Growing up as a native Spanish speaker attending an American school, all I heard from people was that being bilingual was going to be a huge advantage for me in the future. For me, it was never a huge deal because I grew up knowing both languages and that was just normal to me. Other people thought it was really impressive, which made them think that I was somehow smarter, since apparently people who can speak more than one language are smarter than monolinguals. I never felt particularly smarter than others just because I was lucky enough to be taught more than one language growing up, but I still find myself wanting to know if being bilingual makes a difference in a person’s level of intelligence.

Up until the last century, it was assumed that teaching a child more than one language would confuse him or her and be detrimental towards their cognitive development. However, this idea was challenged by Ellen Bialystok of York University, who used a series of studies to prove that bilingual people actually show better performance on cognitive control tasks, since she argues that bilinguals are better at suppressing irrelevant or interfering information. She says that they have an easier time doing this because they already have to do that every day, by suppressing words from one language in their mind while they are speaking the other language. This makes a lot of sense to me, and I guess I’m technically doing it right now as I’m writing this. My brain is suppressing the irrelevant Spanish words and phrases I know, and instead only accessing the English ones. According to these researchers, doing this gives your brain a “workout”, which ultimately makes you smarter.

There is evidence that bilingual children solve non-verbal conflict tasks differently from monolingual children, as reported in a study by Bialystok and Majumder. Eight-year-old children were given a variety of non-verbal problems to solve, with or without perceptual distractions. Bilingual children outperformed monolinguals in the tasks with the distractions, but both groups were pretty equal in the ones without distractions. “Older people were also tested in a different study, in which participants were shown either a green or a red square on each trial, and they had to press a specific key as rapidly as possible in response.” The keys were situated in two different places in two separate instances, in order to compare the reaction times from both groups. The first instance showed no differences in reaction times from both the bilingual and monolingual groups, and the keys were located centrally on the screen. On the second instance, the keys were located laterally, one above the correct response and the other one above the incorrect one. Bilinguals performed better in this study than monolinguals at all ages. However, this advantage was only seen in the young children and older adult group, but for some reason not in the young adult one, which suggests that this advantage is only greater in young and older people, maybe due to the fact that young adults are at their peak age for developing cognitive control.

My final takeaway on this topic is that there might be a correlation between improvement in cognitive control tasks and being bilingual. However, there is no evidence that fully proves that being bilingual somehow makes you “smarter”, according to these studies it simply means bilinguals might have some advantages in certain tasks.

Picture links:

http://livingbilingual.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The_Benefits_Of_Being_Bilingual.jpg

https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/blogs/72146/2015/01/168341-173512.jpg?itok=nGDZzO0f

With the current national controversy regarding the defunding of Planned Parenthood, I became curious and researched the different services they offered. One of the services mentioned were the emergency contraceptive pills, which are supposed to prevent pregnancy after having unprotected sex. The pills, also called “the morning after pills”, contain 1.5 milligrams of levonorgestrel, used in birth control pills. The pill works by either preventing or delaying ovulation and interfering with the fertilization of an egg in the uterus by altering its lining. A common misconception with the Plan B pill is that it causes miscarriage or abortion, as seen in national debates from religious groups and conservative politicians. I decided to research more about this topic, particularly if these emergency contraceptive pills could be considered abortion pills as these groups suggest.

These groups believe that Plan B pills are considered abortion because they say it might stop the pregnancy after the fertilization of the egg, which they consider killing the baby. However, there is no evidence that suggests that the Plan B pill works after an egg is fertilized. There were two studies that further researched this claim, in which women who took emergency contraceptive pills were monitored and they identified their menstrual cycle day. This cleared up which women were in ovulation. Among the women tested, the ones who took the pill before their ovulation didn’t get pregnant, and among the women who took it on the day of their ovulation or after, there were still a number of pregnancies. This proves that if the pills were effective at preventing implantation after fertilization of the egg, then they probably would be more effective when taken after ovulation.

