Category: Children

Posted on

Dealing with Life’s Risks


 
BASE jumping is one of the most dangerous sports a human can undertake, with one fatality per 60 participants. The desire to jump from great heights is practiced by a small percentage of extreme sports enthusiasts. BASE jumping, like sky-diving, skiing potentially fatal slopes, or rock climbing without a rope, is a high-risk activity.
 
According to The New Zealand Medical Journal, the likelihood of injury or death from BASE jumping is 5 to 8 times greater than skydiving. Why would any sane person take such risks? Dr. Erik Monastery, one of the authors of the study, noted that BASE jumpers score high on a measure called novelty seeking: the person’s propensity to become easily bored and look for exciting activities. They also have a low sense of harm avoidance, so they have the advantage of “confidence in the face of danger and uncertainty, leading to optimistic and energetic efforts with little or no distress.”
 
Some have characterized those who regularly take such risk as adrenaline junkies or daredevils. They actively seek sensation in activities like skydiving. Dr. Cynthia Thomson of the University of British Columbia suggests that risk-taking behavior may be genetically based. Her research found that people attracted to dangerous sports shared a common genotype, a variant of the DRD4 receptor commonly called the “adventure gene.”
 
So, is risk-seeking behavior genetic or a matter of choice? How can we use these answers to make better decisions and lead happier lives?

What Is Risk?

Uncertainty pervades every aspect of life; the future is unknown. The term “risk” refers the negative aspect of that uncertainty – the possibility that something harmful may or may not occur. Risk differs from loss just as uncertainty differs from certainty. Running across a busy street blindfolded is a risk; getting hit by a car while doing so is a loss.
 
Risk is present in everything we do. For example, a person could be injured by a herd of stampeding zebras while walking the streets of Manhattan, although there are no recorded instances of such occurring.

Probability

For that reason, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refined the definition by replacing the word “possibility” with “probability.” In common terms, risk is referred to as “odds.” For example, the probability of your home being damaged by a fire in the coming year is about one-quarter of 1% (0.0028%) while the probability that you will die in the future (based on current science) is 100%. The risk of death is not an if, but when. However, probability alone is not enough to understand risk and effectively manage it.

Impact

A second dimension of risk is consequence. In other words, what is the impact upon those experiencing the event? The impact may be slight or catastrophic. For example, the probability of the paperboy tossing your morning edition into the shrubs sometime during the year is high, but the consequences are slight (inconvenience and possibly scratched retrieving the paper). On the other hand, the likelihood of a tornado destroying your home in Elmhurst, New York is low, but the financial costs of such an event would be significant.
 
Read more . . .

Posted on

5 Keys to Civil Political Discussions with Friends and Family

men-having-political-discussionAccording to Professor Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, it seems that political rancor today has reached heights not seen since Reconstruction after the Civil War. A Stanford University report found that Americans have become increasingly polarized along political party lines, primarily due to “political candidates relying on negative campaigning and partisan news sources serving up vitriolic commentary.” As a consequence, the report concluded that the level of political animus in the American public exceeds racial hostility.
 
Conservative columnist Gerry Feld claims that politics has turned into a “sewer of insults, name-calling and character assassinations like we have never experienced before.” He cited examples of jokes on an MSNBC program about presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s black grandchild and disparaging remarks about former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s child with Down’s syndrome.
 
Liberals and conservatives alike are to blame. Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for governor of Texas, was called “Abortion Barbie” by a Republic party country chairman and “retard Barbie” by her opponent and eventual winner of the gubernatorial race, Greg Abbott. At the 2013 Missouri State Fair rodeo, a clown wore a Barack Obama mask and was run down by a bull to the delight of much of the crowd. Feld bemoans the undignified ways we treat each other and says “to move forward and be productive, we need to drop disparaging remarks and name-calling.”

Keys to Civil Political Discussions

Political disagreements can end friendships and destroy family relationships. According to a YouGov.com poll, more than one in four respondents (28%) have serious political disagreements with a family member, and more than one-third of those aged 18 to 29 experience political friction.
 
While friends and family have a lot in common, it can be shocking when you uncover political disagreements. Discussions can quickly degenerate into name-calling and hurt feelings. One blogger writes that political discussions can be “down right painful and fill one with such angst,” and another says that “We have to brace ourselves before any political discussions in the family because they get nasty fast.”
 
Family members of former Vice President Dick Cheney (whose daughter Mary Cheney is gay) took their feud over gay marriage publicly to Facebook. Liberal Democrat Melissa Reylek-Robinson, a 34-year-old mother in San Diego, married to a conservative Republican, notes that “Election time is probably the worst time for us. We definitely get into some heated debates.”
&nbsp:
If you want to be sure that partisan politics stay out of your personal relationships, consider these tactics to reduce the heat:
 
Read more . . .

