for Amanda
Mariana Santiago
August 15, 2007
AP Psychology
Writing Assignment #1: Wernicke’s Area
Wernicke’s area is the part of the human brain that controls special language skills. It is part of the cortex and located in the left hemisphere. Wernicke’s area is named for Karl Wernicke, who discovered this section of the brain. In 1874, Wernicke realized that damage to this part of the brain resulted in what is now known as receptive aphasia. Receptive aphasia would make it nearly impossible for me to differentiate between the different sounds in the English language, making it so I could not understand what people were saying. Receptive aphasia patients are unable to write. While I would be capable of speaking, I wouldn’t be able of controlling the words that would come out of my mouth. My speech would be entirely normal in all other aspects (syntax, grammar, etc.). Recovered patients of aphasia report not being able to understand what they were saying, or what others were saying, and feeling unable to stop talking. Essentially, if my Wernicke’s area was extremely damaged, I would not be able to communicate with anyone. Damage to my Wernicke’s area would impair my relationships with friends and family members. I would be able to perform all functions, but I wouldn’t be able to hold any job. I couldn’t understand orders from my superiors, whether in written or spoken form. My family members would be forced to support me indefinitely, which might cause them to resent me. My current ambitions of becoming a lobbyist or an actress would be ruined, because both careers depend on the ability to communicate. Receptive aphasia would greatly reduce my quality of life, and I would have problems enjoying poetry, any literature whatsoever, movies, plays, or conversation. Education would become nearly impossible, because there wouldn’t be so few to communicate new information to my brain. I would still be able to enjoy music to a point, but lyrics would be lost on me. I wouldn’t be able to analyze political candidates, because there would be no way for me to understand their speeches or platforms. I would not be able to follow debates. Compensation for the loss would be minimal at best. I would be unable to say anything I meant to say, to understand what other people were saying, and to read or write. Sign language might be able to help compensate for the massive loss of communication, but it would take me a very long time to learn sign language. My teacher would have to first show me a picture of an item or an action, and then show me the hand gesture for it. I would have to work very hard at memorizing all of the signs, but I would have time to do so as because I wouldn’t be able to do anything else. Another way I could compensate for the loss would be by drawing what I wanted to say, and analyzing the drawings of others. Losing all the methods of communication that I currently have while retaining my mind and all other abilities would likely result in an extreme scaling back of my maturity level. I would start to feel trapped in my own body and might start avoiding social events. As a receptive aphasia patient, I would probably soon become extremely frustrated with my inability to communicate, and feel quite irate almost constantly. I would speak gibberish often, which would irritate those around me. I would become incredibly hard to communicate with.
Writing Assignment #1: Brain Functioning and Personal Responsibility
As the defendant on trial for assault, I would tend to believe very strongly in my own innocence, even if the assault was, in fact, my fault. If a drug had somehow affected my hypothalamus, I would then most likely blame the drug for all consequences and ignore the fact that drugs can’t make anyone do anything their brain could not do on its own. I would convince myself that I had learned my lesson, and therefore did not deserve to go to prison.
In the first scenario, I took a hypothalamus-stimulating drug for the first time at a party, and then assaulted someone. Logically, this is my fault, as I chose to take the drug. However, as the defendant, I would feel that this is not my fault, because I didn’t know how the drug was going to affect me. I would perhaps blame the manufacturer of the drug, and attempt to tell myself I was someone who had been led to believe a dangerous, violence-inducing drug was innocuous and recreational. I would truly believe that I had learned my lesson, and tell the jury so. I should not be convicted or punished, because I didn’t know what was going to happen, and didn’t choose to stimulate my hypothalamus.
In the second scenario, someone slipped the drug into my drink without my knowing, and, as a result, I attacked someone. This isn’t my fault, because I didn’t choose to take the drug. This situation is comparable to another person forcing me to shoot another person by placing the gun in my hand and moving my fingers to pull the trigger. I do not deserve to be punished because it wasn’t my choice to take the drug, and the reaction of my hypothalamus didn’t happen because of anything I chose to do to it.
In the third scenario, my hypothalamus is acting in a way that causes me to become aggressive enough to assault someone at a party. I am not personally responsible because my brain is imbalanced in a way that I can’t control. I am no more responsible for this attack than someone with Alzheimer’s is responsible for forgetting someone’s name. I’m suffering from a dysfunctional hypothalamus. I’m a victim as much as the assault victim is, and shouldn’t be punished, but instead treated with regulatory medicine.
In the fourth scenario, my hypothalamus is causing me to be extra aggressive because I am suffering from a tumor that’s stimulating my hypothalamus. When the tumor is removed, I become calm again. I am not responsible, because there is a specific reason (the tumor) that I am acting so violently. The fact that I become calm again when the tumor is removed proves that the tumor is entirely to blame to my aggressive behavior, and that I am innocent. I should not be punished or convicted for what the tumor caused me to do.
Bibliography:
Myers, David G. (2004) Psychology (7th ed.) New York: Worth Publishers.
