Aicm.v2

A trio of papers in this week’s Nature identifies mutations causing autism in four new genes, demonstrate the importance of de novo mutations in the etiology of this disorder and suggest that there may be 1,000 or more genes in which high-risk, autism-causing mutations can occur.

These studies provide an explanation for what seems like a paradox: on the one hand, twin studies show that autism is very strongly genetic (identical twins are much more likely to share a diagnosis than fraternal twins) – on the other, many cases are sporadic, with no one else in the family affected. How can the condition be “genetic” but not always run in the family? The explanation is that many cases are caused by new mutations – ones that arise in the germline of the parents. (This is similar to conditions like Down syndrome). The studies reported in Nature are trying to find those mutations and see which genes are affected.

They are only possible because of the tremendous advances in our ability to sequence DNA. The first genome cost three billion dollars to sequence and took ten years – we can do one now for a couple thousand dollars in a few days. That means you can scan through the entire genome in any affected individual for mutated genes. The problem is we each carry hundreds of such mutations, making it difficult to recognise the ones that are really causing disease.

The solution is to sequence the DNA of large numbers of people with the same condition and see if the same genes pop up multiple times. That is what these studies aimed to do, with samples of a couple hundred patients each. They also concentrated on families where autism was present in only one child and looked specifically for mutations in that child that were not carried by either parent – so-called de novo mutations, that arise in the generation of sperm or eggs. These are the easiest to detect because they are likely to be the most severe. (Mutations with very severe effects are unlikely to be passed on because the people who carry them are far less likely to have children).

There is already strong evidence that de novo mutations play an important role in the etiology of autism – first, de novo copy number variants (deletions or duplications of chunks of chromosomes) appear at a significantly higher rate in autism patients compared to controls (in 8% of patients compared to 2% of controls). Second, it has been known for a while that the risk of autism increases with paternal age – that is, older fathers are more likely to have a child with autism. (Initial studies suggested the risk was up to five-fold greater in fathers over forty – these figures have been revised downwards with increasing sample sizes, but the effect remains very significant, with risk increasing monotonically with paternal age). This is also true of schizophrenia and, in fact, of dominant Mendelian disorders in general (those caused by single mutations). The reason is that the germ cells generating sperm in men continue to divide throughout their lifetime, leading to an increased chance of a mutation having happened as time goes on.

The three studies in Nature were looking for a different class of mutation – point mutations or changes in single DNA bases. They each provide a list of genes with de novo mutations found in specific patients. Several of these showed a mutation in more than one (unrelated) patient, providing strong evidence that these mutations are likely to be causing autism in those patients. The genes with multiple hits include CHD8, SCN2A, KATNAL2 and NTNG1. Mutations in the last of these, NTNG1, were only found in two patients but have been previously implicated as a rare cause of Rett syndrome. This gene encodes the protein Netrin-G1, which is involved in the guidance of growing nerves and the specification of neuronal connections. CHD8 is a chromatin-remodeling factor and is involved in Wnt signaling, a major neurodevelopmental pathway, as well as interacting with p53, which controls cell growth and division. SCN2A encodes a sodium channel subunit; mutations in this gene are involved in a variety of epilepsies. Not much is known about KATNAL2, except by homology – it is related to proteins katanin and spastin, which sever microtubules – mutations in spastin are associated with hereditary spastic paraplegia. How the specific mutations observed in these genes cause the symptoms of autism in these patients (or contribute to them) is not clear – these discoveries are just a starting point, but they will greatly aid the quest to understand the biological basis of this disorder.

The fact that these studies only got a few repeat hits also means that there are probably many hundreds or even thousands of genes that can cause autism when mutated (if there were only a small number, we would see more repeat hits). Some of these will be among the other genes on the lists provided by these studies and will no doubt be recognisable as more patients are sequenced. Interestingly, many of the genes on the lists are involved in aspects of nervous system development or function and encode proteins that interact closely with each other – this makes it more likely that they are really involved.

These studies reinforce the fact that autism is not one disorder - not clinically and not genetically either. Like intellectual disability or epilepsy or many other conditions, it can be caused by mutations in any of a very large number of genes. The ones we know about so far make up around 30% of cases – these new studies add to that list and also show how far we have to go to complete it.

We should recognise too that the picture will also get more complex – in many cases there may be more than one mutation involved in causing the disease. De novo mutations are likely to be the most severe class and thus most likely to cause disease with high penetrance themselves. But many inherited mutations may cause autism only in combination with one or a few other mutations.

