” (Daily Telegraph, December 11, 2008) In summary, prescribing actions for optimizing brain performance was a salient theme around which Galunisertib cell line media coverage of neuroscience assembled. It communicated a view of brain health as a resource that required constant attention and calculated effort and was drawn into discussion about
childrearing practices. The second theme captured the use of neuroscientific findings to underline differences between categories of people in ways that were symbolically layered and socially loaded. This theme was most evident in articles within the categories psychopathology, sexuality, morality (particularly antisocial behavior), and bodily conditions (particularly obesity). Articles devoted considerable space to demonstrating male-female neurobiological differences and also to evidence that substance abusers, criminals, homosexuals, obese people, and people with mental health conditions had distinctive brain types. The content of media coverage of such groups tended to correspond with the content of existing stereotypes: for example, articles regularly linked obesity to low intelligence,
adolescence to disagreeableness, and women to irrationality. “Under stress or pressure, a woman sees spending time talking with her man as a reward, but a man sees it as an interference in his problem-solving process. She wants to talk and cuddle, and all he wants to do is watch football. To a woman, he seems uncaring and disinterested and a man sees her as annoying or pedantic.
These perceptions are a reflection of the different organisation and priorities of their brains.” (Daily Mail, January Levetiracetam Baf-A1 price 16, 2008) There was little room for ambiguity in media portrayal of group-related brain differences. It was common to encounter the phrase “the [adjective] brain,” with the brackets filled by categories like “male,” “teenage,” “criminal,” “addicted,” or “gay.” This implied the existence of a single brain type common across all members of the category and distinctly different from the brains of the categorical alternatives. Social groups were essentialized and portrayed as wholly internally homogeneous. “Addiction is viewed as a mental disorder, and gays are known to be at higher risk of anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicide and drug abuse. Most studies suggest that these problems are brought on by years of discrimination and bullying. But there is another controversial thesis—that gays lead inherently riskier lives. Gambling stimulates the dopamine system in the brain; illicit drugs pep up the same system. Are gays dopamine junkies?” (Times, December 18, 2006) The emphasis on group differences had particularly important implications for laying boundaries between the normal and the pathological. The brains typical of certain pathological categories were repeatedly contrasted with the brains of “normal” or “healthy” people. Detail about what exactly constituted normality was not provided.