Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iugp670 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

adingo8urbaby t1_iugwlny wrote

Getting some dismissive comments in here so let’s talk about the facts.

  1. “Tang’s research is unique for its characterization of the subjects’ early temperamental risks and the protracted length of time they were studied.”
  2. This is a combination of behavioral and brain imaging readouts showing a correlation between childhood (as early as 1 year old) behaviors coupled with brain imaging characteristics and anxiety and/or depression in young adults.

Seems to be pretty interesting. I’m focused more on immunology but I think approaches like this will hopefully help us find markers to allow for early identification of risk factors and maybe even interventions to prevent serious anxiety/ depression in adults.

141

6etsh1tdone t1_iuh17me wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#372,945)

But the sky isn’t actually blue, it’s colorless.

It’s just that the light waves that refract while coming through the sky/atmosphere appear blue visually to our eyes.

That’s why sunsets/sunrises are multicolored. The angle the light waves are traveling change and now appear as different colors on the spectrum to us visually.

That’s why it’s important to continue to study things we already know. There always more to learn.

45

Geekos t1_iuh19vz wrote

Replying to Anangrywookiee (#374,249)

Excacly. You can never proof these things. You can only study it again and again and again, and then compare results with earlier similar studies. This is the way.

Edit: And THEN you can say, it's probably true, because we have 10 studies that said so. But we still can't be sure, because studies are not bulletproof and has flaws within them (Especially psychology studies)

16

adingo8urbaby t1_iuifyan wrote

Replying to BizarroAzzarro (#386,961)

Great question and I have no idea what the answer is. But I can speculate. I suspect in most things that there are elements of both nature and nurture. Interventions would probably be age determined by a combination of talk therapy and pharmaceuticals as is almost always the case in anxiety and depression.

7

PabloBablo t1_iuiv0ud wrote

Replying to adingo8urbaby (#388,460)

Kids who are in a high stress environment (arguing parents, lack of attention/love) should first look at resolving those issues rather than therapy or antidepressants. The treatment can help, but if the home environment doesn't change the answer shouldn't be get them on more meds and therapy.

We are starting to understand more about how early environment can impact brain development and have lasting results. Parents play a major part in that. It's a far cry from the idea that early years have no lasting memories and therefore no impact on future development. Stressful/loud/ scary environments with no escape is tantamount to horror.

The science may be supporting this idea but society is not as aware of it yet.

15

adingo8urbaby t1_iuiwjpf wrote

Replying to PabloBablo (#393,331)

Agreed, all the more reason for more research but as you’ve implied, also more psychological support for whole families. Maybe another form of early intervention based on bio markers is subsidized family therapy. I think we are still a long way from that kind of society though.

4