asking for the errand to be done don’t think it’s actually beneficial. Additionally, when doing the errands, one would have to annoy them and be ruthless.

Methods of Analysis:

The errands that require being put off were compared to real work. Blackwell, Livingstone, and Morris suggest that if the errands require right mood to do it and also big chunks of time then the errand may be considered as real work and therefore fall under good procrastination. However, if one gets inspired when doing the errands and the and makes you more productive but one has to cross them off in their to-do lists then these types of people have something less important-type of procrastination or nothing-procrastination.

Major Findings:

Most of the errands like replying to letters most often go away if they are ignored. Moreover, others like filing returns on taxes and making the lawn often get worse when they are put aside to concentrate on something else. Therefore, in principle putting off work that gets worse shouldn’t work. This is because one ought to do that type of work eventually as the past due notices are always impending on the and to prompt us to do the work.

Conclusions

Certain types of work that can are done in long and uninterrupted time stretches. This is when inspiration hits the most and therefore we are focused on doing the particular form of work. However, the cost of interruption is lack of productivity. Errands, therefore, are the most effective ways of killing the biggest projects. I believe that this is a wrong form of procrastination as things are just getting done because they are the wrong things and therefore affects our productivity. On the contrary, most people often find themselves intertwined on this procrastination as the bigger errands don’t always promise a reward and therefore one can always end up wasting a lot of time on them.

Anderson, Sam. ”In Defense of Distraction.“ New York News and Politics. 17 May 2009. Accessed 27 November 2017.

Summary:

Anderson suggests that research over the last centuries has proven that attention problems have shifted to the center of most of our cultures. Since everyone at some point I time pays attention to what interests him or her, this has totally changed over time. Anderon mentions that in 1971 when the use of technology had not made a huge step in our daily lives, the information present at that time did not consume our attention. Rather, in the current era with ton of information flowing from one person to another a poverty of attention has risen tremendously. However, most of our basic functions depend on connectivity. Anderson, therefore, seeks to research how we can successfully adapt to an increasingly large scale driven social change without losing our attention.

Hypothesis

Anderson states that multitasking may make it hard for people to learn new tasks and therefore the process of recalling what one did before would be interrupted. Additionally, he states that the brain might become overloaded to an extent of forgetting the most crucial things that matter most in our daily lives. Therefore, multitasking is a myth.

Data Source and Method Collection:

Anderson uses the researches done by David Meyer on multitasking. Additionally, Anderson uses the Buddhist meditation as a source in the research of the brains activity during multitasking that was captured at the University of Michigan library. Lastly, Anderson incorporates Action Laboratory findings on the functioning process of the brain during multitasking. In the study, Anderson interviews several well-known multitaskers in an environment that is somewhat busy to gather a sense of attention from the interviewers. He interviews David Meyer, Winfred Gallagher, Macgyver and other well-renowned professionals that have been put in the limelight due to their attention skills.

Methods of Analysis:

Anderson gathers instances of lack of attention during their conversations with the renowned specialists. He first calls the interviewers unaware of his intended objective. He continues to document the level of attention each specialist and compares it with University of Michigan study of the stages of attention and their specific illustrations. Additionally, Anderson schedules an appointment with each specialist and documents the interviews noting down the stages of attention each of them portrays.

Major Findings:

During the interviews, just a few minutes into their conversations, most surrounding noises immediately captures the bottom up to the attention of most of the participants of the study. The broad involuntary awareness that constantly engulfed the interview situation like sudden movements, shiny objects, pungent smells and funny noises distracted them during the interviews. Additionally, Winifred Gallagher found a way to focus her attention during their distraction, she goes into a room and summons her top-down attention. (3) Most of the participants are blessed with a naturally strong executive function and most of the occasions during their conversations have found a way to come back to the visceral action and shifting their focus.

Conclusions and Opinions:

Anderson proves that multitasking is essentially a myth. Most of the time when one engages in an activity and one goes ahead to engage in a second activity one is always just switching rapidly between the two tasks. This is because most often the brain processes information on a variety of channels and therefore each can only stream the information one at a time. I found this interesting due to the fact that even the people who were presumed to be the most including control of their attention struggle with attention. The conclusion, therefore, is that multitasking is a myth.

Henig, Robin Marantz. ”Understanding The Anxious Mind.“ 29 September 2009. The New York Times Magazine. 28 November 2017.

Summary:

Generally, the tenuousness of our surrounding can make anybody to be overwrought. Henig suggests that we live in the age of anxiety whereby thousands of people are losing their homes and, jobs, global warming has become prevalent and most of all our futures are unpredictable. Most people are therefore born prepared to face such doom and always anticipate such misery. This research, therefore, seeks to understand such minds from their infant stages to adulthood.

Hypothesis:

The assumption is made that every human being has the innate temperament and therefore are born anxious. More accurately some of us are born predisposed to anxiety. The suggestion is also made that most babies are born with inborn temperament and are likely to develop as anxious people.

Data Source and Method Collection:

Henig used Kagan’s Ph.D. research that was done in the year 1954 at Antioch College in Ohio. The research was based on the fact that babies would be upset when they were predisposed to the environment that was new to them. The characteristics would be measured in a variation model. 19 babies participated in the research conducted by Kagan. Their temperament was measured immediately they were born by taking heartbeats, breathing patterns and involuntary actions. An interview is then given to all the babies when they turned 15 years of age. An MRI scan of each of the infants was then conducted when they at18 years of age.

Variables:

Ellison had two dependent variables, defensive and retaliatory response to new environments.  Defensive anxiety was measured by three scenarios where there was a clear implication of defending property or persons. Retaliatory anxiety was measured using two scenarios where there was no clear defensive justification. The independent variables measured whether there was something that made the participants anxious.

Methods of Analysis:

Teenagers were grouped in a feel of risk for the anxiety that was evident in them before the M.R.I scan. They were then expected to focus on what was the most fearful thing in their life and the MRI scans were compared to each other. The functional MRI scans were then compared to structural MRIs to detect any changes.

Major Findings:

There were no high reactors on 18 of the participants who were tested for their temperament. Baby 19 was, however, different from the rest. The subjects were of the group of high reactors during their 4 months and there was evidence of prefrontal cortex thickening in comparison to those of the new reactors. The most temperament that was evident when they were tested at the infant stages was evident 18 years later. 4 of the subjects had a thicker cortex that made them hyper-reactive. 14 subjects, however, had not been diagnosed with anxiety disorders and they functioned just fine.

Conclusions:

The study conducted by Hagin reveals that while temperament persists, most of the time the behaviors that come about with their existence does not always persist. The physiological brain state and the way each individual describes their weaknesses make it possible to identify one’s emotions and therefore can be one of the symptoms of the detection of anxiety disorders. Additionally, every human being has the innate temperament and therefore are born anxious. More accurately some of us are born predisposed to anxiety.