RISK-TAKERS AREN'T NECESSARILY WEIRD, THEIR BRAINS ARE JUST WIRED DIFFERENTLY
by Cathryn Creno/The Arizona Republic
Psychologists traditionally have assumed there is something wrong with thrill seekers.
Sigmund Freud and the followers of his psychoanalytic theory believed healthy human beings strive to reduce tension in their lives, concluding that people who go out of their way to find excitement do so to mask insecurities.
But more recent psychological research suggests the brains of people who love to scale cliffs, parachute out of airplanes and scuba dive with sharks are not unhealthy. They are simply wired differently from those of people who prefer calmer entertainment.
Psychologist Michael J. Apter, author of "The Dangerous Edge: The Psychology of Excitement" (Free Press; 1992), believes thrill-seekers may be the descendants of adventurous hunter-gatherers.
Such people would have been invaluable in primitive societies, which needed adventurers to hunt and kill big game, test new watering holes, cross dangerous rivers and taste strange plants.
Other psychologists say that while everyone needs a thrill now and then to stay mentally alert and creative, some personality types require more thrills than average.
University of Delaware psychologist Marvin Zuckerman has identified a type of person he call the "high-sensation seeker." These people tend to like heavy-metal music, horror movies, gambling high-risk sports, cocaine and relationships with other adventurers.
Zuckerman found that the brains of most of the high-sensation seekers he has studied have low levels of an enzyme called monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates feelings of arousal and pleasure. So they may need more excitement and stimulation just to feel normal.
Meanwhile, Frank Farley, a University of Wisconsin psychologist and past president of the American Psychological Association, has been studying people he terms Type T's - thrill-seekers.
Type T's fall into four categories: T-mental and T-physical, to distinguish between those who take mental risks and those who take physical risks and T-positive and T-negative, to distinguish between those who take smart risks and those who take dumb ones.
Pioneers and social activists - such as America's founding fathers and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.-could probably be categorized as T-mentals and T-positives.
Farley says it is important for 'I'ype T's to recognize they need more excitement than the average person and select jobs accordingly. Type T's excel in police work, jobs in emergency rooms and in other careers in which they won't know from one day to the next what they will be doing.
University of California-Davis psychologist Salvadore Maddi thinks many thrill-seekers simply lack the capacity to enjoy everyday life, so they get involved with drugs, crime and gangs, quitting boring but lucrative jobs to have more time for hang gliding.
Apter and Farley are more optimistic about the potential of Type T's.
Both say it is possible to divert adventurousness into socially acceptable activities. And it helps if parents guide their thrill-seeking kids into challenging sports and hobbies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking Of: Human Behavior
NICE GUYS MAY FINISH FIRST AFTER ALL
Scientists are beginning to question the idea that nice guys
are doomed to finish last.
For many years, biologists and anthropologists have regarded
human beings as basically selfish creatures, driven by their
genes to compete aggressively for property, sex and power.
In the last century, Charles Darwin described life as a tooth-and-claw struggle for "the survival of the fittest. Even now,
anthropologist Colin Trumbull dismisses morality as "a luxury
that we find convenient and agreeable and that has become
conventional when we can afford it."
But recent studies of chimpanzees and other higher animals show
that unselfish, cooperative behavior goes way back in evolutionary history. Mother Nature apparently taught "family values" long
before men and apes went their separate ways 6 million years ago.
This school of researchers contends that sharing, earing and
peacemaking can contribute to the survival of a species, because
creatures that get along with each other are more likely to
reproduce. Frans de Waal, a zoologist who has studied chimpanzee
behavior at the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta for 10
years, disputes the traditional notion that people and other
animals are hopelessly self-centered.
Instead, humans and highex mammals are biologically "endowed
with a capacity for genuine love, sympathy and care," he writes
in his new book, "Good Natured: the Origins of Right and Wrong in
Humans and Other Animals," published by Harvard University Press.
For example, de Waal notes, whales and dolphins come to the
rescue of injured companions. Elephants mourn their dead. Horses
form protective ring against attacking wolves.
"Aiding others at a cost or risk to oneself is widespread in
the animal world," says de Waal. "No doubt these capacities
evolved because they served a purpose in the lives of our
ancestors."
Carter, de Waal and others trace the origin of unselfish
conduct to the maternal instinct that developed in mammals since
they appeared on Earth 65 million years ago.
Unlike female turtles, for example, which lay their eggs and
waddle away, mammalian mothers stick around to nurse their
offspring until they are old enough to face life on their own.
"Mother-infant attachment bonds provide the foundation for all
subsequent social relationships," says Jaak Panksepp, a psychol-
ogist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.
Starting with a mother's care for her babies, the pattern of
unselfish behavior spread out in widening circles to enfold other
close relatives, then the clan, tribe or nation, and eventually
the entire species, these scientists say.
Both sexes nave a social sense, but get there by different
routes. Carol Gilligan, a feminist psychologist, claims that
females morality is rooted in "attachment, intimacy and
responsibility for others," while males are genetically
oriented to "rights, rules and authority."