There was another study done in 2010 regarding this topic, in which the researchers organized a randomized clinical trial with 56 women with regular cycles. The women were given a single dose of ulipristal acetate (Ella emergency contraceptive pill used in Europe) in different doses of 10, 50, or 100 mgs, or a placebo given two days after ovulation. “4 to 6 days after this, the women had a transvaginal ultrasound scan, which measured the thickness of the endometrium, which is the membrane lining the uterus that thickens in preparation of implementation of en embryo.” The study showed that increased doses of Ella might decrease the thickness of the endometrium by 0.6 to 2.2 mm. However, it’s not clear if this would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

My final takeaway on this topic is that emergency contraceptive pills should not be considered the same as abortion pills. According to the multiple studies conducted on this topic, there is no evidence that suggests that the pills are effective after the fertilization of the egg. Therefore, the emergency contraceptive pills don’t work the same way that RU486 (the abortion pill) does. The RU486 starts contractions that result as a miscarriage, which is completely different from the Plan B and Ella emergency contraceptive pills.

Picture links:

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PlanB_One-Step.jpg

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/am/v2/n1/plan-b-fig-1.jpg

Throughout the years, there has been a controversy regarding the topic of smoking marijuana and whether it’s good or bad for you. I have encountered people that say smoking marijuana doesn’t harm your body, and other people that say it’s absolutely terrible for you. With the legalization of marijuana in various places around the world, including in some states in the U.S. such as Colorado, I decided to research both sides of the argument and see if there are health risks involved with smoking marijuana.

The International Lung Cancer Consortium conducted a study to investigate the correlation between cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk. They collected data on 2,985 people from 6 case-control studies in the U.S., Canada, UK, and New Zealand. Several variables were considered in this study, such as sociodemographic factors and tobacco-smoking status. They were divided into groups according to amount of marijuana smoked, such as habitual smokers, nonhabitual smokers, and people that had never smoked. Habitual individuals were categorized that way if they smoked a joint or more per day for 10 years. The researchers studied the number of people who got lung cancer, and found that there is a weak association between smoking marijuana and getting lung cancer, with non-tobacco smokers. However, since this correlation was so low, the study concluded that there is little evidence for an increased risk of getting lung cancer either for habitual or nonhabitual cannabis smokers.

While studies might suggest that there is little correlation between lung cancer risk and smoking marijuana, there are other studies that argue that marijuana use has an adverse effect on brain development. A study conducted by the Oxford University Press researched if there is a correlation between cannabis use and working memory and neuroanatomical differences. The study was conducted by comparing brains of people with cannabis use disorder and brains of people with schizophrenia. “The subject groups had matching demographics, and they included 44 healthy controls: 28 with schizophrenia with no history of substance abuse, 10 with cannabis use disorder, and 15 with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.” The researchers obtained representations of the thalamus, globus pallidus, and striatum, using an HD mapping with MRI system. There were significant cannabis-related differences across both cannabis use disorder groups, particularly in the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus. The schizophrenic/cannabis use disorder group showed greater neuroanatomical differences compared to the other cannabis-use group. These results show that both cannabis-use groups had working memory deficits as well as neuroanatomical differences. However, the study was not entirely clear in explaining the results of the experiment. The study hasn’t been able to determine if the use of cannabis contributes to the differences in shape, or if these differences in shape are caused specifically by smoking marijuana.

My final takeaway on this topic is that clearly smoking marijuana has some adverse side effects on the brain, as seen in the Oxford University Press study. However, according to the first study mentioned, there is little to no correlation between smoking marijuana and lung cancer. I only researched the effects of marijuana on the brain and lungs though, so it’s possible that marijuana affects other parts of the body either adversely or with no consequence.

As a college student, it’s pretty hard to find the time to study, eat, socialize, and work out. For most students, studying takes up most of their time, while socializing and eating takes up a sizeable chunk as well. Everyone knows the importance of exercising regularly, but there are so many different exercises out there it’s hard to decide which one to do. With my mom calling me every other day reminding me how important it is to work out, I decided to research the best types of exercises to do.

According to the Harvard Health Publications from Harvard Medical School, swimming is considered the perfect workout. It’s been said that swimming is a full body workout, since it exercises your entire body. “The buoyancy of the water also supports your body and takes the strain off painful joints so you can move them more fluidly.” It also brings cardiovascular and respiratory benefits, since if you’re swimming at a fast pace your heart will work faster and generate more energy, and your lungs will also work faster and strengthen.