These complexities will emerge over time, but for now we can aim to recognise the simpler cases where a mutation in a particular gene is clearly implicated. Each new gene discovered means that the fraction of cases we can assign to a specific cause increases. As we learn more about the biology of each case, those genetic diagnoses will have important implications for prognosis, treatment and reproductive decisions. We can aim to diagnose and treat the underlying cause in each patient and not just the symptoms.

Submitted by: Unknown

Tagged: star wars , nerdgasm , choking hazard , darth vader Share on Facebook

The US space agency is planning for a robotic spaceship to capture a small asteroid and park it near the moon for astronauts to explore, a top senator has disclosed.

An old MRI machine formerly used by a Nobel laureate has been customised to probe the exotic elements made in exploding stars – its magnet is the key

Dear Pa,

I know you care deeply about many issues, especially social justice. You’re tired of wars, you’re ashamed of the attempts to destroy social programs in this country, you hate seeing the unions that helped you as a worker provide for our family get dismantled by wealthy CEOs whose only goal is to make themselves and their cronies more wealthy. These are noble things to believe in, and values that you’ve instilled in your children.

But you probably don’t often consider how you select and digest (and frequently, share on Facebook) the stories that you’ll accept as true. This is called cognitive bias–sorry, that’s a terrible article for a layman, but I’d be happy to discuss next time I’m home. Anyway, the bottom line is that the beliefs you already hold prime you to accept certain types of information, and reject others–and it’s something everyone should be aware of when reading anything on the Internet, especially. You don’t investigate how the authors of articles and videos you read and view came to their conclusions, or what data they may have overlooked (I’m being generous here–in most of the things you post, it’s not a matter of “overlooking” contradictory evidence on the case of the authors, it’s flat-out denial that it even exists). And you’re not an expert on health issues like fluoride or vaccines, so I don’t expect you to go back to the journal articles and try to figure out if these people you’re listening to are telling the truth. That’s what I do, but it took years of training to get me to this point, as you probably remember.

You repeatedly caution, “follow the money.” Often this is the case, and no one disagrees that many times people or companies do some nasty shit in the name of profit. However, you have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Let’s look at vaccines, for instance. Sure, pharmaceutical companies make money off of vaccines. However, this money is a fraction of what they make for drugs that treat chronic conditions or “lifestyle” medicines, like cholesterol meds and Viagra. Indeed, many pharmaceutical companies have gotten out of the vaccine game altogether because it’s not particularly profitable, and because of lawsuits directed against them (which, in most cases, aren’t based in science but on fear and misunderstanding of cause and effect). This leaves us with fewer and fewer options when we need new vaccines quickly, like for the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.

So, we’re agreed that vaccines are potential money-makers for pharmaceutical companies (though, comparatively, not a lot). Let’s look now at those who started the most recent iteration of vaccine panic, including Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield is the British doctor whose study first drew an association between the measles/mumps/rubella (“MMR”) vaccine and autism. Except, first of all, it really didn’t if you look at the original article. And, you might note that article has a big “RETRACTED” notice at the top. This means that the journal took away its support of the paper–it shows that it never should have been published. That’s because, for that study and several others, Wakefield lied about data, unethically recruited test subjects, and/or just outright made shit up. Why might he do this? Well, a British lawyer had paid him to find evidence of this connection between MMR and autism, so that the lawyer could sue on behalf of the parents. Oh, and did I mention that Wakefield stood to make money for a replacement for the MMR vaccine as well? Follow the money indeed–though in this case, it didn’t lead to the pharmaceutical companies. Wakefield was tried in England and stripped of his medical license, but has since moved to the United States and still spreads misinformation about vaccines.

What about other anti-vaccine players? Jenny McCarthy has made millions selling books about how she “cured” her son Evan of his autism. Joseph Mercola makes millions selling dietary supplements (untested and largely unregulated, by the way), and lives in a two million dollar mansion. I know you’ve criticized creationists; well, these people are the creationists of the medical field. They distort, they cherry-pick their evidence, and they cause the public to lose confidence in credentialed scientists because of their writings. Credentialed scientists like myself, who carry out the vast majority of this research but certainly don’t live in million-dollar homes.

And you’re helping the Mercolas of the world–every time you post something like your “Italian court rules MMR vaccine causes autism” picture. Guess what “evidence” that court used? Andrew Wakefield’s discredited study. In science, this is an error even a first-year PhD student would be embarrassed to make. Not surprisingly, the decision is being appealed. But in the meantime, every parent who (wrongly and unscientifically) believes that vaccines caused their child’s autism is being buoyed by this court, whose decision is being trumpeted by people like Mercola and Mike Adams at Natural News (another supplement-pusher like Mercola, with no medical expertise or training). Every time someone buys into their anti-vaccine line and chooses to buy their supplements instead of vaccinating their child, it puts other children in danger. And you’re helping them.