Posted on

3 Reasons to Attend a Foreign University

college-women-abroad-918x516According to USA Today, the number of U.S. undergraduates studying abroad was almost 290,000 in 2014. In fact, approximately 9% of U.S. undergraduates study abroad at some point. Attending a foreign university can be a life-changing and valuable experience for a number of reasons, not the least of which include developing a better understanding of different cultures and improved communication skills.
 
Recognizing these and other benefits, numerous American presidents have promoted the value of foreign education exchange programs:
 
– President Dwight D. Eisenhower advised on January 27, 1958, that “the exchange of students should be greatly expanded. Information and education are powerful forces in support of peace. Just as war begins in the minds of men, so does peace.”
 
– More than 25 years later in May 1982, President Ronald Reagan said, “There is a flickering light in us all which can light the rest of our lives, elevating our ideals, deepening our tolerance, and sharpening our appetite for knowledge about the rest of the world. Educational and cultural exchanges provide a perfect opportunity for this spark to grow.”
 
– In a joint press conference with Russian President Boris Yeltsin on April 4, 1993, President Bill Clinton confirmed the importance of student exchange programs: “No one who has lived through the second half of the 20th century could possibly be blind to the enormous impact of exchange programs on the future of the countries.”
 
– President Barack Obama has announced two programs – “100,000 Strong” in 2010 and “100,000 Strong in the Americas” in 2011 – to bolster the number of U.S. students studying in China and Latin America, respectively. Speaking about the importance of studying abroad, First Lady Michelle Obama said, “The fact is, with every friendship you make, and every bond of trust you establish, you are shaping the image of America projected to the rest of the world. That is so important. So when you study abroad, you’re actually making America stronger.”

Reasons to Study Abroad

1. Better Employment Opportunities

According to For Dummies, studying abroad enhances your chances for post-graduate employment because employers want “employees with an international knowledge base, as well as foreign language skills.” This finding was reinforced by other studies:
 
– A study published in Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad suggests that employers with international business place significant value on studying abroad – the longer, the better in programs that feature service learning or internships.
 
– The QS Global Employer Survey Report 2011 indicates that almost half of employers in the U.S. actively seek or value international study experience when recruiting.
 
– A 2012 survey by IES Abroad of recent graduates who had overseas study experience indicates that 89% got a job within six months of graduation, almost half while they were still in school – and earned $7,000 more on average in starting salaries. By contrast, only 49% of college graduates found jobs within a year.
 
Conversely, one study reported on by NAFSA found that very few employers specifically recruit candidates with an overseas educational experience unless cross-cultural skills are required. In other words, companies whose interest is limited to the geographical U.S. are less likely to appreciate the foreign experience. Choice of majors remains the single greatest determinant of employer interest.
 
Read more . . .

Posted on

Vaccination Debate: Should Immunizations Be Mandatory for Children

Baby-Vaccines-175058_LChildhood immunizations have been controversial for centuries. To many, the idea that protection or immunity can be gained by deliberate exposure to a disease is counter-intuitive. That unease, coupled with the possibility that a child might have an allergic reaction to a vaccine’s ingredients, is enough to cause many parents to question the wisdom of inoculation.
 
Anti-vaccination sentiment began early, even prior to Dr. Edward Jenner’s creation of the first smallpox vaccine in 1796. In Boston in 1721, Reverend Edmund Massey published a paper titled “The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation,” which argued that diseases were sent by God to punish evildoers and that attempts to prevent them, therefore, were sinful.
 
By the late 1800s, anti-vaccine movements, present in both Great Britain and the United States, were active. The Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879, and the protest against vaccinations continues today. Ironically, the movement expanded even as the number of smallpox outbreaks was reduced because of inoculation.
 
By 1900, many states—including New York, Massachusetts, California, and Pennsylvania—passed laws requiring vaccinations for any children attending public schools. Now, this is required by all 50 states—though all do provide some form of medical, religious, or philosophical exemption. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, a ruling subsequently confirmed in 1922 and most recently in 2014.
 
Despite the opposition, vaccines for smallpox, rabies, typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella were in use by the 1970s. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that vaccinations had prevented more than 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths among children since 1994.

The Andrew Wakefield Study

The controversy over mandatory vaccinations for children has intensified since the publication of a study in The Lancet in 1997 by British former physician Andrew Wakefield linking the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) immunization to autism.

Claims Within the Study

Wakefield’s study involved 12 patients treated at a London hospital. He and his colleagues reported that all 12 children had intestinal abnormalities and development regression beginning one to fourteen days after the MMR vaccination. The study went on to suggest that the vaccine caused a gastrointestinal syndrome in susceptible children that triggered autism.
 
Recognizing the profitability of a public controversy – fueled by all parents’ desire to protect their children – the popular press and fringe-favoring talk show hosts in the UK and U.S. immediately fanned the flames of public reaction and spread news of the study far and wide. According to a Salon article, U.S. newspapers mentioned the link 400 times in 2001 and more than 3,000 times in 2009 – and there were five times the number of television evening news stories on the link in 2010 than in 2001. As a consequence, vaccination rates in Great Britain decreased significantly.
 
Read more . . .