Studies conducted by the Cooper Clinic in Dallas researched this topic extensively. One of the studies “compared measures of cardiovascular health, such as cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and maximum energy output, across nearly 46,000 male and female runners, swimmers, walkers, and people who don’t exercise.” Swimmers and runners had the best results, which means there could be a correlation between swimming and improved cardiovascular health. The other study conducted by the Cooper Clinic looked at deaths of 40, 547 men ages 20 to 90. “Over an average of 13 years of follow-up, only 2% of the swimmers died.”

While many might consider swimming to be the best form of exercise, it might be harder to find time to go swimming as a college student, which is why I decided to research other effective forms of exercise. According to Runners World, running also has numerous health benefits such as the prevention of obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, stroke, high blood pressure, and the improvement of your mental health. However, a study conducted by the Frederksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, states that running too much might be detrimental for a person’s health. Researchers concluded that while jogging and being active is good for you, running more than three days a week for 1 to 2 hours each time, might not be good for you.

“Dr. Jacob Marott and his colleagues followed 1,100 healthy joggers and 413 sedentary people out of approximately 5,000 healthy Danish adults for 12 years.” They took into account variables such as their perception of their pace and their hours and frequency of jogging. Marott and the other researchers found that the strenuous joggers were as likely to die during that time period as the sedentary non-joggers, while light or moderate joggers weren’t. Marott believes that “long-term strenuous endurance exercise may induce pathological structural remodeling of the heart and large arteries.” However, since the joggers self reported their perception of their pace, the results might not be as accurate since people have different perceptions of what is considered “strenuous jogging”.

My final takeaway on this topic is that swimming might be the form of exercise that is less risky and brings the most benefits, closely followed by non-strenous jogging. While the Danish study might have skewed results due to the anecdotal responses, it still might be a good idea not to overdo it while running or jogging. However, I can conclude that there is a possible correlation between exercising and health benefits.

Picture links:

https://colliersmagazine.com/sites/default/files/running%20dude.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/231000_-_Swimming_Daniel_Bell_reflections_action_-_3b_-_2000_Sydney_event_photo.jpg

Obviously most of us in this class (myself included) don’t drink yet since it’s not legal in the United States, but we might have heard our parents or older friends saying the expression “a glass of wine a day is good for you”. This always seemed a little strange to me, since people are always warning us about the effects of alcohol and how detrimental it is towards our body. So I decided to research if wine is actually good for a person’s health, and why.

According to Health magazine, wine has numerous benefits. One of them is the preservation of a person’s memory. A study was conducted by giving memory quizzes to women in their 70s, and those who drank one drink or more a day scored much better than those who didn’t. Another study from Texas A&M University using rats also produced similar results. Middle-aged rats were treated with resveratrol, a compound found in wine, and the other group of rats was given a placebo drug. The rats treated with resveratrol demonstrated improved memory and learning. Since resveratrol has also shown to have anti-inflammatory properties and triggering the growth of new blood vessels, the A&M scientists wondered if it could improve age-related memory loss. “The hippocampus (the area of the brain associated with memory) experiences inflammation as we age, which is thought to contribute to increase in age-related memory loss.”

The scientists from A&M conducted a series of behavioral tests before administering the compound and the placebo drug. The tests revealed that both groups of middle-aged rats had similar memory and learning abilities. Two months later, they tested the mice’s abilities again and the controlled group’s memory deteriorated, while the group administered the resveratrol’s memory improved. “Their cell growth in their hippocampus also doubled, compared with the control group.” While this hasn’t been tested in humans yet, this study shows that resveratrol, and wine in general, does have positive effects on the hippocampus and memory.

According to a study conducted in Queens University by Dr. Liam J. Murray, those who drink a few glasses of wine a week have a lower chance of carrying Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), a bacteria that causes stomach ulcers. Dr. Murray and his colleagues tested 10,537 people for this infection, and they asked how much alcohol they consumed. “They found out that it took at least three glasses of wine a week to prevent against H. pylori, since those who drank three to six glasses had 11% fewer infections. Drinking more than six glasses per week decreased the infections by another 6%.” The reason why this happens is because wine increases secretion of stomach acids, which speeds the emptying of the stomach. The compounds found in wine also include antibacterial components.