Know the results of this vaccine backlash? Research dollars are diverted away from real causes of autism and other conditions. And kids are dying. Just in the U.S., there have been more than 1000 vaccine-preventable deaths in the last 6 years, and over 100,000 vaccine-preventable illnesses. Freaking whooping cough has made a huge comeback in the U.S. A big reason for the resurgence of these diseases is because anti-vaccine myths and scares spread so easily between acquaintances–in person, and on social media; scares that you’re now perpetuating with your own posts. Sure, it’s a free country and you have every right to share these pictures and memes, but have you thought about the possible harm it might do to others when you click “share”?

I know how crazy it drives you when Republican politicians (and friends and relatives) post pictures and stories that are flat-out wrong, about the deficit, the economy, “Obamacare,” and more. It makes you nuts how uncritically they quote Fox News. They don’t examine their own biases; they don’t stop and think why they accept that Obama is the anti-Christ and that everything associated with him is evil, even if the facts clearly contradict their belief. Sure, they may know a lot, but it’s all from the same sources and it reinforces their pre-existing belief that Obama is Satan. Here’s the kicker: you’re doing the same thing. Yes, I know you’ve watched a lot of YouTube videos on vaccines, and fluoride, and other health issues, but the ones you watch–and accept–are the ones that already appeal to the beliefs you’ve accepted. This isn’t how science works, or how evidence is fairly weighed. I know this can get messy, because again, you’re not one of those trained scientists and you don’t know how to navigate the literature and determine which studies are well-conducted and which ones are crap. So sometimes, you have to accept that there are people out there who have taken the time to do this in an unbiased fashion, and decide to trust them (y’know, people like your daughter, perhaps? Or thousands of other scientists and journalists who have studied these fields for many, many years?), and look skeptically upon people like Mercola et. al. (Follow the money!)

I will be sending along some books I hope you’ll read with an open mind: The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin, and Deadly Choices by Paul Offit. Both come into this from different backgrounds–Mnookin is a journalist and new parent who was investigating vaccines, while Offit is a research scientist like myself who has worked in vaccines and infectious diseases his whole life. Both come to the same conclusions: vaccines are safe, and critical for public health. And before you google Offit and find that he holds a vaccine patent, ask yourself–if I were to work on a vaccine at some point in my career, would you dismiss my authority and expertise for that reason? Or would you be willing to look at the science behind it before making a judgement?

Next discussion: the Illuminati. Baby steps.

Love,

Tara

Every so often I come across a news story relevant to the subject matter usually encompassed by this blog that makes me shake my head in disbelief at the sheer stupidity. OK, every day, if you count the antivaccine movement and its attacks on papers like the one I wrote about Monday and yesterday. True, the constant barrage of pseudoscience, quackery, and generalized scientific ignorance that the antivaccine movement floods me with constantly threatens to drown out everything else, even from other areas of medicine. This one, however, caught my attention. It was about a joke done by two Florida DJs on April Fools Day earlier this week:

Two long-time deejays at Gator Country 101.9 FM who perpetrated a hoax on Monday morning involving Lee County water quality have been suspended indefinitely, a station official said.

Tony Renda, general manager at the Bonita Springs country music station, said he immediately pulled Val St. John and Scott Fish off the air when he heard about the April Fools’ Day joke they had been playing on their 5 to 9 a.m. morning show and then started having the joke recanted and an apology aired during station breaks.

“Every break we have we’re telling listeners it was a goof, a bad joke,” he said.

OK, we’ve heard this story before. Radio personalities or DJs pull a prank or broadcast fiction as though it were reality. People believe it. DJ gets in trouble. Sometimes DJ is fired. This sort of thing arguably goes back to Orson Welles doing H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds back in 1938 and earlier. So the question is: What was the April Fools’ Day prank? What was it that these two DJs were saying that freaked out their listeners so much and landed them in real hot water.

Ironically enough, it’s all about water. Really. That’s all it was about, nothing more than water. In fact, it was about dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), and the reaction to the prank these DJs pulled is an utter embarrassment. The radio station’s joke said, basically, “There’s water in your water!” It ended up getting the pair suspended:

The radio station’s joke involved that “dihydrogen monoxide” was coming out of county resident’s taps. Renda said that “dihydrogen monoxide” is water. Despite that, he said, “We have a responsibility to our listeners.”

A search on the internet showed that “dihydrogen monoxide” is an alternative way — and popular hoax term — to describe water.

