Call me paranoid, but my mind is constantly telling me that people are not what they seem and that they are secretly plotting to kill me (my roommate thinks it’s funny). So how pleasantly surprised was I to read that on average, 1 in 25 people that we come across are sociopaths without us having even the slightest idea. And that is what makes them so lethal. A sociopath generally has deceptive qualities that make us believe they are charming and intelligent, although they are often aggressive and unreliable. I’m curious to know if sociopath’s develop these behaviors from their environment or if it could be hereditary.

While I intended to research only sociopathy, the internet led me to thousands of articles debating the relationship of sociopathy and psychopathy. What I learned was although they share most of the same qualities, sociopathy has recently been attributed to environmental factors while psychopathy might have a genetic background. Neurologist James Fallon of the University of California-Irvine decided to look into the idea that psychopathy could be hereditary after learning of his murderous family tree. To test this theory that criminals can have a similar biological deficiency, he took brain scans of himself and 10 of his close family members to look for similarities in the orbital cortex, which controls behaviors such as rage and violence. With these brain scans, he compared them to the brain of a psychopath and found that only one of the 11 family members showed a similar deficiency in this area: it was himself.

It is hard to decide whether this experiment supports or refutes his hypothesis that psychopathy is caused by a deficiency in the orbital cortex. For one, the sample size was far too small to draw conclusions, even if the results were supportive. Second, we don’t know if Jim Fallon has other qualities of psychopathy or is one for that matter without testing him properly (he seemed genuinely shocked at the results). Finally, this evidence isn’t enough to establish causation. Although they’re brains may look similar, that does not mean that both of them are dangerous killers. However, I believe reverse causation probably is not a factor in this experiment because certain qualities a human has is usually determined by their genes and does not determine them.

Another study done on psychopathy in 1991 uses a group of prisoner’s to decipher psychopathic tendencies. The group of prisoners was random, so it was unknown if any of them were sociopaths to begin with. During the experiment, the researchers showed each prisoner a series of words and they were asked to press a button when they noticed a real word. It was suggested that while normal people would respond quickly to words such as “blood” and “violence,” it would have no exaggerated affect on psychopaths. While I believe that this experiment was creative, it was not the type of experiment that could produce concrete results. Some could have reacted quicker or slower because they did not notice them in a timely mannor. It could have had to do with confounding variables, like attentiveness or intelligence.

Now, to address the other perspective; sociopath’s, like I said, are more often connected with environmental factors. In an article written by PhD Scott A. Bonn,  he claims that these individuals fail to learn when they grow up how to empathize or connect with people. It’s also believed that sociopath’s have often faced tragedy or abuse as a child that could result in this behavior. I believe the only way to really decide if the environment affects their behavior would be to complete an observational study, in which they asked sociopath’s about their past history of abuse and then looked at the statistics. Either way, no one is completely sure of what causes this disorder.

This is not to say that sociopaths and psychopaths are always murderous individuals. Most of what we know on the subjects relies on theories, which need to be tested thousands upon thousands of times to be generally accepted in the science world. Now, at least you have been warned that maybe it’s not actually the quiet ones to be afraid of.

Sources:

• Susanina, Vladislava. “Psychopathy Is the Result of “Nature” (Genetics) While Sociopathy Is the Result of “Nurture” (Environment) – Psych2go.”Psych2go. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.psych2go.net/psychopathy-and-sociopathy-the-nature-vs-nurture-debate/>.
• Hagerty, Barbara B. “A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret.” NPR. NPR, 29 June 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976>.
• Thomas, M. E. “How to Spot a Sociopath.” Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Sussex Directories, Inc., 7 May 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath>.

Every so often, I decide that I’m too involved in social media and need to start spending more time on myself. At one point last year, I deleted my Instagram, my Twitter and my Snapchat. The scary truth is that this detox of social media only lasted two weeks before the nagging feeling that I was missing something online got the best of me. This led me to the question, is social media a modern day addiction? And, what effects does it have on abusers?

