Thoughts on the Madeleine McCann Case

The tragic case of Madeleine McCann seems to have reemerged recently and it leads me to consider the psychological questions surrounding the event.
Obviously the abduction and loss of a child is psychologically damaging to parents, which is likely to be made worse by the fact they do not have closure on the case; they cannot know whether she is still alive or not.
But what would the effects be on Madeleine if she is still alive? What trauma has she been through and how has this effected her development? I've learned from books such as 'The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog' how damaging early childhood trauma can be and the effects it can have on the developing brain, not allowing it to make the right connections or associations.
And what if she were to be reunited with her parents? Would she recognise them? Would there be some sort of internal instinct which allows her to really know that they are her parents? Or is it too late? Was she taken away too early in her development to ever regain a 'normal' relationship with her parents? Would she still have the original attachments? Would she need to, or be able to, form new attachments to them? Would she have emotional attachments to her abductor(s)?
There are many important questions raised by such a case, the answers to which we may never know.

Psychology Mentoring

I'm quite flattered and proud of the fact that college's Psychology department have asked me to be one of the 10 (or something) year 12 mentors. Of course I agreed. Anyone who knows me will tell you I can't shut up about the subject. Also, I love teaching people things and helping people really makes me feel happy.
Today I went along to do an awkward introduction to my group (they probably thought I was a bit weird, I mean, seriously, who introduces themselves with 'well I love Psychology'). They didn't seem overly enthusiastic but it was a Monday morning. I'm hoping some will want some help with something. If I can help just one person I'll be happy. I just really like sharing my knowledge and passion for the subject. I never saw myself as someone who would enjoy teaching but I'm starting to think perhaps I would!
I'll just have to wait and see how it all goes!

UCAS

My UCAS form has been sent and I'm getting emails from my chosen universities telling me they're received my application!
This is so exciting! 

"OCD" by Neil Hilborn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnKZ4pdSU-s 

This is absolutely beautiful.

PTSD in War Veterans (BBC News)

On BBC news this morning, they were discussing mental health support for war veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
They talked to one man about the support he was receiving and how this was beneficial to him. Psychological support was helping him to live a normal life again without suffering from PTSD, which made him aggressive and fearful.
For war veterans, a simple environmental stimuli, such as hearing an ambulance siren, could trigger distressing flashbacks and seriously disrupt their lives.
Offering veterans support with this, in my opinion, is a great thing.

Feral Children

Recently, I've been really enjoying studying child language acquisition in English Language A Level. As part of this, we've been learning about feral children. These strange cases of children brought up without human contact and the effects on them linguistically fascinate me. We watched a documentary titled 'Wild Child: The Story of Feral Children' which was captivating! I already have some prior knowledge of these children from reading 'The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog' by Bruce Perry. In fact, Bruce Perry featured on this documentary, which I got very excited about and exclaimed to my friend 'I know that guy!' to which she gave me a bemused look. Anyway, here's what I have discovered:

• Ever since the legend of Romulus and Remus (the twins brought up by a wolf, who founded Rome) people have been intrigued and fascinated by tales of children brought up by wild animals away from human contact
• The study of feral children is important in the nature/nurture debate of development i.e. is it genes or experience that determine how a child develops?
• Case studies of feral children are the natural experiment that is far too unethical to be carried out
• It can be argued that part of being human is being brought up by humans, meaning are feral children really human?

Victor & Itard

The first documented case of a feral child was Victor in 1800s France. Victor was found and studied by Itard who helped and cared for him. Victor developed empathy, however he was never taught to speak. This broke new ground in the education of the developmentally delayed.

In India, there were stories of feral children. In 1930, a properly documented case of two girls living with wolves emerged, however, they died before they could be studied.

Winthrop Kellog was eager to show that the effects of nature were the dominant force in human development. He knew that to engineer a feral child was unethical so instead he did the opposite: he brought a chimpanzee up with his baby son. Not only did monkey show human characteristics, but the son struggled with language. Kellog stopped the experiment when realising that it was damaging to his son, but had successfully demonstrated the vulnerability of early childhood.

In the 1960s, Harry Harlow showed the importance in the care-giving relationship between the mother and an infant. Baby monkeys were taken from their mothers at birth and given choice between two substitute mothers. All babies showed preference towards the ‘warm’ mother. But, as they developed, they became scared and confused due to lack of a real care-giver. Early isolation had damaged them for life but is this the same true for humans?

