Interesting article in Science

[AquaEyes]

Um, wasn't the original article commentary about behavior in a species of bird? How does this apply to where the conversation went?

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I purposefully didn't as it wasn't directed at me, and I felt it was too far from the original topic to delve into. But, to try to apply it, the metaphor itself is a bit hazy/unsatisfactory within our society (comparing dog to human, just doesn't really get to the meat of the issue). That said, we already do things like medicate and treat people with disorders and mental illness. This is especially true if you can catch it early and/or convince adults to go in for treatment, but is not limited to that (ie. there is 'involuntary' or 'assisted' commitment).

Adults suffering from, say, bi-polar, will often enough stop taking their medications during their manic phases. If the onset happens or if you catch it while people are still minors, clinical treatment becomes a lot easier to put in motion. If you can catch it even earlier (ie. identify a gene), you are looking at even more options as we have become quite adept at turning genes on/off, splicing in or removing sections of DNA, etc. If you can identify what organic/gene combination triggers schizophrenia, you may not have to look at treating it when it emerges later in life...or letting it go untreated. If you can identify what injuries and areas of damage to the brain will result in criminal behavior/aggression/poor behavioral control, you are looking at treatments for that at the time of injury, and you are learning what to identify for it/what to look for. In the case of criminals, you are looking at better chances of rehabilitation, because yes, many prisoners do prefer a chance at a 'normal' life versus being in a stressful, forced environment.

In relation to the topic of violence begetting violence as it were, if you can prove it happens, can observe how it happens, can see what species it occurs in, can study exactly what is happening within the brain and body...you have the building blocks to better understand what sort of effects abuse has on people at both the mental and physical level, and also can best choose animal models for resulting testing. It may very well be that stress/reactions to aggression/etc. has effects on what neurological pathways are formed, or that it actually changes the brain structure (ie. hippocampus size correlates with clinical depression). As zooarch mentioned:

Often times all the studies that don't seem to make sense are building the knowledge so that a larger conclusion can be drawn. You also need to have these developmental studies to add to the qualitative studies that focus on behavior.

I hope that helps address your questions regarding why resulting treatments do not just equate to involuntary commitment...and how they can in fact prevent that by understanding and then preventing biological and environmental triggers that lead up to incarceration based on violent behavior (as opposed to say, being caught with the wacky weed, which is another discussion entirely).​

 

[faerielady]

Quote:
"...never the twain shall meet." R. Kipling.

 

[chickened]

Or maybe the booby bird just likes doing it.

Ok I'm done.
Quote:
I hope that helps address your questions regarding why resulting treatments do not just equate to involuntary commitment...and how they can in fact prevent that by understanding and then preventing biological and environmental triggers that lead up to incarceration based on violent behavior (as opposed to say, being caught with the wacky weed, which is another discussion entirely).

 

[AquaEyes]

Yup...just like my first post in this thread.

Quote:
I hope that helps address your questions regarding why resulting treatments do not just equate to involuntary commitment...and how they can in fact prevent that by understanding and then preventing biological and environmental triggers that lead up to incarceration based on violent behavior (as opposed to say, being caught with the wacky weed, which is another discussion entirely).

 

[chickened]

Ok, I will make it complicated for you, my dogs fight with each other, they do it in the house and do it more violently outside. Now I am concerned that my boys will see this and think that it is OK or normal. Now If I make my boys stay indoors they will fight less, right? but, If I tell my boys to not fight and they quit when I am there but fight later when I am not around I conclude that they are fighting because I am not there, right? NO! they WANT to fight. Fortunately they can talk to me and tell me they wanted to fight. The dogs cannot so I must ASSUME that what I think is correct. Befuddled me... maybe I am wrong!

Remember that these are studies and studies usually have a predetermined outcome as they are designed to come to the hypothesis, always. Similar to polling.

Another example: I have raised rabbits once in a while the mother will eat the babies, is that child abuse? If I believe it is a reaction to the environment why does the one in the next cage not do it? It did it because it wanted to, maybe it did not want babies. The booby birds could be reacting to thier environment like overcrowding or limited food resource but to say it is child abuse is absurd.

 

[faerielady]

Quote:
Um. No. The purpose of the hypothesis is only to give a possible answer to a question. If the answer is wrong and the hypothesis is disproved, just as much is learned from the process as if the hypothesis is proven correct.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

[chickened]

Not when future funding is involved. The folks paying for the studies want results in thier favor or no more funding.

I was being facetious in my analogy above. I know why people behave the way they do as well as why my dogs act the way they do also.
Quote:
Um. No. The purpose of the hypothesis is only to give a possible answer to a question. If the answer is wrong and the hypothesis is disproved, just as much is learned from the process as if the hypothesis is proven correct.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

[faerielady]

Quote:
Um. No. The purpose of the hypothesis is only to give a possible answer to a question. If the answer is wrong and the hypothesis is disproved, just as much is learned from the process as if the hypothesis is proven correct.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.


Again, flawed logic. Companies LOSE money when they want spin doctored results, and end up with public egg on their face to boot.

 

[chickened]

There is a quite a gap between public and private funding. Ican go online and find studies on the same topic that have opposite results and conclusions. I do think science has its place in certain arenas but when human behavior is studied all bets are off. One thing is for sure that when there is public money available the results always conclude that there be more studies.

Quote:

Again, flawed logic. Companies LOSE money when they want spin doctored results, and end up with public egg on their face to boot.