It is first important to understand why people use social media so adamantly. Studies have found that people generally use it to connect with others, to boost their self-confidence, to communicate in a way they feel they cannot in person, and so on. This article demonstrates 11 reasons why people love social media, which might be helpful to read before I continue on with my findings.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, social media has  not yet been defined as an actual mental disorder, though the idea of it is becoming increasingly popular. Harvard University conducted a study to measure the effects of social media addiction. To do this, they analyzed the responses to questions they posted on Facebook during their experiments and measured the effects on the brain. What they found was that sharing information about yourself to others stimulates the same part of the brain that responds to pleasure. They also noted that when they shared that their responses wouldn’t be shown to family and friends, they amount of pleasure they felt decreased. That makes me think of another question; does social media make us narcissistic?

While that experiment just addresses social changes that can be caused by social media addiction, studies may have found biological evidence to support that this condition can possibly deteriorate one’s health. This is found through a study done in 2012 to measure Internet Addiction, which can be identified as a more broad version of social media addiction. According the National Health Institute, the overuse of social media can ruin “lives by causing neurological complications, psychological disturbances, and social problems.” (“How real a risk”) This study gives more concrete details, claiming that “internet addiction changes the brain.” In an experiment conducted using 17 men and women diagnosed with Internet Addiction Disorder and 16 people that did not have the diagnosis, researchers compared the brain scans to see any significant difference. They found that the internet addict’s brains showed “white areas” that consist of nerve fibers, which could potentially block signals (such as emotions and decision-making) to the brain. While I find this study to be supportive of the hypothesis, it does not rule out confounding third variables. In contrast, we can rule out reverse causation because white matter on the brain does not lead to internet use.

With little evidence that truly supports this hypothesis, is there the possibility that the regular use of social media is beneficial to us? While researching this topic, I came across a statistic that was being used as evidence to support our nation’s apparent social media addiction regarding a website called LinkedIn, which has 300 million users who on average, check the site at least once a day. But is this a bad thing? I had never heard of LinkedIn until my business seminar instructor required me to make an account. This site is used by many prospective employers trying to make connections with company officials through networking. In retrospect, I believe checking your LinkedIn profile once a day which could lead to a job opportunity far outweighs any health risk of social media addiction that we have found up to this point. In my opinion, you have nothing to worry about unless your overuse of social media is causing you to disconnect from reality, lose friends, or affect your ability to work.

Sources:

• Beckman, Mariah. “Social Media Is Addictive.” Guardian Liberty Voice. Guardian Liberty Voice, 21 June 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/social-media-is-addictive/>.
• Jaslow, Ryan. “Internet Addiction Changes Brain Similar to Cocaine: Study.”CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/internet-addiction-changes-brain-similar-to-cocaine-study/>.
• Klein, Sarah. “Is Social Media Dependence A Mental Health Issue?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc, 07 May 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/social-media-mental-health_n_5268108.html>.
• Mueller, Ken. “11 Reasons Why People Love and Use Social Media.” Inkling Media. Inkling Media, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://inklingmedia.net/2014/03/17/11-reasons-people-love-social-media-2/#.VElBqfnF_hs>.

Since I got my driver’s license three years ago, I’ve been told in several instances that apparently I am not a very good driver. I’ve never gotten in an accident or gotten a speeding ticket so who’s to judge, right? Well, I’ve gotten the majority of this negative feedback from men. While I’m not sure where this myth originated, it’s come to be almost common knowledge that men are better drivers than women. I’m curious to know if this myth true and what factor could decide this?

ABC News wrote an article based on the studies of two University of Michigan researcher’s who believe they found “outstanding” evidence to support this hypothesis. After studying accident reports from the past 20 years, they found that women were far more likely to crash into other women. They look at the percent chance that women should hit each other in six different scenarios and compared it to the chances of men. The studies showed that women exceeded the expected frequency of accidents by 25-50% in each scenario while men seemed to be 22% below they expected frequency. While this seems like strong evidence against us women, this could all be due to chance or the numbers could have been manipulated to creative a false positive.

