I have read the article, “Diet of fish ‘Can Prevent’ Teen Violence” which was based on psychological research. There are a few things that don’t make since and a few things in the article I think will need to be explained. Such as if the information supports the headline, identifying a third variable, what potential problems result from the inaccurate implication of causation rather than correlation given by the headline, and rewording the headline in hopes of accurately describing the possible correlation between fish and violent behavior.
First of all, I believe that the headline does not support the information in the article because it did not explain in great detail how a diet of fish was to prevent teen violence. Plus the article shifts to anti-social and biological behavior instead of focusing on how feeding children a diet rich in fish could prevent violent behavior in teens.
Secondly, Professor Adrian Raine, a leading psychologist at the University of California used magnetic resonance imaging to study the brains of people with less lethal anti-social personality disorders. And he found an 11 per cent reduction in the volume of neurons – so-called grey matter – in their prefrontal cortex compared to the average. I believe that the “third variable” is that they also showed lower heart rates and sweated less when stressed, a sign of blunted emotional responses which could affect their ability to empathize with victims.
Thirdly, the potential problems that could result from inaccurate implications of causation rather than correlation given by the headline is that even in one of Raine’s studies one prolific serial killer differed from the others by not only having a undamaged frontal lobe, but also unusual patterns of activity in other parts of the brain. Therefore there is a possibility that a potentially violent and dangerous person could be considered normal.
Fourth of all, I believe that the headline should be reworded to say “Diet of Fish ‘could...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document