My final takeaway on this topic is that wine is actually good for you in many different ways (in moderation). According to my research and the different studies conducted, drinking a few glasses of wine a week is beneficial towards a person’s memory as well as helps prevent stomach infections.

Picture links:

http://yellowfarmhousewines.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/7Wine_IsItGoodForYou.jpg

http://www.turangacreek.co.nz/userfiles/image/health-wine2.jpg

The 21^st century has brought an influx in the use of technology, especially the use of cellphones. It seems like every month there is a new phone coming out, and it’s becoming increasingly normal for everyone, including younger kids, to have a smartphone or some sort of cellphone. With the increase in the use of cellphones, there has been a lot of speculation of whether the use of cellphones is bad for you or not. I’ve head multiple rumors regarding this claim, including cellphones giving people cancer or cellphones stunting a child’s brain growth. I decided to research this myself and see if the claim is actually true.

The first step of my research was to find out why people think cellphones are dangerous or hazardous in the first place. Cellphones work by transmitting and receiving radio frequencies to cellphones towers. According to Best Health magazine, these radio frequencies have been found to be able to penetrate your body, depending on how close you hold the phone to yourself and the strength of the radio signal. The strength of this can vary, mostly depending on the distance between your phone and a cell tower (the farther away you are from one, the radio frequency energy increases).

Some scientists and studies have determined that long-term heavy cellphone use and exposure to these radio frequencies has been linked to the increased risk of ear nerve cancer and slow-growing brain tumors. Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Sweden, conducted the study that suggests that swedes who talk on a mobile phone for more than 25 years had triple the risk of getting glioma, a certain type of brain cancer, compared with those who used wireless phones for less than a year. “Hardell and his collegue Michael Carlberg, matched 1,380 patients with malignant brain tumors to people without them and compared their wireless phone use.” He asked people to recall their wireless phone use throughout the years, and recorded their responses.

Hardell also reported that children might be more susceptible to the emissions from the phones, since they absorb the radio frequencies easier due to their thinner skulls and smaller heads.

While Hardell provided information that proves that there is a correlation between cellphone use and the increase chances of getting glioma, he didn’t take into account that his information might not be entirely accurate. Much of his data for the experiment was based off anecdotal evidence, so these people might not remember exactly how much time they spent on the phone.

Another study conducted by Dr. Gabriel Zada, a neurosurgeon at the University of Southern California, reported that the rates of malignant tumors in parts of the brain closest to where people hold their phones increased in California from 1992 to 2006. This study conducted by Dr. Zada was done with data from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program, the California Cancer Registry, and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. “He observed the correlation between lobe glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumors in different areas of the brain, and concluded that there were increases of GBM in the temporal and frontal lobe, as well as the cerebellum.” The radio frequency energy, which could be absorbed by the tissues closest to where the phone is held, could be responsible for the increase of GBM in these areas of the brain.

My final takeaway on this topic is that there is clearly a correlation between cellphone use and harmful effects towards the body (such as the possibility of getting cancer). However, I don’t believe it is a direct cause, just that there’s a possibility it might be harmful. I think there’s still much more research and studies to be done in order to determine this.

Picture links:

http://learnfromlance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/warning-to-cell-phone-users-275×300.png

http://en.kllproject.lv/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cell-phone-radiation-spectru.gif

There has been debate throughout the years of whether being gay is a choice or not. Many people believe that gay people choose to be gay and they could just turn it off whenever they want to. However, I don’t think this is the case. In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense for someone to go through the trouble of “coming out” of the closet, possibly facing judgment and/or problems from society, or just making things harder for themselves in general. Therefore, I believe that being gay is not a choice. This led me to question why people were gay, though. I thought that perhaps there might be a genetic or biological reason as to why people were gay in the first place.

According to my research, there are no clear “gay genes” that have been discovered so far. However, this doesn’t mean that sexual orientation isn’t biologically based. There are many other species that have been reported to engage in same-sex behavior, or be a part of a same-sex pairing. “Lions, chimpanzees, bison, and dolphins have all been reported to be part of same-sex pairings.” This proves that homosexuality isn’t just an inherently human notion, since other species also engage in same-sex behavior.

