Shenk gives multiple examples of people, such as Kim Peek, "the real Rain Man" (89), who are mentally challenged in one way but brilliant in another: physically disabled but musically talented, autistic but great memory skills, etc. Researchers were able to confirm that by shutting off one side of the brain, which is responsible for certain aspects, the other side, which is responsible for different aspects would have to work harder "to compensate heavily for the loss" (89). This explains the drastic difference in the Rain Man's skill level between different subjects.
Psychiatrist Darold Treffert thinks there may be "a little Rain Man in each of us" (90). Do you think the Rain Man in us or the environment has a bigger impact on our skills and knowledge? Would it be safe or affective to manipulate a brain in order to improve a certain aspect or type of knowledge? Think of how this manipulation would affect evolution in humans and in animals if this was done often.
Lili Malone (lilimalone@ameritech.net)
To some extent we all specialize in something be it a hobby or skill. This is because we all encounter "Winner's list of three possible causes-genetics, in utero environment, and after birth trauma" (88). With no two people exactly alike, we are all bound to have varying degrees of a 'rain man' in us. But that is where the true debate stems, to what extent do those three factors allocate our greatness in whatever 'rain man' skill or quality we may possess. It has been proven also, that when one of our 5 senses is hindered the others become more developed. So as a species, we "compensate" for everything and anything unconsciously. This is also what was seen when the experiment researched only using one side of the brain at a time. I think it is the environment that establishes to what extent our rain man qualities are utilized in our day to day lives. That is the very point behind the GXE philosophy over the G+E theory. I do not believe that we should artificially isolate parts of the brain to achieve desirable outcomes. It is morally unnatural and unacceptable first of all. Secondly, our brain works in mysterious ways to allow our bodies to function properly. We do not completely understand how each and every body process or function works, and therefore we risk fatal mishaps once you begin artificial selection and therapy.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is known that many people who are disable and have brilliant ability as savant syndrome. The first documented savant was Thomas Fuller in 1789, and although he had the ability of rapid calculation, he was severely mentally handicapped. Savant syndrome appears to have a close connection to autism: about fifty percent of savants are autistic, and about ten percent of autistic people are savants, according to the article "The Thought Processes of Savants" by Cam Hewett. On page 89, University of Wisconsin psychiatrist Darold Treffert, explained what Savant Syndrome is and how plasticity of Right hemisphere to plasticize to the brain’s left hemisphere, where there is damage.
ReplyDeleteEven Shenk would believe, that we all have “the real rain man in each of us” because in his argument on page 12 he states clearly that “I am arguing that very few of us ever get to know our own true potential.” There is potential in all of us that some get to discover, and others it’s just waiting to be noticed by the individual. I think both the environment and “rain man in each of us” will both equally undermine the special talent we all have. According to evolution, if our “potential” has already been discovered and evolutionalized, then the “special” talent might not be even usable in this generation. For example, as women were the gatherers and the men were hunters, if our potential was to “grow food” but by this generation, there is no need for certain people to grow food, so that potential would not be discovered in them.
I do not think that it would be safe to manipulate a brain to improve a certain aspect or type of knowledge, because if it is not necessary to live or move on in life, then we wouldn’t have to manipulate your brain to acquire the knowledge. As we are humans if we wanted to improve our knowledge, it must occur naturally with the environment or we would already be able to overcome the aspect with the knowledge we have. This manipulation could possibly just alter the mind and even have the future of just random knowledge without the basics. This would also be unethical just as Jane expressed and there could be fatal problems, but maybe it could help with other discoveries to help find cures to diseases or further studies.
Sruthi (gangasruthi@gmail.com)