Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 27 August 2014

My name is Jay. I am a student at UCLA, studying computer science, molecular biology, and mathematics. At Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, CA, I was the winner of the 2011 Academic Triathlon with the highest score on record. I currently hold a rating of about 2200USCF in chess.

Degrees

Future School Goals

My long term goal is to go to UC San Francisco, Stanford, or Harvard to complete either a Ph.D., M.D. or M.D./Ph.D. program. My primary interest at this time is probably neurophysiology, related specifically to autism, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease.

While at UCLA, my goal is also to receive a B.S. in molecular,cell, and developmental biology; computer science; and computational and systems biology. Additionally, I will receive minors in mathematics, statistics, and bioinformatics.

Interests

Here is a list of topics I am interested in:

• Sciences
  • Chemistry
    • Amine chemistry: Alkaloids
  • Biochemistry
    • Lipids: sphingolipids
    • Carbohydrates:
  • Neurobiology:
  • Cognitive science
  • Psychiatry
    • Pedophilia
    • Autism
• Humanities
  • Islam: The comparison of the Islam legal system of Sharia versus Western jurisprudence
    • Islamism
  • History
    • Chinese history
  • Anthropology
  • Sociology: The variability in the ways humans have lived their lives
    • Leveling mechanism
  • Political science
    • Freedom of speech
• Computer science:
  • Computer chess:
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Machine learning
• Music:
  • Enigma has created some of the most amazing music yet heard on planet Earth
  • Stellardrone
  • Solar Fields
  • HUVA Network
  • Carbon Based Lifeforms

I am interested in cognition, what it means to be a human being, what properties separate life from non-life, and potential future trends in evolution and intelligence.

I am also interested in sociology, e.g. relating modern knowledge gained through the scientific method to ideas of cultural narratives and value or ethical systems.

The following is my belief in the function of monotheism: God is a reference to a cultural construct which provides authority to resolve conflict amongst human beings by reference to an extra-societal agent to which access is primarily governed by the ruling social body.

The Ultimate Taboo

I wrote the following essay for my English class on the subject of controversy.

Whenever the topic of an adult having sex with a child is broached it is often followed by intense anger and proud admissions by parents that they would murder that adult if it was their child with whom they had sex. This intense, pervasive response demonstrates that adult/child sex is a taboo in our culture. A taboo is a social norm that invokes an intense feeling of disgust and perception of personal harm resulting in condemnation of the taboo violator (Gutierrez, 1). It is a taboo to even discuss the possibility that sex between those human beings above the age of 18, commonly defined as adults in legal language, and those human beings below the age of 18, commonly described as post-pubescent and pre-pubescent children, is not always harmful. It is sometimes perceived that this specificity with language is rhetorical and used to reach dishonest conclusions. On the contrary, it is necessary to be very specific in our language as it often frames our perspective and may introduce subtle biases on the part of the researcher. For example, the use of legal and moral language is often included in analysis of child sexual abuse, or CSA (the term used by Rind because of its widespread social usage), to the detriment of sound scientific methodology (Rind, 23). In 1998, Rind et al. (subsequently ‘Rind’) researched the subject of CSA specifically addressing four questions: does CSA cause harm? Is that harm pervasive to those involved in CSA? Is that harm likely to be intense? Do boys and girls experience CSA equivalently? The most significant conclusion from Rind is that sex between an adult and child does not always result in intense harm for the child

The Rise of the Sociological Perspective The conflict with Rind and the American society, characterized by the response of the US Congress condemning its publication and conclusions in Resolution 107, can best be explained by providing background into the field of sociology. Sociology is a relatively new way human beings understand themselves and their society. It is commonly stated (Macionis, 12) that sociology arose out of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of urban centers in which a majority of people new societies lived. The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838 and described investigations that differed from earlier thinkers by analyzing what society is rather than what the ideal society should be (Macionis, 13). Three early sociologists that helped shaped the field are Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. The significance of this background information is that modern societies need to decide just what kind of societies they should be. Max Weber distinguished between two fundamental societal modalities: traditional societies and rational societies. A traditional society is one in which what is done or what is considered right is primarily determined by what that societies’ ancestors did. A rational society is a society in which what is done or what is considered right is primarily defined by empirical research into the efficacy of any given action. Max Weber believed most modern societies had switched from tradition-based to reason-based with the Industrial Revolution and rise of capitalism (Macionis, 102). This background goes straight to the heart of the current issue surrounding CSA: specifically, how should our society discuss and define which sexual behaviors between which human beings should be allowed? The methodology and publication of Rind is consistent with the rational basis of modern societies. Rind investigates four widely held beliefs about a recurring phenomenon in our society which invokes considerable emotion. On the contrary the response by the US Congress, which is indicative of most people’s responses in general, is consistent with the tradition-based societies which have preceded this one. Regardless of the conclusions of Rind, it is important that we, as a society, move towards the acceptance of the underlying scientific worldview that supports the research and publication of peer-reviewed scholarly articles.

