Are you a psychopath??

Psychopaths are violent criminals that creep up on people in the middle of the night only to slaughter them. This is the portrayal of psychopaths, and thankfully, is not (entirely) true.

I went to a lecture about psychopaths today, by Professor Dutton, and he raised some interesting points. He started the lecture off with a short questionnaire, of 11 questions, and we basically give responses that are marked from 0 to 3. These questions, or rather statements, are for example, “I do not care about injured animals”, where in this case, strongly disagree would score 0, while strongly agree would score 3. The higher your score is out of 33, the more “psychopathic” you are.

He also gave two theoretical scenarios. In the first one, there is a train that is going so fast that it is impossible to stop. It is approaching a fork in the tracks, and on one track lies 5 people, while there is only 1 on the other. Most of us, would rationally reason that sacrificing 1 to save 5 would be reasonable. However, in the second situation, where the train thats going at a high speed approaches a track where there are 5 people on it. To stop the train from hitting the people, you could push a “large” person that’s standing by the track in front of the train, thereby obstructing track. Essentially, the concept of saving 5 while sacrificing 1 is the same, but a normal person would have a dilemma with the second scenario. What professor Dutton proposed was that a psychopath would approach the second the same way we approach the first, with little struggle, due to their emotional detachment from the situation.

There are a few characteristics that categorizes psychopaths e.g.  compulsiveness, ruthlessness, lack of empathy, charming, anti-social, egocentricity etc. Doesn’t that sound like the C.E.O. from some multi-national company? Actually, psychopathy is just a personality disorder, and most psychopaths are not violent. In fact, quite the opposite, many psychopaths characters that allow them to succeed in their field. Even though there is a negative connotation that comes with a label like “psychopath”, it might not be so bad after all.

Essentially, there are 3 main characteristics of psychopaths:

I: Fearless dominance

II: Impulsive antisociality

III: Coldheartedness

These characteristics allow a psychopath to be intelligent, influential, and rational, even in situations where you and I would succumb to emotions and ethics. This leads me to think, should psychopathy be treated? If a psychopath loses his advantage in making rational decisions under stress, would that help or hinder his life? But then again, there is always the worry that they might be a danger to society. Psychopaths pursue their personal goals at all costs, and would even blame others for their failures. Surely it would be beneficial to them as well as us to restore some morals and empathy for others?

Anyways, here is my rant on psychopathy, thanks for reading.

EVOLUTION and it’s doubts

I’ve just finished reading the book “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who happens to be a also a strong advocate of intelligent design. Contrary to the view of most modern biologists, he believes the existence of an intelligent agent who created the first organism, and to some degree, the rest of the organisms we see today.

One of his arguments was the irreducible complexity of certain chemical pathways in biological systems. When a system cannot function when any one of its parts are missing, it is irreducibly complex. Behe gave a simple example of such a system: the mousetrap. A mousetrap with a platform, spring, hammer, catch and a holding bar would be irreducibly complex, as the trap cannot function if it misses any one of its parts. What does this mean? Well, for evolution to occur, the complex system must be able to be derived from the accumulation of small stepwise changes (mutations), and each step must benefit the organism in some way which enhances its chances of survival.

With a irreducibly complex system, by definition, it must have all of its components for the system to function. If it is so, there is no way a step-wise change could be the explanation for its occurrence. Let us try to build a mousetrap in the evolution style. Lets say we have a wooden board laying around performing some other function, like being a door stopper. Then you still need the spring, catch, hammer and holding bar. Even by coincidence that all of the components happen to aggregate together, what is the probability of all the parts being assembled in the right way, with the spring the right tension, the hammer and holding bar the right length, by chance “mutation” alone?

The key to this problem is the irreducible complexity. But all I’ve mentioned is a mousetrap, how is it compatible to biological systems? With the advancement of biochemistry, we now know more about the chemical pathways our body than we’ve ever known. And with more discoveries, comes the realization of the complexity of these interrelated enzymes, proteins and agents, all working together to perform a single function. One of such examples is the blood clotting (coagulation) cascade, which involves fibrinogen, which is activated by thrombin, which is activated by Stuart factor, which is activated by 2 different pathways, and accelerated by accelerin, which is activated by… thrombin. That is not all. Prothrombin (inactivated form of thrombin) but first be modified to bind with 10 specific amino acid residues, which then bind with calcium, in order for it to be “activate-able”. This complicated system is there to make sure clots only form when there is a wound, rather than anywhere in the blood vessels. This regulatory system certainly must have developed with the initial blood clotting system, as unregulated blood clotting certainly does more harm than good, which would not be selected for by natural selection.