Panksepp of Bowling Green says recent research on animal brains
has revealed biochemical systems that underlie human bonding and
friendships. When these systems malfunction, the result may be an
autistic child, a deeply depressed widow or "the despair of
everyday loneliness," he says.
"It should not surprise us to find animal parallels," de Waal
says. "The human brain is a product of evolution. Altruism is not
limited to our species."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Found in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph
NOW MEN HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR ALL THE STUPID THINGS THEY DO
I am feeling great, and I will tell you why. It's because of this
article I read recently that said ... um ... it said ... OK, wait
just a minute while I get out this article ...
OK, here it is: According to this article, researchers at the
University of Pennsylvania did a study showing that, as males
- but NOT females - get older, their brains shrink. Was I ever
relieved to read that! I thought it was just me!
Here's something I regularly do: I'm walking through an airport,
and I see a newsstand, and I think: "Huh! A newsstand! I can get a
newspaper there, and perhaps some magazines! I can read them on the
airplane, and use the information in them to write informed columns!"
So I carefully select some newspapers and magazines; then I put them
on the counter; then I get out my wallet and pay for them; then I
carefully put the receipt into my wallet so that I can deduct this
purchase for tax purposes; then I go get on the airplane.
OK, here's a pop quiz: What will I discover when I get on the
airplane? You older, shrinking-brain males probably have no idea.
You're saying to yourselves: "WHAT airplane?"
But you female readers, and you younger males, know the answer: I
will discover that I left my magazines and newspapers back on the
newsstand counter. I cannot tell you how many times I have done
this. (Note to Internal Revenue Service: The reason I still deduct
these purchases on my tax return is that I am writing about them
here.) I could save time if, when striding through the airport, I
simply flung money in the general direction of the newsstand.
Here's another thing I do: I routinely go to the cleaners for the
specific purpose of picking up my shirts, pay for shirts, then
attempt to walk out without my shirts, as though I were just visiting
them.
Also: Many times I am looking ALL OVER for my reading glasses
- looking, looking, looking, looking - and then walk past a mirror
and notice that they are perched on my head. "Ha ha!" they gaily
shout to me, their lenses twinklong "You cretin!"
Also: I have always been terrible remembering people's names, but
now forget names lNSTANTANEOUSLY, before they have gotten all the
way through my ear canal. If somebody introduces himself to me at
a social event, it sounds as though he's saying: Hi, I'm Blah."
"I'm sorry," I'll say. "What was your name again?"
"Blah," he'll say."
"Ah!" I'll say, smiling brightly while hoping that a meteor will crash
into the building before I have to introduce him to someone else.
Here's another symptom: I currently own four - that is correct: four
- identical, unused tubes of toothpaste, because every time I'm in a
drugstore and walk past the toothpaste section, my brain, which by now
must be about the size of a Raisinet, racks its tiny shriveled self in
an effort to remember whether I have any toothpaste, and it can never
come up with a definitive answer, so it always decides: Better safe
than sorry!
Anyway, t was very relieved to find out that this was not just my
personal problern, but a problem afflicting the brains of males in
general, although, as a frequent flier, I hope it doesn't extend to
male airplane pilots ("Ladies and gentlemen, we are approaching
either Pittsburgh or Honolulu.")
The University of Pennsylvania study (Note to older males: I am
referring here to a study showing that, as males get older, their
brains shrink) also showed that we older males tend to lose our sense
of humor. This is definitely true in my case. I was just talking to my
oldest friend, whose name is ... Excuse me while I look up his name ...
OK, here it is: I was talking to my oldest friend, Joe DiGiacinto, and
we were remarking on the fact that when we were teen-age males roaming
uncontrolled around Armonk, N.Y., we thought that the most hilarious
imaginable human activity was the wanton destruction of mailboxes;
whereas we now both firmly believe that this should be a federal crime
punishable by death.
So my overall point is that the brain-shrinkage study makes me feel
a lot better, because now I know that I'm not getting stupid alone;
that billions of guys are getting stupid with me, as evidenced by:
* Golf
Here's what I think: I think Older Male Brain Shrinkage (OMBS)
should be recognized as a disability by the federal government.
At the very least, we should have a law requiring everybody to
wear a name tag ("HELLO! MY NAME IS BLAH"). Older males would
be exempt from this requirement, because they wouldn't be able
to find their tags. I have many other strong views on this
subject, but I can't remember what they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From BusinessWeek
WEDLOCK'S EARLY HEALTH BONUS
While it has long been known that married people live longer
than single people, a recent Rand Corp. study by Lee A. Lillard
and Linda J. Waite finds that the health gains differ over time
for men and women.
Right after a wedding, the risk of dying drops substantially for
men but not for women. But over a long marriage, the gain for wives
(relative to single women) is larger, so that they benefit about as
much as their husbands. The authors think that men's health improves
immediately because marriage tempers risky behavior such as poor
eating habits and overdrinking and enhances their social network.
Significantly, the risk of dying falls sharply even for newly
married low-income men.