The station’s news immediately got the attention of Patty DiPiero from Lee County Utilities. She said Lee County residents began calling the utility this morning saying they heard on the station that county water was unsafe and should not be used for drinking, showering or for any use.

Alright. We’re talking some serious scientific ignorance here. It’s also an old joke that’s been used many times before by people as varied as Penn & Teller to Internet skeptics like me. I think I’ve used the joke myself. If the listeners of that radio station are too stupid or ignorant to know that dihydrogen monoxide is water, is it the fault of the DJs? On the other hand, I can sort of see how the joke wouldn’t work if everyone knew that DHMO is water; so there has to be an assumption by whoever uses the DHMO joke that a significant number of people won’t know that DHMO is water. In fact, things escalated to the point that for a while there was real speculation that the DJs might be facing felony charges, as the water department was really pissed:

“They were joking that ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ was coming out of Lee County residents’ taps,” reports Florida’s WPTV, though it also remains unclear just how much the two hosts stoked the joke, and whether they actually told people to stop drinking the “dihydrogen monoxide” coming out of their taps. The WWGR station’s manager did have to issue a retraction — or at least a constant on-air admission that the gag was, in fact, a joke — even though St. John and Fish were technically correct that dihydrogen monoxide was, indeed, coming out of their taps.

“Every break we have we’re telling listeners it was a goof, a bad joke,” Tony Renda, general manager at WWGR radio told WTSP-TV. And apparently, the station, the water works, and perhaps the authorities are still trying to figure out if the two hosts could face felony charges for, again, reporting that the scientific name of water was coming out of the pipes. “My understanding is it is a felony to call in a false water quality issue,” Diane Holm, a public information officer for Lee County, told WTSP, while Renda stood firm about his deejays: “They will have to deal with the circumstances.”

I can sort of see the problem if the DJs had actually said that the water was unsafe to drink. However, if they only said that DHMO is coming out of your taps and said nothing about not drinking it or using it, I have a bit more of a problem understanding it.

Fortunately, the story appears to have a happy ending. The hosts, Val St. John and Scott Fish, were back on the air yesterday morning, and apparently the water department is not going to pursue the matter further:

Meanwhile, Diane Holm, the public information officer for the Florida Department of Health in Lee County, told The Atlantic Wire that the department is “not pursuing any other charges.” Monday, Holm had said that it was her “understanding is it is a felony to call in a false water quality issue.” However, she told us today that “we were satisfied with the speed and the action that the station management took in all aspects.” She added: “They handled appropriately and expeditiously the discipline of the the DJs as well as the public notification. They immediately retracted indicated that the joke had been in poor taste and it was inaccurate, inappropriate and every break that day they aired that there were no problems with the water.”

The DJs’ joke was totally immature—think grade-school level—and yet remarkably successful. They warned listeners that dihydrogen monoxide was coming out of the taps in the Fort Myers area. Of course, dihydrogen monoxide is water, but people were so freaked that Lee County Utilities had to make a statement saying that their water is safe to drink.

I suppose that this is a grade school level prank in that many grade school level students probably know that water is dihydrogen monoxide because they learned it in their science class. Sadly, it would appear, most adults have no clue about something this simple, to the point that they freak out.

One wonders what other science-related pranks one could pull. Maybe we could warn people that their epidermis is showing. Or that photons are hitting their skin and entering their eyes. Or maybe that we’re all being bathed in neutrinos. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Of course, the reason that Penn & Teller and DJs like Val St. John and Scott Fish use the DHMO gambit is because it works. Sadly, it’s not just Florida. Our goal should be to improve science literacy to the point that the DHMO joke is never used any more because everybody knows that DHMO is water.

I’ve been telling myself to stay out of this debate. I’ve been assuring myself that any time spent reading rants, posts, and their circular comments will only make me feel resentful and defensive. I tell myself that the fight is over and no one won. I rationalize that only a few people are ruining it for the rest of us and therefore, those few should just be ignored.  I vow to stop drawing attention to this ridiculous creature, to stop reinforcing the idea that the “Fake Geek Girl” exists.

“Why don’t you just drop it?”  “Why can’t you take a joke?” “Why aren’t you over this?”  I ask myself these things too.

The truth is, I don’t know. But, recently, I’ve been asked by Badass Digest to weigh in on why such accusations have a strong impact on our community, and to provide some of the psychological explanations for why we’ve reacted the way we have to the recent verbal attacks on female fans and to the accusations that some are “fake nerds.” Can we learn anything from this, beyond acknowledging that these claims are rude and unequivocally sexist? We know that it’s absurd. We do! So why does it keep getting dragged into our dialogue? And if we are accused of fakedom, why do we snap back in defense?  We’ve been called some awful, demeaning things in our past. But this “F”-word seems to have climbed the ranks to become one of the most insulting labels. Why so much power? Why are we so deeply threatened by the notion of falsified fandom?