August 15, 2007
AP Psychology
Writing Assignment #1: Wernicke’s Area
Wernicke’s area is the part of the human brain that controls special language skills. It is part of the cortex and located in the left hemisphere. Wernicke’s area is named for Karl Wernicke, who discovered this section of the brain. In 1874, Wernicke realized that damage to this part of the brain resulted in what is now known as receptive aphasia. Receptive aphasia would make it nearly impossible for me to differentiate between the different sounds in the English language, making it so I could not understand what people were saying. Receptive aphasia patients are unable to write. While I would be capable of speaking, I wouldn’t be able of controlling the words that would come out of my mouth. My speech would be entirely normal in all other aspects (syntax, grammar, etc.). Recovered patients of aphasia report not being able to understand what they were saying, or what others were saying, and feeling unable to stop talking. Essentially, if my Wernicke’s area was extremely damaged, I would not be able to communicate with anyone. Damage to my Wernicke’s area would impair my relationships with friends and family members. I would be able to perform all functions, but I wouldn’t be able to hold any job. I couldn’t understand orders from my superiors, whether in written or spoken form. My family members would be forced to support me indefinitely, which might cause them to resent me. My current ambitions of becoming a lobbyist or an actress would be ruined, because both careers depend on the ability to communicate. Receptive aphasia would greatly reduce my quality of life, and I would have problems enjoying poetry, any literature whatsoever, movies, plays, or conversation. Education would become nearly impossible, because there wouldn’t be so few to communicate new information to my brain. I would still be able to enjoy music to a point, but lyrics would be lost on me. I wouldn’t be able to analyze political candidates, because there would be no way for me to understand their speeches or platforms. I would not be able to follow debates. Compensation for the loss would be minimal at best. I would be unable to say anything I meant to say, to understand what other people were saying, and to read or write. Sign language might be able to help compensate for the massive loss of communication, but it would take me a very long time to learn sign language. My teacher would have to first show me a picture of an item or an action, and then show me the hand gesture for it. I would have to work very hard at memorizing all of the signs, but I would have time to do so as because I wouldn’t be able to do anything else. Another way I could compensate for the loss would be by drawing what I wanted to say, and analyzing the drawings of others. Losing all the methods of communication that I currently have while retaining my mind and all other abilities would likely result in an extreme scaling back of my maturity level. I would start to feel trapped in my own body and might start avoiding social events. As a receptive aphasia patient, I would probably soon become extremely frustrated with my inability to communicate, and feel quite irate almost constantly. I would speak gibberish often, which would irritate those around me. I would become incredibly hard to communicate with.
Writing Assignment #1: Brain Functioning and Personal Responsibility
As the defendant on trial for assault, I would tend to believe very strongly in my own innocence, even if the assault was, in fact, my fault. If a drug had somehow affected my hypothalamus, I would then most likely blame the drug for all consequences and ignore the fact that drugs can’t make anyone do anything their brain could not do on its own. I would convince myself that I had learned my lesson, and therefore did not deserve to go to prison.
In the first scenario, I took a hypothalamus-stimulating drug for the first time at a party, and then assaulted someone. Logically, this is my fault, as I chose to take the drug. However, as the defendant, I would feel that this is not my fault, because I didn’t know how the drug was going to affect me. I would perhaps blame the manufacturer of the drug, and attempt to tell myself I was someone who had been led to believe a dangerous, violence-inducing drug was innocuous and recreational. I would truly believe that I had learned my lesson, and tell the jury so. I should not be convicted or punished, because I didn’t know what was going to happen, and didn’t choose to stimulate my hypothalamus.
In the second scenario, someone slipped the drug into my drink without my knowing, and, as a result, I attacked someone. This isn’t my fault, because I didn’t choose to take the drug. This situation is comparable to another person forcing me to shoot another person by placing the gun in my hand and moving my fingers to pull the trigger. I do not deserve to be punished because it wasn’t my choice to take the drug, and the reaction of my hypothalamus didn’t happen because of anything I chose to do to it.
In the third scenario, my hypothalamus is acting in a way that causes me to become aggressive enough to assault someone at a party. I am not personally responsible because my brain is imbalanced in a way that I can’t control. I am no more responsible for this attack than someone with Alzheimer’s is responsible for forgetting someone’s name. I’m suffering from a dysfunctional hypothalamus. I’m a victim as much as the assault victim is, and shouldn’t be punished, but instead treated with regulatory medicine.
In the fourth scenario, my hypothalamus is causing me to be extra aggressive because I am suffering from a tumor that’s stimulating my hypothalamus. When the tumor is removed, I become calm again. I am not responsible, because there is a specific reason (the tumor) that I am acting so violently. The fact that I become calm again when the tumor is removed proves that the tumor is entirely to blame to my aggressive behavior, and that I am innocent. I should not be punished or convicted for what the tumor caused me to do.
Bibliography:
Myers, David G. (2004) Psychology (7th ed.) New York: Worth Publishers.