Genie

In California 1970, a child was discovered who had been isolated for all of her 13 years in a dark room by Clark Wiley (who later killed himself). This was just the case scientists had been waiting for! When discovered, Genie was still in nappies, couldn’t walk and had no verbal skills. She was physically deprived – the same size as a 7 year old. James Kent (a child psychologist) and Susan Curtiss (linguist) worked with Genie. She was considered as a new-born; for her, everything was a new experience. The people working with Genie helped her to develop but also used her to answer many questions/hypotheses about child brain development. There was a theory that children could only learn certain things at certain times (during ‘critical periods’), and language was one of those things. This theory suggested that Genie had missed her chance. However, she appeared to prove this theory wrong as she started to learn words for the things around her (showing she was not mentally deficient). Despite her progress, she was still haunted by the trauma of her childhood. Linguistically, she reached a point where she did not develop further and she could not develop grammar. Bruce Perry explains Genie’s brain: the left cortex (responsible for speech and language) was not stimulated as a child, making it less functional and disconnected, resulting in physical changes. It had not developed the capacity for language so would  never be able to learn. Nowadays, with modern imaging technology, it can be seen in feral children that, without normal stimulation, brains are smaller and malformed. More trouble came for Genie when, after her 18th birthday, she was moved to state care. Moving from home to home was stressful but those her originally helped her to develop (Susan Curtiss etc.) became her main guardians. However, Irene (Genie’s biological mother) decided Susan and others were too close, resulting in a law suit and their prevention from seeing Genie. Genie now lives in an adult care home and those who cared for her the most cannot see her. I think this is a very sad story.

Mirny, The Ukraine (a run down town)

1999 – social workers found 4 year old Edik in a deserted flat. He had turned to local stray dogs for warmth and protection after being abandoned, and, as a result, his behaviour was much like a dogs’. Over the next few years, in proper care, his behaviour and contact with other children improved, although, linguistically, he was slow. At the age of 6, his language was that of a 3 year old’s. Professor James Law (a language expert) worked with Edik. Edik was discovered earlier than some other feral children. His ability to relate to others and empathise had improved greatly as a result of this. Linguistically, he made good progress. Animal expert Steve Fryer described the relationship between humans and dogs as very special and says they have a primeval connection.

Oxana Malaya (born 1983)

Born a healthy child but with alcoholic parents. Left outside at the age of 3 and began to live with dogs for the next 5 years. When discovered, she couldn't speak since she did not think it was necessary. Children copy habits of creatures around them. Now, at the age of 19 – she can talk in simple sentences and discusses her experiences. However, she is still able to revert to old behaviour. Doctors are still working on correcting her behaviour and think that finding her an occupation will benefit her socially. She has made amazing progress but, like Victor and Genie, development has halted and will go no further. The earlier a child is identified, the better the outcome. For example, Edik’s future is encouraging linguistically – his vocabulary and grammar has developed, which is partly down to the fact he was discovered at such a young age.

In conclusion, it is wrong to see feral children as hopeless. New understandings of brain development  means we can offer these children more help.

This is a fascinating topic and I may investigate it further if I chose child language acquisition for my coursework investigation. 

I love libraries!

wow!

My First Encounter with Freud

The other day I was thinking about studying Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in English in year 10 and I remembered my first encounter with Sigmund Freud.
Hoping to give us a bit of high-level context to add to our coursework on the book, our English teacher spent a lesson teaching us about the strange and controversial theories of Freud.
I remember being madly fascinated. I couldn't write notes fast enough and I just wanted to know more. That was probably my favourite English lesson of the year and was one of the reasons I chose Psychology AS. I figured that if it was all going to be as engrossing as that lesson then it'd be really interesting. And I was right!

News Stories

There have been many news stories over the past year that lead me to consider human behaviour and to ask Psychological questions.

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting 
This event is absolutely chilling and terrifying. What led Adam Lanza to commit this horrific mass murder of innocent children and teachers? What conditions are needed in order for the human mind to become disturbed enough and void of so much emotion to allow such cold-hearted shootings? Were Lanza's actions connected to his autism? Was he seeking revenge? What for? Were his actions a result of his genetics or environment? (Most likely a complex interaction of both) Why did he, a shy and withdrawn 'loner', commit this monstrosity, but others with similar personality traits never commit even a minor crime? How is there this much variation in humans? How is it possible that humans range from the extreme of of brutally shooting children to the selflessness and bravery of the teachers that sacrificed themselves to save the children's lives? How will this traumatic event influence the survivors? Will the surviving children ever psychologically recover or will this experience influence their own behaviours and mental processes for the rest of their lives?