We’re told we’re overreacting. 

I wish it were that simple. Trust me–I’d prefer to raise an eyebrow, flip my hair, and be on my way. But the much stronger reaction to the accusation of being “fake” can’t be explained by just one isolated feeling. This stronger reaction stems from years of repeated, accumulated experiences of insults, indignities, and demeaning messages from other members of the comics community. These experiences–the seemingly harmless comments, the sarcastic jokes, the subtle non-physical exchanges–are called microaggressions.  The theory of microaggressions was developed back in the 70′s to denote racial stereotyping, but was expanded by psychologist Derald Wing Sue, Ph.D. in 2007 to encompass a wide variety and classifications of these subtle and seemingly harmless expressions that communicate “hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults” toward people who aren’t members of the ingroup. These outgroup members might include women, racial/ethnic minorities, LBGT members, and others historically marginalized in our community.

Here are some examples of gender microaggressions in the context of female members of the comics community:

“You sure know a lot about Batman, for a girl.”

“You don’t look like a geek.”

“That’s nice of you to come to Star Wars Celebration for your boyfriend.”

“Did your older brother get you into comics?

“You’re a nerd’s wet dream.”

I didn’t say that men are the only assailants when it comes to gender microaggressions. Women also deliver these seemingly harmless bites.

Why are microaggressions harmful? They seem silly, right? But these comments actually communicate messages that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person. Sure, these incidents typically appear minute, banal and trivial. Sometimes they produce a good laugh. But repeated experiences of receiving them can have a long-term psychological impact. For instance, here are the implied messages about women in the comics community:

“You do not belong.”

“You are abnormal.”

“You are intellectually inferior.”

“You cannot be trusted.”

“You are all the same.”

These messages can therefore be pervasive and potentially damaging to a large group of people. And the reason they are micro-aggressions, Dr. Sue explains, is that the person delivering them may be well-intentioned and non-threatening in nature, maybe not even aware of their own biases. They, too, are have their own experiences that have shaped their perspectives. In most cases, when confronted, the person will deny that they meant any harm, explain that they were joking, and tell the recipient that she is being too sensitive. I cannot emphasis enough the point here:

1. The recipients of microaggressions feel victimized and threatened.

2. Their assailants feel like they did no harm.

3. BOTH ARE CORRECT IN THEIR EXPERIENCES.

Thus the endless cycle of invalidation, misunderstanding, defensiveness and back to invalidation.  We’re seeing the cycle play out now in the context of social media where there seems to be a huge misunderstanding about the definition of “satire.”

Let me be clear about what IS NOT a microaggression:

“You’re not comics.”

“You don’t know SHIT about comics.”

“You are what I refer to as CON-HOT.”

These are examples of actual threats, verbal assaults, and intentionally insulting remarks. There is no doubt they are sexist and I’m not tackling them here. But these comments do trigger an emotional response because they confirm past microaggressive experiences. That is, they reinforce the stereotypes, the deluded beliefs that women lack comics knowledge, that women who affiliate with geekdom shouldn’t look feminine/pretty/sexy, and that male members of the community are responsible for our membership. These instances are like knife-stabs in vulnerable places.

We’re told we’re invisible.

Sometimes I feel like I’m standing right in front of someone and they still don’t see me. I’ve explained to people that the reason I sometimes express my geekdom superficially, through a ridiculous amount of fan-wear, is for the identity recognition.  I admit, I have a deep and sometimes desperate desire to be seen for who I am, for my geek identify to be validated. There’s a part of me that is yelling, “Please see me!” And yet, despite my flamboyance, I’m still overlooked. In my experience, this typically happens in the form of a microaggression– a subtype called microinvalidation.

I recently traveled to a psychology conference, and, upon arriving at the airport for my departing flight, experienced an example of a microinvalidation. At security check, after my technology went through the scanner, I scurried over to gather my shoes and belongings. I picked up my Star Wars hoodie and wrapped it around my Batgirl t-shirt. The thirty-something male TSA agent pointed to my Kindle, the one with the Star Wars comics cover, and immediately looked at the stranger standing next to me: “Is this your Kindle?”  The stranger next to me, a twenty-something looking guy dressed in plain jeans and a pale shirt, shook his head. “It’s mine,” I blurted. The TSA-man then leaned forward and said, giddily, “That’s really awesome. I love Star Wars too.” A compliment. But I couldn’t process the kind words because I was still recovering from being stunned by his assumption that my things do not actually belong to me. A reminder of the widespread belief that Star Wars is gendered. It’s male. The thing I love is for males.

