This warrants a separate post.

[crankyoldman]

Via one of my favorite blogs, Joystick 101:

The media doesn't make your kids angry, YOU make your kids angry!

Thank you Scientific American. Next time I hear someone say their Johnny or Suzie is violent from playing Halo, I'll remember this.

~Cendri

Comments

[astralavator.livejournal.com]

So fate makes you violent.

I don’t know wouldn’t you consider excessive television watching, gaming, reading, pick your hobby that doesn’t require social interaction a contributor to a person lack of social skills. As I was under the impression a person’s genetic code could be shift depending on their environment so says a nifty PBS program.

Not that I believe video games are the cause of the increase of violence or anything like that. I've over played video games and other media and I don't think I'm that violent.

Wouldn’t the problem be more along the lines of parents not teaching their children appropriated social skills when their meant to be taught.

[venefica-aura.livejournal.com]

Well, there was discussion that it wasn't JUST genetics, it was more parental environment.

I mean, take this: "Possible factors that might influence neurobiological development of the fetus, he says, include smoking, drinking, poor nutrition and excessive stress."

Now, what sort of environment would a child be going into that would have a pregnant woman doing such things? I think that is more indicative than anything. The physical environment. Maybe it's less what the kid is watching that keeps their aggressive behavior and more that the parents use the media as a babysitter?

And I disagree with "hobbies that don't require interaction leading to bad social skills". I spent most of my childhood reading books and being off to myself. Most people that work with me say I have very good communication and social skills. I may not be a partyer or have ridiculous amounts of friends, but on a polite and professional level I think I do alright.

But I had a good stable home life.

~Cendri

[tijuana-pirate.livejournal.com]

You're both right. <.< >.>

Basically, in human behaviour, about 70% of what people do is directly related to environmental variables in their life. There's some evidence that certain behavioural traits might have a genetic backing. Ex: there have been studies on things like susceptibility to alcoholism or studies like this one on excessive anger. We think that there could be a genetic basis for those psychological syndromes.

But, behaviour's a big grey area for two reasons. 1) the genetics behind behaviour aren't well understood yet and 2) like I said, it's 70% environmental. A kid might not have a genetic predisposition to a psychological syndrom but, if he had a really negative home environment growing up? Of course he'll have issues with anger management.

I usually tell people that the easiest way to think about behaviour is the way you think about any kind of trait that can be strongly influenced by the environment. Think about body size: a kid might have two really healthy and well-built parents but if he's malnourished for his early years of development? He'll be small and sickly. Environment trumps genetics.

My general point? People tend to think that somehow their genes magically seal their fates as human beings. That's not even true for protozoa so why would it be true for us? Genes are a piece of a very big, very complicated puzzle. Genetics studies on behaviour might help us develop better techniques to identify people with a predisposition to certain syndromes which could help us provide them with accurate treatement. Naturally, there's a legitimate reason to do genetic studies. Their importance just tends to be a little over-stated in the general public, that's all.

(... um, yes, stalking this post. *had professional interest; is going away now*)

-T. pirate

[astralavator.livejournal.com]

The focus on the article seemed to be discovering the underlining genetics of the situation rather than the social aspect.

Kate Keenan, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Chicago, views this new genetic analysis as the logical next step in Tremblay's long-term exploration into childhood aggression. She believes Tremblay's work may help uncover genetic profiles distinct to chronically aggressive children that may allow researchers to answer questions like, "Can we differentiate [between these kids] even earlier?" [and] "How early can you intervene?"

If the study was more parental neglect would genetic profiling be necessary to include.

[venefica-aura.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know, I was just saying, bringing that up in an article does bring up the social aspect for conversation. That's what I meant.

TP knows a bit more about genetics than I do.

I was just excited to see something that does dismiss the idea that the media is such a big influence as a lot of people like to point out.

~Cendri

[tijuana-pirate.livejournal.com]

Interesting but a word of caution about genetic studies invovling human behaviour; they're pretty notoriously hard to prove concretely. It's really hard to tease away environmental variables (like, um, living arrangements) in humans.

If a woman is drinking during pregnancy or malnourished? there's a certain probability that the child will be born into an environment that might not be conducive to its proper social development, don't you think? Hence the problem with these studies; corrolation and not causation.

Really, just send the wee ones to the corner.

-T. pirate

[venefica-aura.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I commented on that earlier--the correlation thing. I think they used the "genetics" angle to sound more fancy, but to be honest, I'm more for environment. It's just nice to see, "why do people think it's just the media?" when the type of environment that would leave a kid almost IN THE CARE OF said media is clearly a little unproductive.

~Cendri

[tijuana-pirate.livejournal.com]

ha, well, in defence of the researchers, it sounds like their work is looking at the genetic underpinings of a certain psychological illness. There's been really cool studies that have shown that the kind of environment kids get in the womb will have a direct effect on different kinds of genes that get expressed in their development and have life long consequences (think about fetal alcohol syndrome).

But, you're completely right. EVEN IF there wasn't some genetic underlying mechanism that affected the kid from birth, living in a really terrible environment would definitely have a negative effect on their behaviour. 'Tis a story of two factors, really.

-T. pirate

[darknitedestiny.livejournal.com]

All good points. Me, I just saw "violence peaks at 18 months" and thought "THANK YOU GOD."