This story was on the radio this morning, and I think it's amazing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16956039
Besides how interesting it is in terms of autism research, it also a.) reinforces my belief in how behavior is powerfully affected by chemicals/hormones/proteins/name-your-own-substances and b.) deepens my fascination/frustration/confusion with the notion that people do not always have control over their own feelings, thoughts, motivations, and ultimately behaviors, as they cannot control the levels and effects of these substances. Most people are accepting of this notion when it comes to something like autism—an identified disorder. If there's a name to go along with it, it seems more 'understandable.' Perhaps we'll even feel sorry for the person; certainly we will if it's a child. No one (hopefully) would blame the autistic kid in this article for outbursts at his parents or for running into furniture during tantrums.
But when it comes to physiological idiosyncrasies that do not have an identified name b/c they are just that—idiosyncrasies —when it comes to these very person-specific chemical imperfections that may cause people to ignore right from wrong, to lack motivation to care, to act out ... we have much less grace for those folks. I'm not saying dismiss every person's culpability for their acts because of the possibility that a less-than-ideal bodily make-up is at fault. But is it a possibility?
I'm hard pressed to rule it out. I know, though, that it's a pretty scary thought. It would completely change the way we interact with others, how we judge others, how we deal with deviance ... it would change everything, if we would allow ourselves the empathy to let it: The question is, if we were able to identify specific genes, chemicals, etc. as causes of specific patterns of thought/behavior (as they've already done with alcoholism, e.g.), would we, as a society of people so indoctrinated with a 'personal responsibility' mindset, ever be willing to extend grace not only to groups of people with identified, common disorders, such as the kid with autism, but also to the individual who cheats on his wife over and over b/c he's low in a particular combo of chemicals that help with regulation of urges, or to the jobless woman who sits at home letting her kids play in squalor and eat rubbish because her particular combo of chemicals and brain firing keeps her from building up enough motivation to change her lifestyle? Would we ever get to the point where we'd extend caring understanding to people who do things that we currently find despicable? Would we try to help them rather than punish them?
I'm really not crazy, I swear. But I don't think the notion that our thoughts and behaviors—things we're currently held completely responsible for unless we have some medically categorized disorder—are very mediated by physiological factors beyond an individual's control. Articles like this one on autism make me think that perhaps science is in the nascent stages of lending this notion more validity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not sure what I think about excusing bad behavior...maybe if it was some kind of medical condition. But aren't some alcoholics able to say that their drinking is genetically predisposed?
I was interested, intrigued, and excited about the results the little boy had: talking??? That was really cool. But sad at the same time to think that he retreated back into himself when the fever passed.:(
that's actually exactly what i'm saying--that it is a medical condition in this sense, as much as something like autism, for example, is. if it's a 'defect' caused by some physiological thing you can't control, in my book that's a medical condition. it just can't be easily quantified as such b/c it's so specific to each person. i guess there could be a general 'chemicals out of wack/proteins not sufficient' type of disorder title for it.
yes, alcoholics can say their drinking is genetically predisposed. there's an identified gene (a dopamine receptor, D2, if my memory is right) that predisposes them to it. i'm not quite sure what you mean by asking that ... please elaborate if you want to.
One theory on the labeling is diseases are labeled and by labeling we sanction the "idiosyncrasy" as a disease and outside of the individuals control.
Labeling also allows people to identify how widespread something is and that can help people realize that it is too prevalent to be a personality problem, that something must be driving the pattern. In terms of alcoholism, AA defined the problem and gave it a name, people began to see the pattern in people and eventually science found a source.
However how far does the understanding of root causes apply? Is everyone just a random firing of chemicals and electrical signals or are we unique personalities that are capable of overcoming the lesser imbalances? And how would you differ an imbalance from a disease like autism or down syndrome. For instance I think people can fight through ADD and dyslexia (I know people that have and do) but I don't feel the same way towards down syndrome and autism.
jason, i think you've hit on my two biggest questions with the whole issue: first ... recognized diseases, even disorders like ADD and dyslexia, are generally 'blamed' for the abnormal behaviors that result from whatever brain functioning/malfunctioning causes those conditions. society accepts the disorders as the place for blame, not the person's own choices. my question is, when there isn't a label for some disorder (whether it's an imbalance, lack of synapses, a combo of things, or whatever cause) because the condition is person-specific, is it perhaps still the brain's 'fault,' but we just haven't identified the specific reason? (and we may never identify it from person to person, b/c it's not a common, widespread mix of causative factors.) is the placing of fault on brain functioning just as legitimate in these individual cases, even though the person's situation will never be defined as a 'disease' ?
and second ... your last paragraph is exactly what i struggle with most--is it possible that the roots of all our behaviors really are just a result of the firing of chemicals, over which we have no control (save for introduction of medications)? for instance, one person's personality may help him/her be capable of overcoming something like ADD, but what is it about his personality that allows him to accomplish that and not the next person? if he has a more motivated personality, why? is it something of his own doing that has allowed him to become a more motivated person? or does his particular arrangement of genes/hormones/chemicals grant him 'access' to the fruits of a motivated personality? if it's the latter, what does this say about our personal responsibility for our actions? it's just very fascinating to me, and frustrating! it's such an uncomfortable thought, really.
Post a Comment