Homosexuality: Nature or illness?

Homosexuality was traditionally considered as a “mental illness” according to many psychologists. However, this idea succumbed when they failed to “produce any empirical or scientific basis” to term it as a psychological abnormality (Wikipedia, 2012). Since then, homosexuality is taken as just a normal case of different sexual orientation. So, it is more of a “born this way” thing than a “choice”.

Homosexuality is not heavily prevalent in our societies when we study from the surface. In terms of demography, only a small percentage of people are known to be homosexual. However, the number can be higher because many of them do not openly show up themselves due to negative social attitudes towards them (like homophobia) in most of the world, despite the fact that it is now more accepted in some western countries.  

When explaining homosexuality using biology, researchers have found that the areas of the hypothalamus in homosexual people are different from that of heterosexual ones (Charles Stangor, Introduction to Psychology, p. 317). Also, if one of the identical twins is homosexual, there is a high probability that another would also be so (Charles Stangor, Introduction to Psychology, p. 317).   

Homosexuality is also related with psychological adjustment. Not all homosexual people accept their biological sexual orientation, and try to change to heterosexual against their biology due to negative personal, social and religious perceptions towards it. In such a case, they generally seek so called “Gay affirmative psychotherapy” in order to psychologically adjust to the fact that homosexuality is natural and not a mental illness (Wikipedia, 2012). So, we can say that homosexuality is no more considered as an illness, it is more of a genetic outcome.

References:

Stangor, Charles (n.d.), Emotions and Motivation, Introduction to Psychology, pp.317

Wikipedia (2012), Homosexuality and Psychology, Accessed: October 9, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013

Brain Drain: A negative consequence of Globalization

Brain Drain (or the Human Capital Flight in a more formal language) is one of the major negative consequences of Globalization. It can be defined as “the large-scale emigration of a large group of individuals with technical skills or knowledge” (Wikipedia, 2013). Due to the development in information and communication technology across the world because of Globalization, the capable people of even the least developed countries become attracted towards the better opportunities and life standard of developed ones. And hence, if a suitable chance comes their way, they grab it with their both hands, leaving behind the miseries of their native countries, towards a more promising future.

It is problematic to both the source and the host countries. The developing countries which already have economic poverty also have to suffer from “intellectual” poverty. On the other hand, for some people in the host country, it might be the matter of serious financial trouble. Such countries have to face the problem of satisfying their real citizens as their job positions can become occupied by foreign nationals or naturalized immigrants. In this way, the people who could have helped their countries to build a better future and lead them become just normal people in another country due to their concern for personal future. Inevitably, many of those talented people might have studied with the government aid and scholarships. So, it also wastes the investment put in by the government hoping that they will do something good for their country (Wikipedia, 2013). The developing countries therefore lag further behind in their bid to improve themselves. They virtually lose even the potential to become a developed one in future, and Globalization plays an integral part in it.

Can science create perfect human being?

In the past hundred years, there have been significant developments in the field of medical science. There have been tremendous achievements like heart transplant (by Doctor Christian Bernard), cloning and genetic modification (For instance, use of growth hormone for preventing hereditary dwarfism). From methods to the equipment all aspects of medical sector have been revolutionized. Scientists are now working on unbelievable and unimaginable things like artificial blood, stem cell (cells which can generate specific body parts) and many more. But we still come across manifold forms of limitations which are related with our physical, mental and social conditions. Every time we move ahead new barriers come forth and we always remain imperfect. Thus it’s a challenge for science to create a perfect “Homo Sapiens”.

A perfect human being, according to different people, has compassion and kindness or goodness and decency or physical and mental fitness, unselfishness and piety also. Since the dawn of civilization, man has striven to perfect himself, emulating those who have achieved greatness. “Cultures across the globe have written vast amounts of amazing literature containing guidelines to enlightenment and perfection.” (K. Snow, n.d.) But with so many guidelines out there, how do we know for sure which ones are the most important to follow? Scientists may think that perfect human is the most genius person. A child may imagine a person like his favorite superhero. A religious man may think of Lord Buddha or Jesus. Thus, it is not possible to create such a personality who is conceptually different for all people. A perfect person for one can be imperfect for the rest.