Among married women, by contrast, the risk of dying over the long
run does not decline unless marriage is accompanied by rising
incomes. The authors conclude that while marriage promotes longevity
for both men and women via improved financial resources that provide
greater access to health care, better nutrition, and other benefits,
the income effect is especially important for women.
What happens after a divorce or the death of a spouse? As the
chart shows, the subsequent mortality rates of divorced men and
women revert to the higher levels of those who stayed single.
Unlike widowed men who have trouble surviving alone, however,
widowed women fare almost as well as their still-married
counterparts - perhaps in part because they usually wind up
with the full assets accumulated during their marriages.
How marriage helps longevity
Chance of dying at age 65:
* Assumes divorce or death of spouse 12 years earlier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Found in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph
MORE WOMEN PACKING HEAT COULD REDUCE CRIME
One of the livelier debates on guns has recently been touched
off by Laura Ingraham, a Washington lawyer and conservative
essayist.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Ingraham expressed happi-
ness that women are the fastest growing segment of the gun-buying
public. She sneered at feminist groups that hold workshops about
how rape is really about dominance, not sex, and suggested that
bullets are far more effective than workshops. [
"If feminists are serious about ending what they see as the
subjugation of women," she wrote, they will shelve their
political agendas long enough to recognize that women who choose
to become responsible gun owners are, in their own way, feminist
trailblazers."
This brought immediate ridicule from anti-gun advocates. One
woman hooted: "Yahoo! I am a woman, I am free! Free to shoot just
like the boys. What empowerment, what exultation, oh joy, oh
rapture. By God, is this a great country or what?"
A man wrote: Rather than saying something serious about crirne
prevention, this sounds like the Freemen's version of a Victoria's
Secret catalog. Ms. Ingraham ignores the fact that a lot more men
are starting to pack heat, too, and many of them are the kind
she'd never want to meet in a dark alley behind NRA headquarters
- even after she's armed herself to the teeth, and thighs."
Another woman wrote: "Women interested in fighting violent
crime against women have to arm themselves, all right. Not with
bullets, with self-esteem.... This is domestic crime. In the
home. By someone you know or love."
At one time, my left knee might have jerked and I would have
agreed with the dissenters. That was when I thought that
reasonable gun control laws would reduce violent crime. But I've
since noticed something that should be fairly obvious. With all
the gun laws we have, the bad guys still have guns and use them
to shoot the good guys. [ABSOLUTELY!!]
Does that mean that the solution is for the good guys to all
start packing guns? Probably not, because most people have no
need to carry a gun, and don't want to. If everyone carried a
gun, I'm sure crime would be reduced. We'd also have a huge
increase in people shooting off their own toes.
But women and guns? I agree with Ingraham. If every woman in
every high-crime community in America had a gun in her purse or
strapped to her thigh, we would have a safer more courteous society.
Let us look at the obvious. Women are physically weaker. They
are less violent, less boastful, less inclined toward proving
they have a large whatsis by beating up on someone smaller.
If you go into a tavern, who is sitting there scowling and
looking to pick a fight? What kind of people jump out of cars and
beat each other with tire irons over a traffic insult? Who gets
in brawls in the bleachers of ballparks? Who riots over a sports
trophy? Who finds recreational pleasure in shooting Bambi?
Women? Of course not. While we men have our good qualities,
we're responsible for most of the violence and boorish behavior
in our society.
So if we're going to trust anyone to pack heaters, it should be
women, who have proven themselves less likely to do something
goofy, and who have a greater need to defend themselves.
Yes, they do have this need for defense. Imagine, if you will,
that men were society's prime rape targets. Imagine a society in
which a small and mild-mannered man could not get off a bus at
night and walk down a dark city street toward his home without
fearing that he would encounter a large hulk with a knife who
would demand the privilege of engaging in what used to be called
buggery.
Well, I'll tell you what the result would be. Men would not ask
for workshops and self-esteem counseling or wear rape-whistles
around their necks. They would demand the right to protect themselves, politicians would promptly respond, and it would soon be
legal to pack a mini-cannon in our belts.
Consider the silliness of one of the women who criticized
Ingraham's views:
"Only a small percentage of violent crimes against women are
committed by strangers."
Maybe. But more than half the people in our society - about
140 million - are females. So what is a small percentage? One
percent? That's still 1.4 million. Percentages are piffle.
To a woman who awakens to see a stranger crawling through her
window and heading toward her bed, he is not a small percentage.
He is a 100 percent fiend.
But if she had a pistol under her pillow and knew how to use
it, she could make him a 100 percent corpse.
And the world would be a far better place.
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
New studies are finding that teamwork and empathy may aid
survival more than selfishness -- in animals and humans.
* * *
by Dave Barry
* Comb-overs
* The U.S. Senate
* Marlon Brando
Men's risks of dying fall right away
Divorced or never married* > Men 5% > Women 2.2%
Widowed* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Men 4% > Women 1.2%
Married >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Men 1.5% > Women 0.8%
Focus: Women and Guns
Mike Royko
© 1998-2004 Alpha Aerie