Groucho Marx mustache, Cacioppo is a trim 58-year-old,who spent his childhood moving from state to state. His father started small businesses in Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Iowa and Indiana, always taking his family with him. “I got very used to getting to know and figuring out new people,” says Cacioppo. “Luckily I was a decent athlete so I had an entrée into a social world.” His childhood wanderings, he says, led him to his career of studying humans as social species.For the past three decades John T. Cacioppo has studied human isolation and connection. In his recent book, Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, coauthored with William Patrick, he arrives at what he believes is a startling conclusion: Humans are inherently unselfish, or at least they need to be for their health and the perpetuation of their genes. His theory is proven, he contends, by the existence of the inverse of social connectedness: loneliness.
Loneliness is one’s own “perceived social isolation,” according to Cacioppo. Feeling isolated is more powerful than actually being isolated.
But loneliness is not all bad. For most of us, it’s usually just a brief trigger that lets us know that we have to change. In fact Cacioppo argues that the world needs folks who easily slip into feelings of loneliness, because they are spurred on by the trigger to act vigorously. “These people are the joiners and the volunteers in society,” he says.
Cacioppo also offers a few reasons for human’s loneliness. One is that we have become more mobile. Another is that we are living longer, resulting in more people in assisted-living facilities .Technology may be another isolator,for example,the internet nowdays shun people from chat face to face.
A last Cacioppo outlines some steps that the chronically lonely can take, like volunteering and creating and maintaining social loops. He is in the beginning stages of developing a therapy for chronic loneliness, a joint project with fellow University of Chicago psychologist Louise C. Hawkley
Share This
It is well knwn that biological changes at the molecular level have morphogentic consequences,consequences affecting the formation and differentiation of tissues and organs.It is superluous to point out that gene mutations and disturbances of the bio-synthetic processes in the embryo may result in abnormalities in the morphology of an organism.However,whereas much is knwn about causes and consequences at the molecular level.and in spite of an enormous accumulation of chemical and morphogenesis is still far fromcomplete.Perhaps one reason for this is that molecular biologists and morphogenesis is still far from complete.Perhaps one reason for this is that molecular biologists and morphologists speak different languages.Whereas the former speak about message-RNA and conformational changes of protein molecules,the latter speak of ectoderms,hypoblasts,and neural crests.
One solution tothis predicament is try to find some phenomena relevant to morphogenesis which both the molecular biologist and morphologist can understand and discuss.As morphogenesis must be basically the result of changes inbehavior of the individual cells,it seems logical to ask morphologists to describe the morphogentic events observed in terms of changes in cellular contact,shanges in the rate of proliferation of cells,or similar phenomena.Once this is done,it may be appropriate to ask questions about the molecular background for these changes.One may,for instance,ask whether variations in cell contact reflect alterations in the populations of molecules at the cell surface,or one may inquire about the molecular basis for the increased cell mobility involved in cell dispersion.
Studies of this kaind have been carried out with cells released from tissues in various ways and allowed to reveal their behavior after being spread out in a thin layer.In many cases,such cells show the ability to reaggregate,after which different cell types may sort themselves out into different layers and even take part instill more intricate morphogenetic events.
Share This
Comments (0) 