Even if people agree on a point and set a universal standard for making the perfect human being, he would not be perfect. Something that is made artificially cannot be perfect in itself because we, its creator, are not perfect. He will have some flaws which will be unidentified and will only be seen when he goes through the real life.  Nature itself makes us evolve into a better race. Each generation comes becoming more developed than its predecessors. If we try to be quicker than the natural process surely nature will limit us i.e. the one who is better than anyone ever imagined may not adapt with people who commit mistakes and who cannot adapt with society cannot be taken as the ideal personality.

Similarly, the branches of science related with improvement in performance and ability of living beings have always come up with new discoveries and with them, new side effects. Genetic engineering used to improve yield of food crops has made many people victims to the newly discovered food allergy. Chemicals (like calcium carbide) can be used to ripen fruits earlier but its consumption can lead to catastrophic results like Cancer. In such a condition, we cannot be certain that the perfect human created by science will actually be perfect. In the same way, something that is flawless for the time being may not be in future. Every time we become immune to something we become vulnerable to some new outbreak. Each time we improve something in us there is another drawback ready to hinder us. So, we can never think of being or making something perfect.

Even if we develop ourselves to a large extent there is always place for improvement. All the explorations were possible due to humans’ desire for more, greater for reaching perfection. Both nature and science have helped us to do so. But on the whole, we always desire for more which never allows us to be perfect.

References:

Snow, K. (n.d.), What Makes an Ideal Human Being?, Accessed: January 12, 2013, Retrieved from:  http://www.trvnews.com/tmn/022205/idealhuman.html

Blockk, A. (n.d.), What does anyone think the perfect human is? What are the traits that underlie this concept?, Accessed: January 12, 2013, Retrieved from: http://antoniusblockk.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-the-Perfect-Human

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013

Globalization: Positive or Negative

Globalization has both positive and negative aspects. I personally think that it depends on the perspective which is used to analyze the factors related with Globalization. If we think of the world economy dominated by a small group of nations, Globalization looks to be unfair on developing nations. And the other way round, if we think about studying in an online university, regardless of the national boundaries and economic constraints, Globalization is like a blessing. However, these are not the only points which make us so divisive; we need to take a deeper look into it.

So, let’s take a look at the positive side.

1. Better trade, business and job opportunities (Mourduokotas, 2011).

2. Joint efforts in tackling global issues like global crimes, Epidemics, and Environmental issues.

3. Establishment of international aid agencies to help developing nations.

4. Technological innovation and knowledge sharing (Goldin, 2012).

5. Emergence of International NGOs to improve lives at grassroots level.

6. Opportunities for global research and development.

7. People around the world get to know each other better by sharing their culture.

8. Worldwide sporting events like FIFA World Cup and the Olympics promote global harmony (Economic-geography.org, 2012).

9. Increased cooperation between countries. 

10. New sources of income for developing countries like Remittances. 

11. Enforcement of global laws like Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Copyright laws. 

12. Declination of language barriers, hence increase in communication (Economic-geography.org, 2012).

Now, let’s see some of its negative consequences.

1. Monopoly of powerful nations.

2. Illegal Immigration (Economic-geography.org, 2012).

3. Spread of global diseases.

4. Sweatshops: Use of cheap labor in developing countries and selling goods at high price worldwide (Economic-geography.org, 2012). 

5. Threat to local cultures due to increasing influence from popular cultures.

6. Occurrence of Trade Wars.

7. Rise in global crimes.

8. Large funds wasted due to failure of aid projects.

Inevitably, a lot more can be added to both sides. However, the points above give us a general idea that even if there are negative effects, the positive results can compensate for them. Considering, the negative aspects, I think that they can be regulated because most of them are due to weakness in laws and policies, and lack of awareness in people. So, some reinforcement in government policies and international laws, and increase in public awareness programs can greatly assist in tackling the negative influences of Globalization.   