Despite there not being any “gay genes”, according to studies, there are some genes that make being gay likelier. “A study published in the journal Psychological Medicine showed that a gene on chromosome 8 and a gene on the X chromosome called Xq28, seem to be more prevalent in gay men.” It’s also more likely for identical twins to be gay than it is for fraternal twins, which could mean it’s genetic since identical twins share all their genes.

There are other theories that explore the possibilities of biological effects shaping sexual orientation. For example, there have been studies that suggest that hormone exposure in the womb could affect a person’s sexual orientation. One of the theories is that female homosexuals and female heterosexuals have different inner ear shapes. According to the researchers at the University of Texas in Austin, the inner ear of homosexual and bisexual women tend to be structured a bit more like a man’s. While this seems somewhat strange, some researchers believe that women with male twins might be exposed to male hormones in the womb, which could alter their female development. “They also believe that low levels of male hormones could potentially masculinize some girls in the womb, and possibly affecting parts of their anatomy, such as hearing and sexual preference.”

My final takeaway on this topic is that there is still not enough information out there to know completely if being gay is genetic and/or biologically based. While I believe that being gay is not a choice, I’m still not really sure why some people are gay and others straight. However, after doing research, I think that it might have something to do with genetics and biology, even though I’m not exactly sure which theories are correct and which ones aren’t.

Picture sources:

http://imageslgmr.lazygamer.netdna-cdn.com/2014/07/gay-pride.jpg

https://hrexach.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/gchoi3.jpg

One of my favorite things to do in my spare time is eat. And one of my favorite things to eat in the whole world is chocolate. Therefore, I consider myself somewhat of a chocolate connoisseur; I know which brands are the best and which countries produce the finest quality in chocolate. My mother often tells me that I should be healthier with my eating habits, especially when it comes to chocolate and other foods typically associated with being bad for you. Growing up, I always wished that fruits and vegetables were considered unhealthy and junk food and candy were considered good for you. Therefore, I have decided to research if chocolate is actually good for you, mainly so I can call my mom and tell her she was wrong all this time.

Many people have remarked that chocolate is good for the soul, however, is it good for the body? After doing some research, I discovered that scientifically, chocolate is indeed good for not only the body, but the mind as well. Chocolate stimulates the release of endorphins, which are natural hormones produced by the brain, and they create feelings of happiness. “Chocolate also contains tryptophan, an amino acid needed by the brain to produce serotonin. Serotonin is a mood-modulating neurotransmitter, which produces feelings of happiness.” There are other ingredients included, such as the “neurotransmitter anandamide (affects same brain structure as THC).” This is one of the reasons why people feel better when eating chocolate and when they need comforting, since it actually has the power to elevate a person’s mood.

There have been some studies that suggest that cocoa has a very positive impact on test taking. “Northumbria University conducted the study, in which volunteers were asked to drink either two variations of a chocolate drink with different dosages, or they were given a placebo, and they were asked to take a math exam after.” Both groups who drank the chocolate drinks did much better, and reported feeling less fatigued. They accomplished the calculations more quickly and more accurately than the group who were given the placebo drink. Therefore, the study shows that students who eat a proper amount of chocolate while studying might actually benefit and do better.

Chocolate benefits other parts of the body as well, such as the heart. “The University of Utah conducted a study in which patients ate unprocessed cocoa for two weeks, and later on experienced a decrease in their blood pressure.” Apparently, doing this achieves the same results you would experience by dieting or taking some blood pressure medicine. Lowered blood pressure reduces the chances of other medical complications, such as heart attacks or heart conditions and diseases.

My final takeaway on this topic is that chocolate is indeed very good for the body. However, my research also showed that it’s only good under moderation, since eating too much might lead to other health problems, such as obesity. The benefits clearly outweigh the negatives, though, so happy eating!

