Four reports from students who attended the Gifted and Talented Conference in Oxford on November 25th.
Are Humans Born To Kill?
By Jay Boender (NS5)
On the 25th November 2011, the Richard Huish College invited children from schools all over Oxfordshire to join them for a ‘Gifted and Talented Study Day’ in the Town Hall in Oxford. The program they had put together for us consisted of 4 lectures given by Dr. David Holmes and Dr. Keri Nixon. The topics were chosen to raise discussion and they encouraged you to think about what was being said.
The first lecture, given by Dr. David Holmes, was titled ‘Are Humans Born To Kill?’ Dr. Holmes explored different personality disorders that some suffer from, including paedophilia, types of stalking, sadism and many more. He explained about each disorder what it was and what person suffering from the disorder might feel. Dr Holmes raised a few questions during his lecture and a key point was how these disorders can be used as a defence in court. If a person has a mental problem, the sentence is usually less severe than it would be for a ‘sane’ person.
However, the disorders that were described are quite severe cases, when it is quite obvious that the person has a mental issue. Dr Holmes then went on to explain that people like psychopaths could often appear to be sane- in fact, they can seem like very happy people because they lack the inhibition that stops most people from hurting others. It was mentioned that some soldiers have a lot of problems killing people because of something in us stopping such immoral actions. A famous example of such a case is Fred West, a psychopath who enjoyed a normal childhood and marriage before his condition became apparent. Even if he was diagnosed before, there is still a dilemma- do you try to prevent a crime you believe someone is going to commit or do you wait until it has happened before taking action? It seems unfair to put a person in prison who apparently has the potential to be dangerous but hasn’t done anything yet. However, it cannot really safe to keep such an individual ‘on the loose’.
It was at this point in the lecture that what Dr Holmes was saying stopped being entirely based on fact, but possibly correct information interpreted in a way that made some of his statements untrue. There has always been a long debate going on about ‘nature or nurture?’ but Dr Holmes referred to a ‘killing gene’, which was later pointed out to me, doesn’t actually exist. There is a gene that gives a person the potential to be violent, but this is not linked to killing. Overall though, it was a well-structured lecture containing good information and some convincing arguments to back up Dr Holmes’ opinion, though I did not agree with it. The lecture stimulated a lot of discussion and gave you a lot to think about.
In general, the day was also very good and well organised. We were given booklets in which notes could be written about the lecture next to every slide that was discussed in the presentations. I really enjoyed the Study Day; it was a great experience!
It’s a Man’s World
By Erynn Blansjaar (ES4)
We went to Oxford to the “Gifted and Talented Study Day”. One of the presentations was called: ‘It’s a man’s world’, given by Dr Keri Nixon. From the title, as you can probably guess, it was about feminism. The question Dr Nixon asked was whether we’d (women) won the war for equality, are women treated the same as men? In order to see if we had, she put up a slide showing the demands under feminism, which include equal pay at work, equal opportunities, our right to control over our own bodies, the right to abortion, and end to violence against women, better childcare…etc.
While some might say women have indeed earned equal rights, equal pay and so on, others might say in fact we haven’t yet reached that point. Dr Nixon showed us some newspaper ads, from the 50s up to 2011. The ads from the 50s, 60s and 70s show women as being less than men, and also a bit stupid. The ad from 2010 came from Dolce&Gabbana, showing a man holding down a woman, while being surrounded by other men. I thought it just looked wrong, seeing as we’re all supposed to be considered equal, right? Then an ad from 2011 came up, Oven Pride. Their slogan is: ‘So simple, even a man can do it’. It was then that Dr Nixon raised the question: is there gender predjudice against men too?
She went on to mention domestic abuse, honour crimes and forced marriage. The first of these had figures which showed there were plenty of men beaten up by their partner, not just women.
Overall I thought it was a really good presentation, and she raised some good points which I hope people will take into account (I certainly will) when looking at the cover of magazines and seeing a man surrounded by half-naked women, and other things. I really hope one day, we’ll all be treated the same. The whole day was really inspirational for me and everyone else who went, and this presentation was the one I enjoyed most. I only wish Dr Nixon could spread the message to everyone, so maybe boys will think twice before telling girls to: ‘get back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich’!
The Consequences of Longevity
By Jasper Murison-Bowie (DS5)
The third lecture at the Year 10 & 11 Gifted and Talented Study Day was by Dr. David A. Holmes and was entitled The Consequences of Longevity. In it, he presented the idea of living forever and the scientific background behind it; he then posed the question of what would happen should it become a reality.