Empirical Investigations Rind is a meta-analysis of 59 studies which sampled college students and their experiences with CSA. A meta-analysis is a procedure in which statistics and results from independent studies are converted to a common metric which allows cross comparison. Studies involving college students were selected as it provides the largest group of non-clinical populations who have experienced CSA (Rind, 26). Non-clinical refers to the fact that many earlier studies of CSA tended to only include research or investigations of those who had experienced CSA and who had experienced significant mental health issues, either related to or confounded with, their CSA experiences, thus providing non-representative sampling of total CSA experiences. Rind notes the possible sample bias of using college students as they may represent the most well-adjusted CSA experiencers, but notes that roughly 50% of the American population has had some college experience. The conclusions of Rind are that the empirical data from college studies and national samples do not support the following about CSA: “(a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who experience it will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have an equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls” (Rind, 46).

Profane Publications The publication of the Rind by the American Psychological Association (APA) led to intense, national controversy beginning with condemnation by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her nationally syndicated radio station (Lilienfeld, 176). The most significant backlash to the Rind publication was condemnation by the US Congress and distancing by the APA from Rind’s conclusions. Interestingly, Lilienfeld’s aptly named paper, When Worlds Collide, mirror this paper’s earlier claim as to a conflict between traditional and rational societies, explored the role national organizations like the APA have in “disabusing the public and media of logical errors and fallacies and … the substantial gap between popular and academic psychology” (Lilienfeld, 176). Numerous attacks were made on the methodology of the Rind paper, creating such pressure on the APA as to issue a statement condemning child sexual abuse as harmful and wrong even though it originally approved the methodology and later found it be sound upon review (Lilienfeld, 181). In 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science additionally reviewed the Rind study “seeing no reason to second-guess the process of peer review” and that they witnessed “no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors” (Lilienfeld, 181). What these reviews show is that the claim of improper methodology was a dishonest attempt by, those whose views had been likely informed to them by their cultural norms, to discredit a scientific analysis of an aspect of our society simply because its conclusions differed from their own beliefs.

Societal Conflict The controversy extended all the way to the US Congress which issued a resolution, voting 355-0, condemning Rind and its conclusions. As stated earlier, a taboo is a cultural norm which generates an intense, emotional response in those that hold that norm in reaction to its violation or perceived violation. Such a response can be seen in the language used by many of those critical of Rind and especially the response by the United States Congress. The US Congress stated that “children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God”, and that the “mental well-being of children are parents’ sacred duty” (HR Res. 107, 1). The use of the words precious and sacred denotes reference to community-established values, i.e. views held by a society established by tradition. God is a reference to a cultural construct which provides authority to resolve conflict amongst human beings by reference to an extra-societal agent to which access is primarily governed by the ruling social body. The reference of the connection between one of the authors of Rind, Robert Bauserman, with organization “advocating the legalization of sex with ‘willing’ children’” (HR Res. 107, 2) is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem in which the credibility of a person is attacked instead of that person’s ideas. All of the above is consistent with tradition based systems which tend to be resolve conflict through persuasion and social authority as opposed to the scientific method which resolves conflict through sound methodology and statistically significant data.

A Broader Significance It is important to note that the conflict between Rind and those who condemn it is not merely one of a disagreement on the particular issue of CSA. This conflict, which became apparent after the publication of Rind, stems from a fundamental divergence in the axioms of the representative worldviews of the scientific community and large portions of the American society. The scientific worldview should operate as the basis of modern societies approach to social policy and ethics because it shows a higher congruence with truth and widespread application of human value. Previously in history, societies, especially before the advent of liberal democracy, the scientific method, or sociology, were highly traditional and saw considerably more human suffering as small groups of people, ill-informed by their ancestors, created social policy, defended it with reference to invisible supernatural beings, and then enforced that policy, often violently, on human beings with whom they disagreed. As the modern world continues to move away from the less sound methodology of relying on our ancestors, i.e. those human being who were simply born before us without access to the tremendous collection of accumulated scientific knowledge, those that believe in and understand the scientific process need to continue to research socially significant issues and have the ethical courage to present the conclusions reached to an often less-informed general public that may often attack those findings and condemn the scientific approach to existence.

References Cited

Gutierrez, R. and Giner-Sorolla, R. (2007). Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion, Vol. 7(4).

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). When Worlds Collide: Social Science, Politics, and the Rind et. al (1998) Child Sexual Abuse Meta-Analysis. American Psychologist. Vol. 57, No. 3, 176-188.

Macionis, John J. (2008). Sociology. 12th ed. Prentice Hall.

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., Bauserman, R. (1998). A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin. Vol 124(1), 22-53.