This is not to say that evolution is completely useless, as it is a great explanation for some changes in characteristics after the basic irreducibly complex systems are established. The famous finches in the Galapagos islands, a.k.a. Darwin’s finches, with their different beaks adapted to the food they eat, is probably a result of natural selection and evolution, as a well-suited beak would maximise its feeding opportunities, which increases its chances of survival and reproduction. Evolution theory is a step at explaining the diversity of species, but it is certainly not the ultimate explanation. Perhaps we would eventually provide an explanation of the origin of irreducibly complex systems and a satisfying “how” answer to the Cambian explosion (another puzzling event), or maybe not.

*Disclaimer*

Meant no offense to any one (scientists/atheists/both), and read “Darwin’s Black Box”! I apologize for any errors in the biological descriptions above.

Why Good Writing Matters

Why Good Writing Matters in science as much as journalism.

Intellect is not everything. What is having a brilliant idea if it couldn’t be communicated to others? Read this article by the blogger Neurotaylor to find out her personal experiences with bad writings.

I’ll have to admit, my English is pretty bad compared to many bloggers out there, and my excuse was always, “I’m a science person, not a linguist”, or “language is not important as long as you are understood”. Well, who wants to read a paper full of grammatical errors? This article was quite a wake-up call for me, and I should really start reading more…

 

What near-death experiences explain to the living

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Ub2xx0KQ0

We hear a lot about near-death experiences, specifically people seeing bright tunnel of light after being “dead” or feeling a sensation of utter peacefulness. In fact, NDEs are said to be sub-divided into 5 stages:

1. Peace
2. Body separation
3. Entering darkness
4. Seeing the light
5. Entering the light

This is common in many who have had such experiences, and some can be explained scientifically. For example, the light receptor cells in the retina of the eye is concentrated in the centre and dispersed towards the sides, and when death is near, these cells fire signals to the brain uncontrollably. This produces a bright spot at the centre, while the edges are dim, which could be described as a “light tunnel”. The apparent peace is thought to be caused by the flood of the hormone endorphines in the brain, which causes a sensation of happiness and blissfulness.

However, there are other points that science simply can’t explain. How could a woman, blind all her life, see light and the operation room? How did someone, who was clinically dead for hours during a neurosurgery, manage to hear the conversations between the doctors? More importantly, is the brain the creator of the mind, or simply the host? Watch this BBC documentary if you are skeptical, and hear, first hand, the recounts of the unimaginable events that happened.

Siblings

 

 

If you have a brother/sister, you’d know what I’m talking about. I’m sure we can agree that siblings can get so annoying! Howis it that irrespective of personality and age difference, siblings just seem to not get along normally? The answer is: human nature. Sibling rivalry and competition for everything, from the attention of the parent to personal achievements, is an in-born instinct, which we (should) spend much time to overcome.

This is a trait passed down from our early ancestors, because of survival of the fittest. At the age where not all the children born are expected to be raised to adulthood, stronger and therefore more healthy offsprings would be able to fight for attention and care, which allows them to survive. This is also why babies, although they’re physically small (and cute), their cries are as loud as a functioning road drill, reaching 130 decibals! Unlike many newborns of other species, babies are very vulnerable. Without their parents, they are not likely to survive. It takes a baby 6 months to sit upright, while calves only take minutes to learn to walk!

Back to siblings. The older and younger siblings fight for attention quite differently. Generally, the younger sibling is more rebellious, and would fight for attention by throwing tantrums or crying and screaming. This behavior might follow them into adulthood, and they would challenge the established rules of society, bringing fresh new ideas crucial for the development of human kind. Its no surprise that Charles Darwin, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Thomas Jefferson all have older siblings. Even if this is just a co-incidence, I definitely see my younger sister, throwing tantrums just to gain the attention of my parents.

On the other hand, the older sibling tend to act by the rules and do their own thing, and I’m not just saying this because I’m the oldest one. We don’t throw things around and scream to gain attention, mostly because it would not work and we would be grounded, but would prefer to act less radically. I might be making a gross overgeneralization here, but it might be due to the fact that we are expected to act like the older one since young. We are expected to be mature, to take care of our younger siblings, and we are rewarded for that in terms of compliments and attention.

Even though I might sound like I hate my sister, but really, I don’t-she’s the cutest thing ever. But based on survival instincts, I probably should.

Nah, we’re modern humans with laptops and smartphones, we should start to act like one. Siblings don’t threaten our chances of survival (unless he/she happens to be a psychotic murderer.. which I hope not) and having a harmonious family life is one of the most beneficial things, so love your siblings! Or not. But then you’ll have to suffer all your life, unless you’re the psychotic murderer…

Anyway, I really love ranting about the evil deeds of my sister but this post is getting too long. Thanks for reading!