Mike, I would assume an underlying third variable for both the brain differences as well as the behavioral differences. I find the tendency to use neuroimaging to explain behavior quite unscientific and illogical. When we behave in a certain way, there will always be a certain brain pattern that will be associated with that behavior pattern. But it would far more logical to assume that the behavior and the brain pattern, though occurring simultaneously, are both a result of some type of previous learning. One third variable that comes to mind is parenting techniques that provide a child with previous experiences involving the delay of gratification. That is, authoritative parenting has been shown to encourage more maturity than permissive parenting. And to become a delayer certainly demands more maturity than a non-delayer.
Joan Joan Warmbold jwarm...@oakton.edu > On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:43:25 -0700, William Scott wrote: >>A good article on Walter Mischel and his studies of self control is in >> this >>week's New Yorker magazine, titled Don't! >> >>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer > ____________________ > (2) It seems to me that even if one is willing to accept the belief stated > in (1) above, it still is not clear what the relevance is of the > neuroimaging > studies that are suggested in the article. What if there are differences > in "delayers" and "non-delayers", say, in their prefrontal cortex > activity? > Does this imply that the prefrontal cortex activity causes one to be a > "delayer" or a "non-delayer"? Or does being a "delayer" or "non-delayer" > alters brain activity? Or that there is some unknown third variable that > is causing both? > > The New Yorker article is a good, enjoyable read. The question, I think, > is whether one should treat it as fiction or non-fiction. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > m...@nyu.edu > > > > > > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