Now let’s play the devil’s advocate and say that men have it all wrong and they are actually worse drivers. According to a study done by an online insurance provider called 4autoinsurancequote, almost 80% of fatal crashes are caused by male drivers. They throw out other statistics like in 2007, when men caused 6.1 million accidents compared to women’s 4.4 million and describe how men lead almost every category of traffic violations. I would like to believe this is true, for the sake of feminism, but I’m not sure how reliable this source is. I looked further into this and found an article from the NY Times, who took the same stance, saying that women are better drivers and gave the same 80% statistic. They brought up a good point though, that men drive 61% of the miles driven each year compared to women’s 39%, giving men more opportunity to get in an accident.

Statistics are only so much without experiments to prove them. Assuming that women are inferior to men when it comes to driving, there’s the possibility that the men’s nagging could be at fault. A researcher at the University of Queensland set up an experimental driving simulation with 168 female college students to see if a negative response to their driving makes women more likely to get in an accident. In the simulation, the women were tested on their ability to stop for an unexpected pedestrian. The experiment was a double-blind placebo trial because half of the women were told previously that the study was being done to study the stereotype and the other half did not have any idea that gender was involved. The results showed that 50% of women in the “stereotype” group hit the pedestrian. This experiment was also done when women were distracted by a spelling test and produced similar results.

So have we solved the myth of men being better drivers? The problem with statistical evidence gathered from observational experiments like the first two I mentioned is that it can be easilly manipulated to fit one’s hypothesis. In addition, one experiment and a sample size of not even 200 isn’t enough to prove that men (or mental distraction of any sort) could cause women to be bad drivers. I believe that this study is something researchers should look further into because personally, I’m tired of being nagged.

Sources:

• Dye, Lee. “Are Men Better Drivers Than Women?” ABC News. ABC News Network, 15 June 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/battle-sexes-men-drivers-women-dyehard-science/story?id=13841063>.
• Hartocollis, Anemona. “For Women Who Drive, the Stereotypes Die Hard.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/nyregion/18drivers.html?_r=0>.
• Molloy, Fran. “Stereotype Stuffs up Women’s Driving.” ABC Science. ABC, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/03/24/2197632.htm>.
• “Women Better Drivers Than Men, Says New Study From Insurance Provider.” IReach. PR Newswire Association LLC, 16 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.ireachcontent.com/news-releases/women-better-drivers-than-men-says-new-study-from-insurance-provider-151692045.html>.

Well, its almost that time of year again. Morning walks to Sparks are slowly becoming morning bus rides as the weather is getting increasingly colder. Your bed and Netflix seem slightly more inviting than going out and dealing with the wind and bipolar temperatures. Before we know it, the trees will shed all of their fall leaves and winter weather will kick in. For some people, especially college students, something else comes along with the cold weather. This is seasonal depression, or Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), which is defined as “a depression that occurs each year at the same time, usually starting in fall, worsening in winter, and ending in spring.” (“Seasonal Depression”) It’s no surprise that some people generally do not enjoy the winter months, but is it really possible that this discomfort can actually have a biological affect on the body?

Studies done at the National Institute of Mental Health in 2001 seem to support this hypothesis. Based on research done of a span of about 75 years, scientists have attributed this depression to the changes in light and darkness that occur during the different seasons. Seasonal depression had since been linked to a hormone called melatonin, which controls a person’s “circadian (day/night) bio-rhythm.” In simpler terms, this cycle of wake and sleep is connected to the eye’s ability to sense light and darkness so during the “melatonin secretion” cycle, melatonin is decreased as morning approaches, reminding us to wake up.

The experiment conducted by the Institute of Mental Health included 55 patients diagnosed with SAD and 55 healthy patients, all stationed in a dimly lit lab. Each patient’s melatonin secretion cycle was measured every 30 minutes throughout a 24 hour period once per season. The results showed that the patients with SAD had a secretion cycle that was 38 minutes longer in the winter than during the summer. Contrary, the control group showed little differences in the melatonin cycle. Although the sample size was small in this experiment, the results act as strong evidence towards the idea that patients with SAD may experience elongated melatonin cycles. What this does not prove, is that melatonin is the cause of seasonal depression or that these changes are particularly damaging to one’s health.