The mistaken identity stayed with me. The negative thoughts of being invisible flooded my mind. Resentment became my in-flight entertainment. But because I insisted on obsessing over a microinvalidation, I dismissed a validating compliment and an opportunity to feel visible. And damnit, an opportunity to geek out with someone who liked my stuff. Ridiculous, huh? I’m guilty of perpetuating the cycle, too.

Microinvalidations are just one explanation of why we’re incited when being accused of being an imposter. But it’s an important one because it refers to a basic human need. Psychologically we have a deep desire to be recognized and to belong. Our social identity– who we are, essentially, to the world– is greatly determined by the groups we belong to. We develop much of ourselves from our groups: self-esteem, purpose, a sense of belonging, approval. Thus, being accused of being an imposter is actually very damaging and fragmenting to our sense of self because it’s like someone is telling us, “you’re not who you say you are.”  Again, these comments seem so harmless and silly, but they undoubtedly exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person. If we’re recipients of these messages, we experience powerlessness, loss of integrity, and invisibility.

We’re told we can’t keep up intellectually.
How are costumes in any way related to comics knowledge? Moreover, how are skimpy costumes related to comics knowledge? And what if these women who cosplay want to be seen in their costume and therefore want the attention? (GASP!). I have no explanation for this imagined fantasy that women who cosplay for attention cannot be actual nerds. But I have to acknowledge that the accusation of being “fake” stings like hydrosulphuric acid because of the underlying message that we’re not knowledgeable enough to read, enjoy and understand comics, especially if we’re wearing a costume that’s seen as provocative or revealing. “You’re too busy looking like a slut you can’t possibly have read all the issues of The Walking Dead.” I don’t get it. I simply can’t form a sensible relationship between skin and stupidity, because these two things operate on completely different, orthogonal planes. But nothing seems more damaging to a woman than the simultaneous attack on both her body and her brain.

Why are we threatened by the Imposter?
I’ve talked about how the “fake” accusation can be more than just insulting, how it actually taps into some deeper feelings stemming from accumulated negative experiences. But what IF some of these women in question were, in fact, “fake?” What if there are people out there conning us, putting on a guise, attempting to pass as one of us? Why does the imposter, who represents a small fraction of our community, seem to have grabbed so much focus and power?   Perhaps we’re enraged by the “fake geek girl” accusation in the first place because we find imposters to be very threatening.  Here are some reasons why we might be threatened by inauthentic members of our society:

1. The false notion of limited resources: Growing up, many of us experienced our fandoms in the context of collections, acquisitions, and serialized products. Our fandoms seem to manifest as measurable amounts of goods. Our vocabulary includes words like “exclusive,” “mint condition,” and “collectible.”  We know that Comic-Con tickets will sell out. We know that Mondo will only offer 580 Olly Moss Lord of the Rings posters and 285 variant posters. Guess what? They sold out in 3 minutes. Like it or not, we think of our fandom as serialized and limited. We’re a possessive lot and it’s not entirely our fault. The notion of an imposter–someone who doesn’t truly care about the personal meaning and value of the items– is threatening to us because they may take from our precious, vulnerable pot.

The opposite is actually true if we think about intangible goods– the vast amount of knowledge across all geek genres from comic books to fantasy literature to video games. There’s such a large universe that the few imposters–if they really existed–are not realistic threats.

2. The misinterpreted sense of ownership.  When we belong to a community, we develop a sense of deserved ownership. When I was young, I received fan club cards and membership letters to inform me that I belonged to a particular club, reinforcing the exclusivity of the group. Serial numbers, laminated cards, and now, e-mails and twitter groups seem to reify the notion that belonging to a group means we are shareholders and that others are not. Shareholding grants us certain conceptual privileges: We get to decide who else is in or out.  But, really, apart from the tangible products, what do we really own?

3. Resentment of the changing culture. Some of us grew up hiding our geek identity for one reason or another. Maybe we felt insecure; maybe we got bullied for being “out.”   Some of us hid or masked our identities as geeks well until adulthood. For many of us, when we see individuals who appear to have recently joined the community we feel uncomfortable with their different identity development. We had to suffer the bullying! But now that it’s “cool” to be geek, here they come in droves! God, they even look happy. Let’s stop that. That’s a whole lot of projection on people we don’t know. And they don’t deserve it.

