Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Glitch May Prevent Kids From Learning From Their Mistakes
jamie pointed out an interesting piece being featured in Newsweek that claims a "genetic glitch" may prevent some kids from learning from their mistakes to the same degree as others. "If there is one thing experts on child development agree on, it is that kids learn best when they are allowed to make mistakes and feel the consequences. So Mom and Dad hold back as their toddler tries again and again to cram a round peg into a square hole. [...] But not, it seems, all kids. In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch, one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors, molecules that act as docking ports for one of the neurochemicals that carry our thoughts and emotions. A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use. But the effects spill beyond such extremes. Children with the genetic variant are unable to learn from mistakes. No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in."
Illicit does not necessarily mean self-destructive. It is a matter of law, not health.
I know that's a joke, but if you find yourself fucking things up in ways that don't make sense to you, you may benefit from seeing a psychiatrist. Sometimes the drugs can turn people's lives around.
I wouldn't have graduated from college without my Adderall.
And the corollary - drug use doesn't have to be illicit to be self-destructive. How many people drink themselves to death each year?
It should read "self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse".
"That's giving up hope. "
Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.
They don't address the complexity of 'learning from your mistakes', one man's mistake is another man's genius idea. History is filled with critics that thought someone was mistaken when they ultimately turned out to be right, especially in mathematics.
Give yourself structure. Make yourself a list of things you need to do every day. You could use paper, or be like me and get a $100 Palm Pilot. To me, mine is worth every penny. My list includes showering, walking the dog, getting haircuts, going to job interviews, getting my car inspected, paying my taxes, and pretty much every other thing I need to do.
Other things are make sure your hygiene is good. Shower every day if you can. Get exercise. Ride your bike for half an hour every day, if possible. I've really taken a liking to cycling and it's helped to put my life in the right direction and help my lose lots of weight. Eat an egg for breakfast everyday; it'll make you feel good. Don't eat junk food.
Keeping your body in shape helps you think more clearly, and the running theme is here that providing yourself with structure and goals is the best thing you can do for yourself this side of medication. I swear that giving myself some structure is the only reason I was able to graduate from college on time and the only way I'll succeed in making my career go somewhere and being the husband my wife deserves.
Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms.
Can it be called "The Gattaca Initiative"?
Genetics is becoming the new astrology
Mod me redundant, but I feel that deserves to be repeated.
Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works. Bits and pieces of its operation, yes, but the big picture? Not even close. How is it, then, that some can claim to have such complex aspects, in this case, learning, figured out on a genetic level? Wouldn't that be like someone who barely knows jack about the immune system claiming to have found a genetic reason as to why some people are allergic to cats?
I know it's tacky to reply to your own posts, but I wanted to add something here. According to the article:
In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch...
One of the strongest and most counterintuitive findings in this nascent field is that children with a sweet temperament, which is under strong genetic control, are the least likely to emulate their parents and absorb the lessons they teach, while fussy kids are the most likely to do so.
DNA variants can protect children from bad parenting.
Both views--that everything is genetic and that parents can transform a child like a lump of clay--are as wrong as wrong can be.
I think these finding have serious implications for how we look at religion, and how it can or cannot work effectively to shape people's behaviour from the time they are children to adults. Some people -- at least 30 per cent -- are hard-wired to find it difficult to deal with "sin" without feeling guilt, shame, failure and worthlessness. They will either end with serious psychological and spiritual hang-ups, or will reject religion altogether.
What I think is interesting is that people have no problem believing that someone's genetics serve as a template for their hair, eye color, height, etc, but are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior. Behavior is a result of the brain (and the rest of the body), which is just as much a physical item as the rest of you.
That's not to say that genetics can explain everything. There are epigenetic and environmental facts at play that are also important. But an individual's genetics are the starting point, so how is it foolish that to believe that understanding genetics can provide insights. Genetics isn't the end all and be all of understanding people, but it's a very important component.
Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.
Thats where South Park comes in.
The major difference between the US and other "first world" societies is that US politics very rarely includes the concept of "good will towards all". The notion, that "what is good for my neighbor is good for me" simply doesn't fly around here. Electing politicians on merit implies that we'd be electing people to serve the *public* trust, rather than our own individual interests.
Granted, I"m painting things with a broad brush, but that's pretty much the impression I get.
Why is it this way? I honestly don't know. It could have something to do with our frontiersman roots being so recent in our country's past - that we're still one nation of individual people, rather than an individual nation of one people.
When there's a red button and a blue button and they both give electric shocks, maybe the stay-at-homes are the most intelligent of them all. oh yeah and there's a green button but it's in the ceiling and nothing happens when you stretch for it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I also read an article about the dangers of making sweeping generalizations.