Further research led me to the practice of phototherapy or light therapy, which is often used to treat patients diagnosed with SAD. Studies done on that subject have concluded that the level of light and the time of exposure are both essential for treating this disorder. Experiments showed that light under1500 lux has no effect on a person’s “respiration, blood pressure, body temperature, body temperature, the internal clock, and the regulation of production of [melatonin]” (“Seasonal Affective Disorder”). After drawing this conclusion, the researchers decided they needed to expose patients to levels higher than 1500, which better represents outdoor lighting. This did cause change in all of those factors (although I saw no data to show how drastic), but proved only to have a positive effect when patients were exposed to the light in the morning.

To put into simpler terms how these experiments relate directly to seasonal depression, the shortened hours that the sun is out during the day in the winter supposedly causes biological changes that scientists claim cause depression. My issue with this theory is that most people who are diagnosed with this disorder tend to stay in the house as much as possible and as studies have shown, indoor lighting has no affect on melatonin levels or any other bodily function.

When I first became aware of seasonal depression, I was in denial that it could be a legitimate condition. Although the little experimentation I could find on the subject claimed that seasonal depression was a result of several biological changes, I do not believe there is enough evidence to support that hypothesis. However, I do see a strong link between light changes and melatonin levels. In my opinion, I would not be legitimately concerned if the shift to cold weather has you feeling the  “winter blues.”

Sources

• “Seasonal Depression.” Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/neurological_institute/center-for-behavorial-health/disease-conditions/hic-seasonal-depression>.
• “Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).” Lighting Design Lab. Lighting Design Lab, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <https://www.lightingdesignlab.com/seasonal-affective-disorder-sad>.
• Xue, Xin. “Seasonal Affective Disorder Strikes in Wintertime.” Iowa State Daily. Iowa State Daily, Ames, Iowa, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_2175af2e-1bba-11e1-9cf3-001cc4c03286.html>.

We’ve all heard myths about twins reading each other’s minds, finishing each other’s sentences, even experiencing the same dreams. Although these may seem like odd coincidences, an overwhelming number of twins report being able to communicate with their twin telepathically whether this includes an uncanny ability to say the same thing or being able to sense what the other is feeling. After reading an article in which twins claim to have experienced similar instances, I decided to research farther into the possibility of twin telepathy.

Although I have been able to find hundreds of examples of twins claiming they felt this sort of connection, I’ve learned that the amount of laboratory experimentation done on the subject is sparse. What I came across and found interesting was a video posted by ABC News about a Swedish psychologist who ran an experiment in 2011 with four sets of twins randomly selected from a pool of about 100. The basis of the experiment involves monitoring the pulse, respiration, and blood pressure of twins who are separated and experiencing different things using a polygraph. One is put into a relaxed state and receives a series of shocks such as being submersed in ice water or hearing the sound of a dish being broken. The other is placed in a separate room and hooked up to a polygraph as well. To measure the results, the signs were timed and recorded simultaneously in case the control twin experienced any notable changes while the other twin was surprised. According to Dr. Adrian Parker’s hypothesis, if twin telepathy exists, then the twin experiencing the shocks should be able to communicate with the other telepathically so that he/she knows that he is feeling something out of the ordinary.

Parker was extremely particular in his experiment and his analysis of the results, calculating that “3 correct placements would be expected by chance.” According to Parker, his results “showed double the number of expected hits.” In some instances during the experiment, the twin not receiving the shocks experienced slightly deeper breaths and/or an increased blood pressure at the same time that his or her twin was agitated. While these signs could be due to a confounding third variable, the data is consistent with the hypothesis. And although this one experiment does not qualify as proof that twin telepathy exists, Parker believes that his data could inspire researchers to take this idea to the laboratory again.

As it turns out, Parker’s experiment was a recreation of one done on a television show in 2003. Researcher Guy Lyon Playfair conducted an “informal” experiment with twins Richard and Damien Powles. Similarly, the two were placed in different studies connected to polygraphs, completely cut off from one another, while one experienced a series of fear-related surprises. Richard first submerged his hand in a bucket of ice-water, just as Parker replicated. He then opened a present and rather then finding a pleasant surprise, was fear-stricken as a realistic looking snake jumped out at him. During both of those instances, there was an obvious jump in Damien’s pulse as if he was experiencing the shocks himself.

