This Reuter’s article is one of the reasons why I think Genetics is scary. Because of the view that anything that isn’t the societal norm is a “disorder”. Why would being an early riser be considered a ‘disorder’? Certainly it changes the social dynamic, but I wouldn’t consider it a disorder. Why is the first instinct when discovering some behavior that is not in line with what we see as “mainstream” automatically classified as a ‘disorder’? Wouldn’t this be unscientific because already the scientist assumes some sort of ‘norm’ that the subject is not fitting into?
Why do we want to change the people who are slightly different, rather than society adapting to the individuals within it? Is society a static object that is a certain way, or is it an aggregate defined by the individuals within it?
Shooting from the hip, I’d say it rises to the level of a disorder when it causes the individual with the characteristic enough difficulty in carrying on the way they want to in their lives.
These characteristics usually only become apparent and get investigated when they cause enough difficulty that someone wants it fixed. Hence we see it first when it is a disorder for that person.
Which means there will be different thresholds for different people. And in some societies where conformity to the clock is highly valued, it will be a disorder more often than in societies where less emphasis is put on punctuality.
It is, but there will be a crowding and converging towards a narrow range, which is designated the norm.
This (unintentionally) muddles the picture, though. Someone may want something because others (society) expect him/her to. In simpler words, others may view that person as having a disorder, without the “afflicted” necessarily agreeing.
It’s like the story of the man who works 120 hrs a week complaining to his doctor that he can’t sleep, can’t get an erection and can’t seem to get rid of his cold and wanting to know what’s wrong?
I can agree with the sentiment about it being a disorder if it infringes upon one’s ability to cohabitate with one’s society. However, this article was one about a genetic study. Wouldn’t a genetic study be impartial about it? Why would they say that it’s a disorder rather than just their genetics? Also, if they got their information from a family that this cycle is the norm rather than the exception, then is it really that big of a problem for them?
Do you think this is a case of journalistic bias? It certainly might be, but I got the impression that the bias was on the side of the researchers. It’s attitudes like this that make a Gattaca scenario seem more frightening. This idea that geneticists will legislate differences from human beings to the overall detriment to our society. I know people that wake up at 5 AM and go to bed early because of waking so early, and it’s not particularly horrible for them. Even when dealing with me, who is more likely to go to bed at 5 AM and wake up in the afternoon. One of my best friends and I are more or less on that opposing schedule, and yet we find time to hang out, and I talk to him almost every day.
However, it seems to me that the person finding a way to adapt and mold their situation to fit their needs is a healthier way to look at it than to have some geneticist say, “Sorry you were born broken, but with this research one day we’ll be able to fix you.”, that seems fairly irresponsible to me.
I think genetics is fascinating, but in my experience there seems to be an over-emphasis on mutation cast in a negative light.
[QUOTE=mswasWhy would being an early riser be considered a ‘disorder’?[/QUOTE]
Because it involves hallucination. I mean, the world doesn’t actually exist prior to 8:00 a.m. I can attest to that. I have, on some rare occasions, been obliged to rise before 8:00 a.m., and at that time the world keeps kind of fading in and out of existence. :eek:
In my experience a time before 8 A.M. most definitely exists. When I finally get to bed around 8 A.M. I feel like there was a lot of progression that came before it, too much sometimes in fact.