Boston Marathon Bombings
There are many questions concerning the survivors of this horrible event. What are the effects on the human mind from being put through this amount of stress and trauma? How many people will suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Will they ever be able to live normal lives or will they forever be haunted by the event?

Jimmy Savile Sex Scandal 
What effect did Savile's sexual abuse have on the children involved? Have these horrible childhood experiences influenced their development and adult lives? Can a child recover from trauma like this or will it forever influence their future behaviours and responses? What motivated Savile to commit these sexual offences? What is going on in the mind of a paedophile?

A bit about my A Level studies

• Psychology is my favourite lesson, as expected!
• I also study Biology. This teaches me important scientific principles, both theoretically and practically. I find it challenging and immensely interesting. 
• English Language has made me a fluent writer and logical thinker. I enjoy finding connections between my study of English/Linguistics and Psychology
• Photography AS allowed me to be creative and has aided my developmental, research, planning and communication skills.
• Studying Business Studies AS for a while also helped develop already mentioned skills, while enhancing my awareness of the professional world around me.

I like to think of myself as a charitable person

• For my 10^th birthday, instead of gifts at my party, I asked for donations and raised over £70 for the animal charity PDSA!
• I have completed many sponsored events, including a day-long silence!
• I am a blood donor (giving blood for the first time was one of the best experiences of my life)
• I have an organ donor card, because why not!
• Also, I have been trained in basic first aid, which hopefully I'll never have to use

"Advanced people watching"

I can't remember where I heard Psychology described in this way, but I really like that concept. I've always loved people watching and being able to study it in a scientific way seems so excellent!

Why Do We Laugh?

Laughter has always fascinated me. Why do we laugh? Why did evolution come up with mechanism? I understand that crying has an evolutionary purpose (with infants showing distress etc.) but what purpose does laughing have? Its a topic I'd like to find out more about.
In a recent episode of Radio 4's 'The Life Scientific', neuroscientist Sophie Scott talks about her research and use of brain imaging techniques and explains that laughter is a very important social tool. The way in which laughter is used for humans to interact with each other answers some of my questions. Laughter is the only emotion to be cross-culturally recognised. And laughter is not exclusive to humans; studies have found that even rats laugh!
Studies have found that when hearing someone laughing, the brain appears to join-in. The mirroring system in the brain is activated when hearing laughter. We are behaviourally primed to join in with laughter, and it is encouraged, developmentally, in children. Studies also show that people are able to detect 'real' laughter and 'fake' posed laughter. These two types are under different brain controls i.e. controlled and automatic/uncontrolled.
This is definitely a subject I would like to do further research on in the future.

♡ Psychology ♡

I wrote this to go in my personal statement and, although I had to edit it out, I really liked it so:

I look forward to my Psychology lessons and when I get my new textbooks or workbooks I can’t help but flick through them like an inquisitive child reading the last page of their story book. I am often tiring my friends with details of Freudian Psychology lessons, sitting on the bus telling them all I have learnt about phobias, spouting facts about schizophrenics and repeating controversial experiments such as Milgram, Little Albert and Stanford Prison to anyone who will listen.

Cambridge 'Personal Styles' Report

A while ago, I completed a questionnaire in order to get a 'Personal Styles Report' and to contribute to psychological research. This has been devised by Cambridge and was a really good thing to be involved in.

According to the report, I have an ‘industrious study style’ i.e. a capacity to focus and persist and I demonstrate a ‘self-managing study style’ i.e. I am good at organising, planning, setting goals, prioritising, and I take a methodical approach. I am also motivated by achievement and set high standards for myself.

As well as detailing my strengths it also gave me some useful advise on how to improve.

Yale Lecture - 'What Motivates Us: Sex'

I watched this lecture on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNgknc7Qv8 and like a good student I took some notes. What better place to write up these notes than on my Psychology blog?