Contrary to Parker’s confidence in his technique, Playfair admitted that the experiments were done informally and lacked “strict scientific protocols.” Regardless, the results were uncanny and seemed to support the hypothesis that one twin can feel for another even when only one is experiencing something. After researching this topic and familiarizing myself with these two experiments, I was disappointed that I struggled to find other ways that scientists have tested the idea of twin telepathy. While the data seemed consistent with the hypothesis being tested, it still lacks a scientific explanation and as we know, supernatural forces cannot explain scientific questions. From my research I have developed this question: is twin telepathy linked to an emotion? In both of these experiments, the body only showed signs of change on the polygraph when the experimental twin was either frightened or surprised. If anyone is interested in this subject and can find data to support or refute this, make sure to comment!

Sources

• “The Twin Experiment.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 30 June 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/twin-experiment-13963283>.
• Wagner, Stephen. “Twin Telepathy: Best Evidence.” Twins Home. N.p., 20 May 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fen.suntwins.com%2FGlobal%2F2013%2F0520%2F7477.html>.

I’ve always found the act of “tickling” in itself to be quite absurd. We touch someone repeatedly in a sensitive area (whether it be under the arm or on the sole of the foot) and as a result, we cannot help but laugh hysterically. But what really baffles me, is that this assumption doesn’t hold true when we try to tickle ourselves. This discrepancy made me wonder if laughing is actually a reflex of tickling or if there is a social factor involved.

Before conducting any research on the subject, I assumed that tickling caused a pleasant sensation. Why else would our reaction be to laugh and smile, two telltale signs of happiness? Multiple sites led me to this same hypothesis, which we refer to as the  “Darwin/Hecker Hypothesis of laughter/humor.” Created by biologist Charles Darwin and psychologist Ewald Hecker in the 1800’s, their theory assumes that laughter (induced by tickling) requires a good mood and ultimately is a pleasant sensation. For years this theory faced little objection or experimentation to prove its legitimacy, but a study done in the late 1990’s showed that their theory might be old-fashioned.

An undergraduate student Christine Harris and  researcher Dr. Nicholas Christenfeld of University of California at San Diego took it upon themselves to test out Darwin and Hecker’s hypothesis. To do this, Harris and Christenfeld adopted 72 undergraduate students to participate in their study. The study was based off of what they called the “warm-up effect,” which assumes that when someone finds something funny, being exposed to humor after that will seem even funnier. To test this, one group was tickled until the point that it was unbearable and then shown a series of comedy scenes such as clips from “Saturday Night Live.” The other group completed this in reverse, so, they watched the clips and then were tickled. The control group watched a video that was supposedly unfunny and then was tickled. What the researchers believed would prove Darwin and Hecker’s hypothesis was that being exposed to either the tickling or the comedic clips would make the other one more funny, according to the warm-up theory. What they found was that neither had any effect on the amount of laughter that the groups produced, which went against their theory and implied that tickling does not cause happiness or pleasant feelings. If this experiment was done correctly, then does that mean that tickling has no emotional connection, but is just a reflex?

Harris and Christenfeld decided to follow up on that hypothesis with another experiment. This included 32 undergraduate students this time, who believed that they would be tickled by a human and a machine, each for 5 seconds. This was a double-blind placebo trial because despite their belief that two different mechanisms would be doing the tickling, they were actually tickled by two humans. The results of the experiment showed that despite their lack of knowledge on the “tickler,” the students laughed and smiled just as much. In effect, they concluded that tickling was a mere reflex similar to “the one a doctor elicits from a patient’s knee with a little rubber hammer.” (Yoon, “Anatomy of a Tickle”)

Neither experiments completely convinced me that laughter is a reflex of a tickling because we still cannot tickle ourselves.There were many loopholes in Harris and Christenfeld’s first experiment such as their ability to measure laughter, different senses of humor, and possible resistance to a reaction from tickling. Their second experiment was more concrete, but the lack of experimentation done on this subject in general makes it hard to assume something as correct. But if I have learned anything from the research I’ve done on the subject, it is that tickling is nothing to laugh about.