Picture sources:

http://www.healthyfellow.com/images/2009/chocolate-health.jpg

http://www.charterfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/172824-chocolate-heart-of-chocolate.jpg

I read the novel Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn about a year ago, and I was both horrified and fascinated by the plot and the characters, especially the main character Amy Elliott Dunne and her husband, Nick Dunne. Nick and Amy appear to be happily married at first. Amy disappears on their fifth wedding anniversary, and Nick becomes the prime suspect in Amy’s disappearance. We are led to believe that he killed her due to several of Amy’s diary entries and occurrences. (Spoiler alert) However, we learn in the second half of the novel that it was just an elaborate ruse constructed by Amy to get revenge on Nick for cheating on her. She manipulates the situation to make it seem as though Nick killed her, and she does this through extortion, manipulation, murder, and lying.

While reading the novel, I always thought Amy might have some sort of personality disorder (or multiple) in order to be able to do all that, so I decided to diagnose her. Amy does several things throughout the novel to characterize her as a psychopath. First of all, she frames her husband for murder and fakes her own disappearance, to get revenge for her husband’s infidelity. In her quest for revenge, she kills another man and manipulates him, and disregards her family’s feelings. Psychopaths are characterized as being daring and taking risks, which fits in with Amy’s quest for revenge.

Amy Elliott quite possibly also suffers from the narcissistic personality disorder. We can see this mainly due to Amy’s desire for revenge after she saw Nick cheating on her. This is very characteristic of a person with this disorder, as well as their desire to be the center of attention at all times. We can see that Amy loves being the center of attention when she watches the news coverage of herself while she’s on the run.

Amy Elliott also had a strange childhood that could’ve possibly influenced her life and resulted in her narcissism. Her parents were famous authors of children’s’ books, with Amy starring the books as “Amazing Amy”. Every time Amy did something wrong, “Amazing Amy” would do it right in the books. Her parents basically profited off of her childhood, which ultimately messed Amy up. According to researchers, narcissism could stem from extreme forms of dysfunctional parenting, when the “children strive to meet their unfulfilled early needs during adulthood.”

Amy also has a history of manipulating people to do her bidding without thinking about them. It seems like she has no conscience, and we can see this when she uses Desi and manipulates him and later murder him just so it seems like he raped her and tried to kill her. This is another characteristic of the antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy), since people with that disorder have no regard for right or wrong.

My final takeaway on this topic is that Amy Elliott definitely had either the antisocial personality disorder or the narcissistic personality disorder (or both). Her actions throughout the novel make it clear that she needs serious help.

Picture sources:

http://fe867b.medialib.glogster.com/media/b1/b1b7907dc8365bd9a1ff5c5a0994a109f58088852263a3398e60e9e549244d23/antisocial-20personality-20disorder.jpg

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/a30c4dd/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F77%2F71%2F267e84a94af0843a72468cae0b69%2F141027-gonegirl-submitted.jpg

We’ve been discussing the question of whether sex or biology determines gender in my Women’s Studies class. All of us had to research both sides of the argument, and later on debate the topic in class. Our professor didn’t tell us which side we would be on until we arrived in class, however. When we got there, I was assigned to the biological side of the argument, which in my opinion, was slightly easier to argue since I could base my points on scientific facts. Either way, I can definitely appreciate both sides of the argument after doing research and analyzing both.

My professor provided definitions of both sex and gender, and I think understanding both is essential in order to be able to discuss the argument properly. According to Professor McGowan, sex is the categories of male and female, and the biological characteristics and properties of bodies placed in their categories. Gender is the masculine and feminine characteristics assigned to bodies in cultural contexts and the social expectation that everyone will fit into their designated gender roles.

At first, I analyzed the “society determines gender” portion of the debate using several sources. “The only way we notice how gender is produced is if there’s a disruption in our daily lives regarding men and women’s behavior.” Therefore, we usually fail to notice gender signs until they are missing. “Gender construction begins with the assignment to a sex category at birth, depending on genitalia.” After that, parents dress their babies in a certain way in order to avoid people asking them whether their baby is a boy or a girl. Once a child’s gender is evident, others treat them in a specific way, and the children behave differently. Children learn to walk, talk, and gesture the way their social group says girls and boys should.

On the other hand, some people argue that biology plays a much bigger role in determining the gender of a person. For example, hormones play a huge part in the development of a person’s personality and affect their behavior. Testosterone is more present in males than in females, who have larger doses of estrogen. “Testosterone acts upon the hypothalamus, which results in masculinization of the brain, and causes typically male behaviors such as aggression, competitiveness, visio-spatial abilities, higher sexual drive, etc.” There have been tests run on animals, in which scientists have increased the females’ exposure to testosterone, and the results stated that they engaged in much more aggressive behaviors.