• Biological/Darwinian approaches argue that sex is for reproductive purposes. Does this mean other forms of sex e.g. homosexual, with contraception, are unnatural or wrong? This would be a very close-minded view, in my opinion.
• "Genetic does not mean inevitable, cultural does not mean easy to fix". I found this an interesting quote. The examples used were: genes determine bad eyesight but it is not inevitable that the individual must suffer from poor eyesight throughout their lives, due to glasses and contact lenses being invented. Whereas, opinion on obesity is cultural and, although these opinions vary between cultures, they are nearly impossible to change. 
• Female sex cells are bigger than males' however, males of most species are physically bigger and more aggressive - what is the reason for this? This is answered by Parental Investment theory. In most species, females have higher investment in the offspring. Whereas males compete for mates, females can easily find one so competition is less (although they do compete for the best mates). This explains why males are larger; they need to adapt to get the females' attention, while females can afford to be more 'choosy' so do not need such adaptions. In short: differences in sizes of sex cells lead to differences in parental investment, which explains how differences in psychological and physiological mechanisms evolved between males and females. The size or aggressiveness of a species can be predicted when level of parental investment is known. For example, in penguins the parental investment is equal, and sizes of males and females are also equal, in reflection of this.
• Mostly, humans are polygamists i.e. they have more than one sexual partner throughout their lives. Evolutionary, the fact that human males are bigger suggests competition and gives an indication of levels of Parental Investment in humans. On average, human males are more aggressive and violent than females, which can be explained by levels of testosterone. 
• Parental investment theory suggests males are more receptive to anonymous sex, whereas females are more 'picky' (bearing in mind these differences evolved before birth control). Due to the fact that males do not have to invest so much into offspring, they do not 'care' as much about their mate as females do and they more readily compete for whatever sex they can get.
• Prostitution is a near universal interest for males, which supports the above point. As does the fact that porn is universal for males (even monkeys have a form of porn!)
• Questionnaires showed that whilst women, on average, want less than 1 sexual partner in the next month, 1 in the next two years and 4-5 over their lifetime, men want 2, 8, then 18 respectively. Experiments have shown that when attractive actors approached strangers to ask them to 'go to bed' with them, no women agreed but 75% of men did! 
• It has been found that female homosexuals are more monogamous than male homosexuals. In theory, what gay men do, in terms of frequency and nature of sexual habits, is what heterosexuals would do if they had females who are as willing as them. This shows the differences in sexual 'choosiness' in human males and females.

Sexual Attractiveness/Mate preference:

• Cross cultural studies show that everyone values kindness and intelligence in potential partners.
• Females focus more on power and status and the male's interests in being a good father. Evolutionary, this makes sense; a male with these qualities will be able to protect the female and help her to raise the young.
• Males focus more on a female's ability to have children, therefore they care more age.
• Everyone likes physical beauty. This can be explained by the fact that beauty, e.g. large eyes, big lips, smooth skin, signals youth. Beauty also signals health e.g. absence of deformity, clear eyes, good skin and teeth. 
• If a lot of faces are morphed together, the result is a 'beautiful', and very average, face. It has been found that even babies prefer average faces, suggesting that a preference towards normality is hardwired rather than cultural. For those of us who aren't considered particularly attractive, this is quite a pleasant fact. Beautiful people are very average - how boring! 
• Males and females are treated differently by society i.e. there are different expectations of behaviour.
• Developmentally, gender self segregation from the ages of around 4-11, exaggerates and enhances these gender differences. 

Homosexuality

• Around 98% of women are sexually attracted to men and around 96% of men are sexually attracted to women. Why the differences?
• It has been both scientifically and logically proved that people do not choose their sexual orientation (I still get angry thinking about the ignorant guy in my Psychology class last year who was adamant that 'gays choose to be gay')
• There is reason to believe that gay and straight people are different long before puberty with regard to childhood fantasies and desires. 
• It is believed that there is a sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. However, twin studies show 50% congruence in identical twins and although this is high odds, it would be 100% if homosexuality was entirely genetic. 
• It is somewhat an evolutionary mystery as to why some men do not want sex with women and vice verse. It would make sense that these genes would be eliminated by evolution since they do not lead to offspring. However, these genes remain, why is this?