Sources:

• Yoon, Carol K. “Anatomy of a Tickle Serious Busiess at the Research Lab.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 3 June 1997. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1997%2F06%2F03%2Fscience%2Fanatomy-of-a-tickle-is-serious-business-at-the-research-lab.html>.
• Clark, Josh. “Why Do People Laugh When They Get Tickled?” HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/laugh-tickling2.htm>.
• “UCSD Psychologists Tackle Ticklish Subject.” Newswise. Newswise, Inc., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. <http://www.newswise.com/articles/ucsd-psychologists-tackle-ticklish-subject>.

I’ve always been a huge dog lover. I’m extremely emotional towards my two golden doodles and I’ve always assumed that they’re emotional in response, whether they are wagging their tails or cowering in the corner or completely ignoring me. I want to believe that they are perceptive to my feelings but of course, they are animals and they don’t exactly have the intelligence or sense of feelings that humans do. So, I had to ask the question: do my dogs love me back?

According to Psychology Today, my intuitions could be plausible. After studying the brains of dogs, researchers have come to discover “that dogs have all of the same brain structures that produce emotions in humans” (Which Emotions Do Dogs Have 3). Scientists have found that the brain in a dog releases the same chemicals that the human does to create emotions. Dogs have the same hormone Oxycontin as humans, which allows one to feel love and compassion.

One key difference though, is that humans feel these emotions more passionately than dogs. This article claims that the range of emotions that dogs feel is equivalent to that of a two and a half year old child. These emotions develop over time, although this occurs faster than it does in humans. Love might not come immediately from your pooch. Instead, they grow into the emotion like any human “learns to love” someone.

One emotion that dogs apparently cannot feel is guilt. Rather, they feel fear which is why they tend to cower when they experience this sensation. Therefore, rather than a dog feeling guilty for eating that birthday cake you left on your counter when you went out, they dog feels threatened by a punishment that might come.

The answer to the question imposed in the beginning of this blog is yes, it is possible for your dog to love you. If you have developed a consistent and loving relationship with your dog throughout the years, it is completely rational that they might feel the same way back.

Sources:

• Coren, Stanley. “Which Emotions Do Dogs Actually Experience?”Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Sussex Directories, Inc., 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201303/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience>.

When one thinks of autism, it might come naturally to believe that having this disability, or any for that matter, is a drawback. So how does one explain that Albert Einstein, one of the most profound geniuses in our existence, was said to have suffered from autism? And he is not an exception. Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Amadeus Mozart along with many other geniuses are linked to this disorder. So I ask the question, can autism be linked to genius?

According to an article in Time Magazine in 2012, its been found that there is a strong correlation between the two. Three main behaviors linked to autism are attention to detail, an expansive working memory, and social deficits. In a recent study conducted by Joanne Ruthsatz of Ohio State University at Mansfield and her colleague Jourdan Urbach of Yale University, eight child prodigies were asked to take a series of tests that measured these behaviors. The studies showed that three of eight children fit along the autism spectrum. Almost all of them showed some autistic traits, especially “in working memory, in which all the children scored above the 99th percentile.” (Child Geniuses 8) In addition, many famous geniuses were known to have the inability to communicate. For example, it is said that Albert Einstein had trouble finding a job, “despite his intelligence.” (Famous Autistic People 1) People often say that sometimes we think someone is so smart that they are unable to communicate to the average person what they are meaning to say.

During the experiment done by Ruthsatz and Urbach, they used a control group of 174 “normal” adults. To show a direct correlation between autism and genius, it would be essential to test a group without the disorder, a group with autism, and then a group of genius. It is hard to consider what is genius for that matter, considering one of the prodigies measured only had an IQ of 108,  which is on the upper end of normal. I do think the researchers did a good job with the test itself, for they used different techniques and tests to determine autistic tendencies that any normal child being diagnosed would take. Autism “roots in very early brain development,” (What is Autism 3) so tracking brain activity of a control and experimental group over the developmental years would be more concrete evidence. If these studies stand true, our perception of disability could be changed forever.