My final takeaway on this topic is that both biology and society definitely affect gender. While biology plays a huge role in influencing a person’s behavior, their interactions with other people and the way they are viewed and treated majorly affects their development and changes their personality. Also, a person’s gender identity might not match their biological sex, which could cause some confusion in the person’s life and lead them to become transsexual or transgender. Therefore, I conclude that gender is shaped by both social and biological factors.

Sources:

http://www.testocreme.com/images/Testosterone-Target-Organs-.jpg

Biological Theories of Gender

http://sociology.sunimc.net/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100912/20100912154810839.pdf

Grey’s Anatomy is one of primetime television’s most popular TV shows, its 12th season about to premiere in a couple of weeks. The storyline follows the lives of the surgeons working at Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital in Seattle, WA. The show is introduced with the main characters starting their first year as surgical interns, and the show progresses through the rest of their residency until they finally become attendings.

It’s an ongoing joke between Grey’s Anatomy fans that these doctors have the most dangerous jobs in the world. These doctors have been subjected to deadly events such as: a plane crash, jumping in front of a bus, getting cancer, a shooter in the hospital, a bomb, and almost drowning, and more. The show’s executive producer and creator, Shonda Rhimes, has also gotten several threats throughout the years after killing off many fan favorite characters, particularly after (SPOILER ALERT) Dr. Derek “McDreamy” Shepherd’s death.

However, despite all these unlikely events happening to the same group of people, there are other common medical terms and events occurring on every episode as the doctors treat patients every day. I’ve watched the show multiple times (I’m a huge fan, obviously) and while watching the doctors treat their patients and operate, I’ve always wondered if the show is actually medically accurate or if these procedures and operations are as unlikely as some of the other storylines.

I did some research, and found an article online that explores some of these questions. One of the ongoing storylines in Grey’s Anatomy deals with Alzheimer’s disease. The disease has personally affected Dr. Meredith Grey, the main character. Her mother died from it, and in one of the later seasons she has genetic testing done to see if she has the genetic markers for Alzheimer’s. According to the Boston Magazine article, “TV show writers and producers ask doctors and other experts for information through the Hollywood, Health & Society program at USC.” For storylines such as this one, the show writers contacted Dr. Ting Wu from Harvard Medical School, and asked her questions in order to make the storylines as believable as possible.

Other sources, however, state that Grey’s Anatomy is extremely inaccurate when it comes to running a hospital, specifically in instances related to organ donation. In one of the earlier seasons, “Dr. Cristina Yang, a then surgical intern, tactlessly asks a dead patient’s wife for her husband’s organs just minutes after he died, so another patient could get them.” Another instance includes one of the doctors, Izzie Stevens, getting involved with one of her patients and cutting his LVAD wire so he would get bumped up the organ donor’s list. When Dr. Stevens’ superiors found out what happened, she merely got suspended.

My final takeaway on this topic is that while the Grey’s Anatomy writers and producers use resources to try and make the medical terms as accurate as possible, their need to dramatize the events makes many of these unlikely. These fictional doctors violate many ethical and standard medical procedures, which wouldn’t happen in real life.

Sources:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2005/09/paging_dr_welby.html

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/32/f4/8a/32f48a557e158b6f268e7d093cf4672b.jpg

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2013/10/03/science-behind-greys-anatomy/

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7a/78/58/7a7858f915842edfab26b7bbe34f4c0a.jpg

Hi! My name is Natalia Paternina and I was born in Cartagena, Colombia but I’ve been living in Michigan for the past two years. I’m an international relations major, and I’m planning on going to Law school after I finish my undergrad (for now). I’m taking this course because I’m not really a science person and I read an interesting article on Onward State describing the class, and I thought it sounded interesting. I’m not planning on being a science major since I kind of developed a phobia for all things science after taking AP Biology as a sophomore.

This is a picture of my hometown, Cartagena. It’s a beautiful city with great food, people, beaches, and nightlife!