The feelings of being threatened, invalidated, and overlooked can happen to any one of us in this community–some psychologists argue that when the threats are ambiguous or subtle (like microaggressions), they can be more damaging because there is no certainty and the assault is denied or ignored. They say that we don’t do any good for ourselves if we latch on to the few experiences that give us the greatest pain–we have to escape the cycle. We should point out the real threats, defending ourselves, correcting lies, demonstrating that it’s not incongruous to be sexy and smart; we’re a disservice to ourselves if we miss opportunities to  highlight and celebrate the healthy validation and recognition happening by both men and women in this community.

In other words, we’ve got to stop being exclusive.   All of us have, at one point or another, experienced bullying, invisibility, insult, attack, or violation. This is the human condition. But I seriously wonder if we’ve pulled these abilities to hurt others from the dark, awful places of our childhood, lashing out quite expertly to newcomers or strangers, in ways we know are the most painful.

*Some readers may consider the below to contain spoilers… be warned!

Last night, I attended a screening of The PaleyFest’s The Walking Dead Panel, a live event recorded at the Saban Theatre, Los Angeles, for the Paley Center for Media. Chris Hardwick, the host, presented a preview of Season 3, Episode 12 (Clear), showed some behind-the-scenes special effects vignettes, and interviewed writer Robert Kirkman and actors Andrew Lincoln (“Rick”), Norman Reedus (“Daryl”), Danai Gurira (“Michonne”), Steven Yeun (“Glenn”) and other favorites from the cast. Naturally, I cringed through the 25 minutes of behind-the-scenes zombie-making and killing (I’m not a fan of blood and gore, which speaks to how much I must love this show’s writing and character development). The interviews, however, placed an introspective focus on many psychological themes that come up with the Walking Dead: Is Rick crazy? Who should take on the role of leadership? Are humans innately self-serving and callous? Hostile, even? It’s as if Kirkman created his own psychological experiment: In a time of a zombie apocalypse, how do we react? Do we unravel? Who is more capable of survival and why? Like other great writers in comic book, horror, or science fiction, Kirkman doesn’t simply assume that “It’s the zombie apocalypse–anything goes.” Not at all. The zombies exist as a way for us to reflect on human behavior during a time of disaster and direness. Everyone does not go crazy. In fact, I’d argue that everyone self-adjusts and maintains their psychological functioning, with few exceptions.

I’ve always believed The Walking Dead isn’t really about zombies; the show is about horrific fear, psychological strength, and humanity.

During the panel, Andrew Lincoln, who plays Sheriff’s Deputy Rick Grimes, admitted that when he learned that his character would have visual and auditory hallucinations of his dead wife, Lori, he researched the occurrence of mental instability during grief. He eloquently described Rick’s mental state following Lori’s death, by pointing out that strange experiences during the period of bereavement are quite common: “When people lose someone they love, the brain…it plays tricks with them, placing that person they lost in the spaces where they used to be.” That is, the sound of Lori’s voice and the vision of her physical body seem to appear in empty spaces where she would have been or used to be.

A hallucination is defined as an experience involving the perception of something not actually present. Hallucinations alone do not indicate that someone is insane or crazy–in fact, we all experience these strange perception tricks once in a while.  They are particularly common following the sudden death of a loved one. Lincoln, therefore, normalized to the panel’s audience the experience of a person in mourning who has lost someone they love so abruptly, establishing that Rick is following a normal course of bereavement following Lori’s death. You can read more about hallucinations during mourning from this Scientific American article.

In addition to bereavement, hallucinations can also occur within episodes of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance dependence. The occurrence of the symptom alone, therefore, is insufficient in diagnosing a problem. Over the course of the last month, I’ve supervised more than a dozen cases with histories of having visions at one point or another, and sometimes the exact reason is unclear.

Hallucinations are a neurobiological reaction as well as a psychological reaction during mourning: Rick tries to keep Lori present because the notion of losing her completely may be too upsetting or frightening to him. His brain, his psyche, hadn’t been prepared for this sudden loss. In fact, he may find the images to be comforting or soothing. In the comic book version we see Rick maintain phone “conversations” with Lori for a much longer time, perhaps even knowing that her voice is a product of his own mind.

In Season 3 Episode 10 (Home), Rick sees Lori in a white dress, standing over her own grave. He is able to reach out to her and feel her touch his face. To Rick, the experience is real. But the voices and visions begin to frighten Rick, who realizes that if the images are all in his head, he must be crazy. Without anyone around him to validate his experiences and remind him that this is the normal process of healing after losing a loved one, he starts to believe he’s unraveling.