Sources:

• “What Is Autism?” Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks Inc, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism>.
• Fitzgerald, Kelly. “Child Geniuses And Autism Connected.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 10 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252637.php>.
• Szalavitz, Maia. “What Genius and Autism Have in Common | TIME.com.”Time. Time, 10 July 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/10/what-child-prodigies-and-autistic-people-have-in-common/>.
• “Famous Autistic People.” Autism MythBusters RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/famous-autistic-people/>.

Time is a well-accepted concept in society. I never thought to question its credibility or how our vision of time could be so wrong in the scheme of the universe. That is, until I read Slaughterhouse-Five, a fictional war novel written by American writer Kurt Vonnegut. For those who have never read the novel, an alien-like group called Tralfamadorians believe that at every moment we are living in the past, present, and future. I researched on the internet to find a more scientific and less fictional explanation for the phenomenon we call “time” and came across an analysis of a psychology novel called “Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception” by Claudia Hammond.

Hammond claims that emotion constitutes one’s perception of time. Specifically, fear slows down our perception of time. To test out her theory, she put someone with a fear or spiders in one’s presence for a given time and then asked the individual to estimate how long that occurred. The same was done for a skydiver who watched his friend do it and then estimated the time it took for him to reach the ground. In both instances, the individuals estimated a time far longer than had actually passed.

Hammond carried out the experiments in an intelligent manor but from the article, I could not tell how large the experimental group of skydivers and people afraid of spiders was. In addition, Hammond should have tested a control group of people who did not have those fears and recorded their estimated time frame as well. Based on Hammond’s hypothesis, there is a correlation between fear and an elongated perception of time but without adding that control group, there is no way it could be considered causal. Another thought I have is that if one feels that they are doing something for an elongated period of time, they could possibly become afraid. For instance, most people are not afraid of elevators. But if one gets stuck in an elevator for what they believe is a longer time than has actually passed, they would probably become increasingly fearful. In this case, reverse causality could not be ruled out.

The entire concept of time is psychological. I would like to see some connection to brain stimulation or activity to strengthen this correlation. Recently, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have been able to “identify emotions based on brain activity” for the first time. While I will not discuss the process used to determine this, you can click on this link to read into it. But using this process could solidify Hammond’s hypothesis that fear elongates one’s perception of time.

Sources:

• Carnegie Mellon University. “Scientists identify emotions based on brain activity.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 June 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619195137.htm>.
• Popova, Maria. “Why Time Slows Down When We’re Afraid, Speeds Up as We Age, and Gets Warped on Vacation.” Brain Pickings RSS. Brain Pickings, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/07/15/time-warped-claudia-hammond/>.

Speaking to an audience of primarily college students, who are diverged in an age of sex, the topic of birth control can be extremely relevant. Birth control pills, whether taken for medical or contraceptive reasons, have become increasingly prevalent in society throughout the past 20 years. According to data gathered by the Guttmacher Institute, over 10.5 million women across the world were prescribed with the pill in 2010. Among this abundance of women, many complain that birth control has caused them to gain weight. So, is there any truth to this myth?

One explanation I found particularly interesting and probably irrational describes birth control’s influence over a woman’s steroid-hormone levels. According to studies done by exercise physiologist Change Wook Lee of Texas A&M University in 2009, steroids determine how the body gains and stores muscle. Therefore, if steroids fail to gain and store muscle, the unconverted weight would be stored as fat. To add credibility to this theory, Lee had 73 girls in similar condition complete the same workout plan for several weeks while tracking their muscle gains. Lee found that the 34 women taking oral contraceptives gained 40% less muscle than the women who had not been taking the pill.

Although Lee’s experiment produced some evidence that seemed to support his thesis, he did not take into account many other factors that could have contributed to a lack of muscle gain in individual women. To name a few, a woman’s diet, mental wellness, even genetics can all factor into her ability to gain muscle, whether she is taking oral contraceptives or not. Lee’s experimentation puts a correlation between birth control and muscle gain, which further correlates to weight gain, but to claim there is any  causation would be a long stretch.