EPQ - initial ideas

I'm really enthusiastic about starting my EPQ (Extended Project Qualification).
After getting over the disappointment in not being able to investigate mental disorders (since it cannot cross over with anything from my lessons and we study many of the disorders in Psychology), I have decided to base it on dreams.
Dreams have always fascinated me and I am really looking forward to discovering more about them.
Today, I produced a mind-map on the subject of dreams and I am really happy with it. It turns out I can be creative sometimes!

Should schizophrenics be forced to have treatment?

Just a short post really, I may add to this at a later date because I think its an interesting topic.
It was a question raised in my psychology class when we were learning about schizophrenia drug therapy and I thought it was very thought-provoking.
What if an individual wants to refuse treatment? If they choose the voices in their head that is telling them they are god (if, say, they had delusions of grandeur and religious auditory hallucinations) over the horrific side effects that make them feel like the walking dead, is that okay? 
Although this promotes choice, it also could be very dangerous. Take, for example, the case of British paranoid schizophrenic Nicola Edgington who killed her mother in 2005, then went on to attack two strangers in 2011, after being released from treatment in 2009. Cases like this suggest that treating schizophrenics is in the public's best interest and serves as a protective measure. 
It is also worth mentioning that it seems like a social norm that schizophrenics should be treated for their disorder. There are schools of thought nowadays that argue that people with mental disorder should not be treated differently and 'who are doctors to say that someone is not normal?' Just because someone acts differently and deviates from a social norm, does this mean they are 'mad' or their behaviour is 'wrong'? There seems to be many sides to this story.

Fears

Psychology (and science in general) has changed me in many ways. 

If you were to ask me a year ago what I was afraid of I'd probably say the Paranormal - ghosts, demons etc. ect. However today these things simply do not bother me. Yeah, I'll get a bit freaked out watching Paranormal Activity or in bed in the dark when my thoughts are running away with me, but I have much greater fears. And these fears are based entirely on reality.

The thing that scares me the most nowadays are humans. The capabilities of the human mind, the unknowns of human behaviour, the capacity of humans for evil. I think of serial killers, psychopaths, neurological disease, mental illness, events such as the holocaust, torture and even the simple, often unintentional, ability of humans to ruin each other with emotions, and it terrifies me. This stuff is real. For every scary story, there's a person behind it who had the mental capacity to come up with such a horror, and to me, that is far more disturbing.

New Scientist Articles

Recently, I've read a few interesting articles in the New Scientist magazines so I thought I'd share their content here.

Beyond Nature & Nurture - article from New Scientist (31st August 2013)
This article is about twins where one has an abnormality. In this case, their nature and their nurture has been the same, so what makes them different? Why does one twin develop the disease and the other does not? If identical twins (with the same genes) are more similar in regard to a particular trait than non-identical twins (with different genes) then the trait is down to genes and if this is reversed then the trait is down to environment. Could a life be lived exactly the same but have different outcomes (despite the nature and the nurture being the same)? The environment plays a key role in shaping epigenetic profiles, which in turn influences the activity of our genes, which in turn may shape our behaviour, lifestyle choices and health. Epigenetics are seen as a mediator between genes and the environment. "There is more to our uniqueness than genes and upbringing: even clones will all end up different". Is the nature/nurture debate outdated? Is there a third factor to it? Many aspects of bodies and behaviours are a result of complex interactions between genes and environment, mediated by epigenetics and chance.

Rethinking Depression, Rebuilding Broken Brains - article from New Scientist (27th July 2013)

This article is about revolutionary treatments for chronic, treatment-resistant, depression. This sort of depression is a real problem; it is estimated that there is one suicide every second and the WHO's assessment suggests that depression is the leading cause of disability in the world. The dominant theory is that depression is a result of neurochemical (in particular serotonin) imbalance. Based on the serotonin hypothesis, Prozac and other antidepressants were developed in the 1980's, however, in recent times these drugs have become less effective. A high percentage of studies showed the drugs as only slightly better than a placebo. A quote from a therapist talking of her patient: "it wasn't that she wanted to die, she simply didn't care if she lived or not". Recently, there has been ground-breaking therapy called Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) which has been found effective against treatment resistant depression. A drug called ketamine has also been found to be effective against this form of depression. Glutamate (a neurochemical found to play a key role in learning, motivation etc.) has been found to be too low in the brains of those with depression. By taking ketamine, glutamate is increased and neurons in the brain actually have been found to make permanent repairs! "Glutamate may be teaching a depressed brain how to rebuild itself".