References:

Mourdoukoutas, P. (September 10, 2011), The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Side of Globalization, Accessed: January 6, 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2011/09/10/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-side-of-globalization/

Goldin, I. (February 1, 2012), Globalization: The good, The bad and the Uncertain, Accessed: January 6, 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9519

Economic-geography.org (July 5, 2012), Effects of Globalization, Accessed: January 6, 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.economic-geography.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:effects-of-globalization&catid=98:inf&Itemid=85

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013

World Bank and IMF Aids: Do they always work?

If we think rationally, there are good and bad sides of almost everything and these institutions are no exceptions. Regarding the intentions behind establishment of the IMF and the World Bank, along with the ever-present criticism, it is really difficult to strictly choose any one side. However, after weighing both sides, I feel that they deny the receiving nations the freedom and flexibility of utilizing aids, and overpower the local policies with the ones of their interests, which itself questions the purpose of these institutions.

We can take example of Singapore which was given only a small amount of aid from the World Bank but it achieved huge economic growth (Bryan T. Johnson, 1996). The main reason behind it was the emphasis on the freedom of productive services of the economy rather than the World Bank aid. If Singapore had not focused on making its economy more liberal and kept on relying on loans it would have been never been able to achieve the success it is enjoying right now.

Similarly, the economies that are receiving aid from the World Bank have not been able to uplift their standards significantly. There even cases where instead of growing, the economies shrunk after aid projects (Bryan T. Johnson, 1996). The aid receiving countries generally have no substantial influence on how the projects will be run. The projects are approved by the executive panel and enforced in the way they think is right. Just to ensure that the aid is utilized well, they hinder the countries from controlling the activities going on in their economy. 

Moreover, the projects directly fund the issues like health and education, than promoting economic reforms which can have more impact on ensuring economic independence and sustainability. The situation is thus analogous to the saying, “If you give a man a fish, he will eat that day. If you teach him to fish, he will eat for his lifetime”. In such a condition, we can generalize that the economies are not able to achieve long-term development when they heavily rely on such agencies for assistance. They have no other choice than letting the projects work and expect that good things will come. They never become economically independent.

Reference:

Johnson, B. T. (May 16, 1996), The World Bank and Economic Growth: 50 Years of Failure, Accessed: November 28, 2012, Retrieved from: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/05/bg1082nbsp-the-world-bank-and-economic-growth

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013

Abnormal Behavior and Psychological Disorders

The world is full of diversity. We all are different from each other. We have our own behaviors and own thoughts. This is what makes this world such an exciting place. In the same way, we also have some common habits that make us alike. We refer to those common things which we regularly do as being “normal”. However, not all people behave or think like most of us might do. In general sense, their thoughts deviate significantly from normal patterns, which sometimes seriously influence their normal behavior. We term such behavior and thoughts to be “abnormal”.

A behavior or thought can be abnormal because of many different reasons. Firstly, it might be due to Biological factors. Scientific studies have found that the genetic characters and the orientation of neurotransmitters can make people more susceptible to specific mental abnormalities. Such characteristics might be genetically inherited by children and they might be likely to suffer the abnormalities like their parents. Secondly, it might be due to Psychological factors. Even if the person has not inherited vulnerable genes, she/he might have abnormal behaviors if she/he is exposed to a lot of stress and emotionally distressing situations. Finally, it might be due to Social factors. A poor person is more like to face stressful situations in his life due to weaker socio-economic condition, which contribute to development of abnormal behavior. All these factors collectively make our behavior and thought abnormal.

Having abnormal behavior or thought itself is not a serious problem. Some people have habit of biting nails too often, which is certainly abnormal, but it is not a “disorder” until it causes serious distress for the person. In order to check whether a behavior is abnormal there have been different criteria. With the development in the psychology more improved methods have been developed. The currently used criterion is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It uses the data collected about the previous cases of various abnormal behaviors to diagnose any abnormality in behavior. However, it is not consistent with the diagnosis because it does not contain the exact symptoms but only the descriptions of the category which were known to have that disorder. Also, it has been criticized for listing even some common problems like “academic problems” as potential a psychological disorder (Stangor, p. 366). So, we can say that it does not help in fully identifying a person for having a psychological disorder, and thus it is insufficient.     