That being said, there are plenty of woman who claim their weight has not been affected by the pill at all. This leads me to believe that the idea of weight gain related to birth control could also be psychological, if not hormonal. When a woman consistently hears that the pill will cause her to add a few pounds, her body consciousness may become heightened, leading her to notice even the slightest changes in her figure. Therefore, minor side effects of anything hormonal like temporary bloating or indigestion may convince a woman that she has gotten (for a lack of a more formal term) fatter. Heck, just looking at certain foods make a woman feel fatter… so, is birth control really the problem?

Sources:

• “Contraceptive Use in the United States.” Contraceptive Use in the United States. Guttmacher Institute, June 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html>.
• Raloff, Janet. “Birth Control Pills Can Limit Muscle-training Gains.” Science News. Society for Science & the Public 2000 – 2014, 23 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/birth-control-pills-can-limit-muscle-training-gains>.

As children, we are constantly reprimanded for a never-ending list of “bad habits” that are perceived as inappropriate and/or harmful to one’s well-being. Most of these tendencies, such as nail-biting for example, are thought to be ephemeral and will be shed as one descends into adulthood. Yet, I was intrigued to write this article from observing family members from the ages of 18-52 that suffer from the uncontrollable urges of hair-pulling, nail-biting, and/or skin-picking. Research has led me to discover that in a repetitive nature, these behaviors are more than bad habits, but can fall under a serious and mildly common disorder.

The given name for this disorder is Trichotillomania, which is classified as a Body-Focused Repetitive Behavior (BFRB). Based on the disorder’s official website, scientists have linked the repetitive behaviors to emotional distress or believe the actions are a result of another disorder one may be suffering from, although the exact cause remains unsolved. My personal intellect on the subject suggests that the disorder is genetic, and I believe my logic is justifiable. The observational data that I have gathered to form this hypothesis is directly related to my family members. My father’s sister, at age 52, has a chronic nail biting problem, which can be so severe as to cause her fingers to bleed. My 21-year-old sister faces similar issues, with an uncontrollable tendency to pick scabs during their process of healing, leaving a ladder of small scars on her arms and legs. I suffer with a combination of nail-biting, hair-pulling, and skin-picking as well, although not as severely.The correlation between generations of similar instinctive behavior within a family greatly suggests an explanation more scientific than chance.

Although the scientific reasoning behind the disorder is unclear, studying Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which can be classified in a family along with Trichotillomania, could give insight on the mystery.  In May of 2014, researchers led by Dr. Gerald Nestadt of John Hopkins University discovered “a genetic marker that may be associated with the development of obsessive compulsive disorder.” This breakthrough could be used as supportive data to the hypothesis that this specific mental illness could be passed down through a family, although further experimentation and research is necessary to confirm any causation between a specific gene and Trichotillomania. But until there’s a definitive answer, when you’re nagged for biting your nails in public or picking a scab or any other gross habits, try blaming your family’s genetics.

Sources:

• “Trichotillomania Learning Center.” Help for Hair Pulling and Skin Picking. Trichotillomania Learning Center, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.trich.org/index.html>.
• Kwan, Nicole. “Researchers Identify Genetic Marker for OCD.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 13 May 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/05/13/researchers-identify-genetic-marker-for-ocd/>.

I guess people are introducing themselves, so, I’m Julia Molchany and I’m a freshman from Allentown, PA. I feel this post is pretty redundant after reading a few other blogs, as I took the class for the same reason as many others; I wasn’t interested in taking a typical science course. As Andrew mentioned, the average high school science class was more memorizing information to perform well on a test than actual scientific thought and experimentation. Since I was required to at least one science course, my advisor recommended this class after I told her I wasn’t much interested in sciences.

I was always interested in a business major, primarily because my dad has an accounting degree (from Penn State) and works as the communications director for a large corporation. I’m aware that science is interesting and extremely vital in today’s society, but I would rather be in the business aspect of it, if anything. I’m excited for this class to think more critically about controversy and certainty in the field!