Initially, he raised the point that time is not a physical entity, but merely something that we have invented and superimposed on change in order to give ourselves a way of measuring change. He also described what ageing actually consists of– i.e. non-replication and cell loss as well as gene conditioned processes, for example women being infertile after menopause. Such facts contradicts living for a long time. He went on to compare the lifespan of a human to that of various animals such as mice and elephants and drew the obvious conclusion that in general, size is a deciding factor when calculating life expectancy. Additionally, he pointed out the difference between extending life expectancy and lifespan: life expectancy is extended usually by creating better living conditions and having a higher standard of living and is quoted as the expected age a new-born baby will live to, predicted at the time of birth. Lifespan, on the other hand, is something that represents the upper limit of how old a particular species can get and thus how increasing it means that people will live longer than they did before. In his lecture, David Holmes used 400-500 years as an example of a possible lifespan.
In the next part of his lecture, he talked about the biological possibilities of increasing lifespan and biological longevity factors. He explored the area of what has been done and what happens already and looked at illnesses that radically shorten lifespan, posing the question of whether it was possible to radically alter lifespan in the opposite direction. Following on from that, he showed the results of a study conducted in 1977 on creating genetic mutations in worms which lead to a fivefold increase in lifespan. He then went on to claim that in fact we will soon be able to increase lifespan greatly, citing the Geron Company as an example of the work being done in that field– “It is a matter of when, not if Geron succeed in increasing lifespan by a factor of 7”, he said. He stated that once it becomes possible it becomes both inevitable and irreversible (“Once you know something, you cannot un-know it.”) and that any attempts to ban it would be futile. According to him, the promise of long-life would outweigh ‘vague complications’ and quoted Sackheim as saying that people would be over optimistic when considering the risks.
Dr. Holmes then took the next logical step and began describing all the problems that, as stated by himself, would arise. These problems ranged from the issue of who gets the treatment to what he called ‘Paradoxical effects: back to Gladiator’, which he described as high risk activities, or even death, becoming fashionable, paradoxical in the sense that they would be a direct antithesis to the original aim of lifespan extending treatment. This could spell the end of religion. Other problems included occupational issues (“too many at the top”, job tolerability over longer periods of time, dated professional skills and others), overcrowding/overpopulation, crime issues, developmental issues, clinical effects, the impact of such treatments on society in general, the problems arising for those who don’t receive the treatment and the question of evolution (A new stage in evolution? A biological showdown?).
Finally, Dr. Holmes summarised his talk and went as far as to suggest that humankind’s endeavours to increase lifespan may turn out to be its undoing– in his words, “the ultimate limiting mechanism” and that as it would be irresistible to the individual, it would be fatal to the species. He said that these things, being inevitable, would occur– sooner or later.
In my opinion, the lecture was successful in provoking thought and discussion, but it had a number of flaws. It painted a rather bleak picture of the future and was too quick to make the assumption that all human beings would be so naive as to not weigh up the consequences to an extent which would cause some people to choose not to live for an extended period of time. Dr. Holmes neglected to mention this and I feel that while initially there may be people who would want to ‘live forever’, it is quite plausible that people would make a conscious decision not to ‘violate nature’ in the sense of trying to cheat death. It also almost entirely failed to provide any arguments for the extension of lifespan, leaving it very clearly biased. Additionally, the so-called facts in the lecture (that it is biologically possible to greatly extend lifespan) are much disputed. The lecture did make the point, however, that it is important to start thinking and making plans for these possible outcomes now, because the problems could have such huge ramifications and because it is likely that there are even more possible outcomes that we cannot foresee.
All in all, though, I enjoyed the day and felt that it both provided new information about topics that I knew nothing about and new viewpoints in others. It was well-structured and coherent and I found the lectures to be, for the most part, enlightening!
Forensic Psychology: The Real “Cracker”
By Hannah Thomson (DS4)
At the Gifted and Talented Study Day for years 10 & 11 Keri Nixon talked to us about Forensic Psychology and a technique called profiling.
Forensic Psychology is often wrongly portrayed in the media. In a lot of TV shows about crime, it seems as if the psychologists are responsible for solving the crime, but only the police officers are. The psychologists can help them in this, for instance by a technique called profiling.
Profiling is a way of determining a person’s personality based on the crime they have committed. Often other criminals with a similar offence are interviewed, the scene is examined, the sequence of the crime is reconstructed, the psychological style of the offender is examined and the profile is formulated from the information gathered.
However, profiling can also go wrong. In one case in 1992, a man was wrongly accused of a crime as computer searches excluded the actual criminal due to the profile that had been created. The actual criminal was directly linked to the crime by DNA, but he was eliminated from the enquiries as they focused on another suspect. It set research on profiling back 10 to 15 years.
Overall, the job of a Forensic Psychologist is to assist the police, not to lead the investigation. They give advice on the investigation and interviews, help to link information, validate statements and do research.
I found this talk very interesting. It was a rare insight into criminal investigation, something I had never really thought about. It shows how many different areas of psychology there are and how much we can find out about a person just by examining their actions. Also, Keri Nixon made the subject very interesting.
|