Interestingly, after Episode 3.12 (Clear), audiences and journalists want to know if Rick is “sane” again. In this episode, Rick encounters Morgan, who he hasn’t seen since the first episode of The Walking Dead when the zombie apocalypse began. Morgan has created a bunker of sorts, hiding out in a small town, capturing zombies and burning their bodies, and surviving in a building alone, surrounded by armaments and booby-traps. He’s protected his territory but also seems to have barricaded himself in this isolated, desperate world. It’s very Lord of the Flies. And Morgan is…different. He does not recognize Rick, mutters incoherently about being “clear,” and has scribbled incomprehensible notes to himself on the walls with chalk. What is clear, though, is that Morgan has lost everyone. He lost his wife early in the series, and explains to Rick that his son was bitten by a zombie and turned right before his very eyes. When Morgan realizes who Rick is, he refuses to go back with him to the prison, where a group of others will take him in. (For Rick, this is a huge gesture, given that he often mistrusts other outsiders.) Morgan lacks the sense to perceive Rick’s connectivity, his compassion, and instead chooses to stay behind. And Kirkman gives us the sense that he has chosen suicide. We know Morgan will decompensate further, perhaps fall deeper and deeper in the depths of insanity and become mayor of crazytown.

The psychological intuitiveness of this episode is worth praise. We have worried about Rick up to this point, in that we have seen his increasingly disturbing episodes where he seems to break from reality. We have seen his son question his ability to lead the pack–essentially, a family member telling him he is unfit to carry out his job due to his mental instability. We’ve also seen an increase in Rick’s hostility. He seems quicker to draw his gun, less likely to be altruistic and compassionate.  Audiences, rightly so, wonder if this character is indeed, going crazy.

Morgan’s appearance is undoubtedly Kirkman’s way of showing us the complexity and chronicity of mental illness.

Humans, in fact, deal with tragedy and trauma in many ways. Multiple traumas, like witnessing horrific violence, being forced to end life, and losing a loved one, will increase the likelihood of psychological responses like emotional numbing, social avoidance, hardening or “steeling” of the self, and hypervigilance. The deck is stacked for Rick. In fact, given everything he has encountered, his psychological strength and resilience is particularly impressive. Yes, I’m saying the guy that sees things is stable. He is able to recognize the dysfunctional and delusional state that Morgan is in. He realizes that his images are products of his own mind, which means he must acknowledge that his wife is gone forever. Rick realizes that if he does not let go of Lori’s image, if he continues to engage with the false images and sounds of his dead wife, if he does not connect with the living, he is very likely going to end up like Morgan. His offer to take Morgan back with him speaks to his ability for compassion and connectivity.

Kirkman confirms that in this episode, seeing Morgan may set Rick on the path to psychological healing. At the end of the episode, Michonne, who is typically reserved and withholding, confesses to Rick that she, too, has seen things that are not there. That single moment of validation allows Rick to align with someone who is healthy and stable–someone who he sees as strong, and distance himself further from Morgan.

If Rick had never lost his wife, would he have experienced bizarre hallucinations or breaks from reality? Would Morgan have even entered his delusional state if he hadn’t lost his wife and son? It’s hard to say.  But this season of the show faces the idea of illness and saneness head on, reminding us just how fluid mental states can be. Stability of the mind is episodic. I believe Kirkman selects Rick, the seemingly strong, resilient and morally stable person to breakdown in order to remind us of the blurry boundary between stability and dysfunction. In a world overrun by zombies, even the most most disturbing and horrific acts of human behavior can almost be seen as adaptive and…normal.

Warning: Reports are coming in from all corners that mesmerized Zombies can be found swarming all over our streets, parks, and roadways. Approach with extreme caution!

read more

Submitted by: tsuminine
Posted at: 2013-03-29 18:02:23
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6941969

Submitted by: honeydot
Posted at: 2013-03-29 21:47:28
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6943731

Submitted by: funtec
Posted at: 2013-03-31 18:54:58
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6960397

Submitted by: postninegagcom
Posted at: 2013-03-31 08:39:45
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6955962

Submitted by: Unknown

Tagged: sign , prank , internet explorer , fail nation , g rated Share on Facebook

Submitted by: sheephunter
Posted at: 2013-03-31 22:11:16
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6962169

Submitted by: khalidplaya
Posted at: 2013-04-01 12:27:48
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/6967228

cosplayinamerica:

( source : http://instagram.com/p/XkOdwJgxoU/ WonderCon 2013) This can only happen at a con.

Just proof that they travel single file to hide their numbers.