Considering the causes of a Psychological Disorder, almost all disorders have biological and environmental causes behind them. For instance, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is known to have genetic influences from twin studies as well as socio-economic factors like stress in family and poverty (Stangor, p. 368). Similarly, in Autism, the neglecting nature of parents is the main environmental factor while heredity also has a role as high as 90% (Stangor, p.368). In the same way, in case of Schizophrenia many biological and environmental factors work together in development of the disorder (Stangor, p.384).

In conclusion, small extent of uncommon behavior cannot be taken as abnormal, and even if it is more frequent we cannot say that it is a disorder until it affects the person seriously. It is usually difficult to diagnose abnormality, but there are ways to indentify it and find the causes behind it. Therefore, we must be careful in our decision to say someone’s behavior as abnormal.

Reference:

Stangor, C. (2010), Introduction to Psychology, Defining Psychological Disorders, p. 357-394
 

© Dixit Bhatta 2013

Test Bias and Stereotype Threat

Since the dawn of education system in human civilization, there have been various methods to measure aptitude of the students, to check how much they have learned. With the change in education system, there have been reforms in testing mechanisms too. Nowadays, in order to make a test “fair” to everyone, so called standardized tests have been developed. However, such tests are not free from frailties. It is because despite of being academically standard, they are socioeconomically, culturally, racially and even in terms of gender unfair to certain extents. Such cases can be explained using topics like test bias and stereotype threat.

According to Writeslaw.com (2009), test bias is “The difference in test scores that is attributable to demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and age).” It has also been termed as Cultural Bias (Schellenberg, 2004). So, it is clear that there is an inevitable relationship between test bias and culture. Generally, it is found that people of particular culture are favored by a specific test than other cultures. For instance, let us take a person from middle-income family, who will certainly have a different way of life (culture) than a rich person. On average she/he will be less likely to be as good as her/his rich counterparts, if a test focuses more on the things that rich people are used to like expensive cars or other items of luxury.  

Similarly, “Stereotype threat refers to being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group.” (Reducingstereotypethreat.org, n.d.). It is obvious from the definition that Stereotype Threat is directly related with the groups that are normally considered as inferior, which in general sense can be applied to the races that are considered as minority or less powerful. Also, in case of gender, women are more likely to face stereotype threat as men have dominated women across many cultures throughout the world. If a test emphasizes more on a particular race or gender, it is more likely that the other races or gender will feel lack of confidence and as a result perform poorer than in normal condition (Reducingstereotypethreat.org, n.d.).

To give an example, we can take the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) reasoning test. In it, we can divide the test takers into two categories: US high-school graduates and International students. The test shows test bias in a sense that most international students had a good score in Mathematics section but a poor score in Critical Reading section. It is purely logical to say that the one who is a native speaker of English will have a better vocabulary, and can easily do better than non-native speakers like most international students in Critical Reading tasks. And that was why the Critical Reading scores of international students turned out to be poorer when compared to the native speakers.

Similarly, the stereotype threat was there in terms of socioeconomic factor i.e. richer students and poorer students. As some people may not be from a well-off family, the registration cost readily becomes an economic burden for them, and they feel the pressure to do well in a single attempt. On the other hand, the richer counterparts can appear the test twice and even thrice to achieve a better score, which necessarily does not mean that they are better. However, in the end, the highest scores across all the tests are considered, and they are evaluated to be better than whom they actually might not be.   

Therefore, just giving a uniform pattern of questions in order to test the intelligence is not enough in analyzing true ability of the test taker. There are many cultural, racial and socioeconomic factors behind it. As long as such factors influence the test taker when appearing that intelligence test, it is almost inevitable to get accurate or fair enough judgments about an individual’s intelligence.

References:

Wikipedia (2012), Race and Intelligence, Accessed: October 10, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Reducingstereotypethreat.org (n.d.) , What is stereotype threat? Accessed: October 10, 2012, http://reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html

Schellenberg, S. J. (2004), Test Bias or Cultural Bias: Have We Really Learned Anything? , Accessed: October 10, 2012, http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/Test_Bias_Paper.pdf

Wrightslaw.com (2009),Glossary of Assessment terms, Accessed: October 10, 2012,  http://www.wrightslaw.com/links/glossary.assessment.htm

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013