I apologize once again for the long gap in between entries.  The reason, as always, was the amount of time and energy I was putting into my studies, as well as the model United Nations group that I'm a member of. 

Speaking of which, I was elected one of the two 2007 heads of the on-campus model UN conference that our school hosts each fall for college level students.  This year we're hoping to expand the conference so that it has two committees, and we would also like to invite other colleges and universities to participate. 

Part of the reason I haven't posted in a while was the fact that I had to write 5 or so papers since the last time I posted something.  Here are some previews of the papers I've written, and links that will allow you to read each paper in its entirety, if you would like.  The first paper is my final paper for my psychology research class. 

Laboratory Research in Psychology: The Effects of Mental Illness Diagnosis and Symptoms on Social Ratings

Abstract

The purpose of our study is to test an idea about the cause for the social judgments made about people with mental illnesses, specifically personality disorders.  Research shows that knowing a person's diagnosis or list of symptoms might also affect how someone with a personality disorder is judged.  We wished to test the findings of this research, and to explore both the source of criteria of mental illness and the effects they have one how people are subsequently perceived by others when they are labeled with a mental illness.  Subjects watched a short video and were asked to fill out a questionnaire about a person they saw in the video.  We found no significant main effects for prompt condition or knowing someone with a mental illness.  We did not find an interaction between prompt and knowing someone with a mental illness.  Our findings do not support the findings of previous research studies.  Our study may be improved by using larger, more random groups as well as many different simulations of mental illnesses. 

Biopsychology: The Accuracy of the Film Awakenings

Introduction

Normally, films that are based upon actual events take a great deal of liberty in changing the details of the events that they depict.  "Awakenings" appears to be an exception to this trend.  Although the names of people involved are changed, and the methodology of treatment for a disease is different, the movie seems to depict a particular disease and the drug used to treat it very accurately.  The film is based upon the book with the same name, which was written by Dr. Oliver Sacks.  Dr. Sacks recommended that his name be changed, and so we follow a fictional Dr. Sayer through the summer of 1969 in the Bronx, New York.  Dr. Sayer uses a new drug to try to treat some patients that appear to be catatonic, and for a time he is successful.  However, patients who are treated with the drug develop a tolerance for it, and soon his patients return to their former state.  The movie appears to give the audience a close approximation of the symptoms of the disease, as well as the side affects of the drug that was used to treat it. 

1st Paragraph:

Alfred Kinsey is known for conducting the largest interview based study of sexual behavior that the scientific community had ever seen.  His two books on human sexuality, collectively called The Kinsey Report, shattered social myths and misconceptions about human sexuality.  Sometimes, he is credited with laying the foundation for what would become the Sexual Revolution: a period known for sexual exploration and openness in American society.  Kinsey is still regarded as one of the most well respected sex researchers.  The information he gathered on thousands of encrypted cards is still used by scientists today to form hypotheses about sexuality.  Kinsey grew up in a relatively poor family in New Jersey, although over time they became more fortunate.  Unfortunately, because his family could not afford the latest medical care when Kinsey was a child, he suffered lasting effects from rickets, rheumatic fever, and typhoid fever.  His family was a conservative Christian one, and his father was a part time Methodist preacher.  Both heterosexual contact with girls and all other forms of sexual gratification were severely discouraged by Kinsey's father, a fact that was to play an important role in Kinsey's line of research some years later (Gathorne, 1998).

Biology: Comparing Photosynthesis in Red Cabbage, Green Cabbage, and Spinach Through DPIP Reduction

1st Paragraph:

            The scientist Robert Hill demonstrated in 1937 that chloroplasts in water were able to perform when light was present along with an electron receptor to release oxygen.  He gathered evidence that the oxygen given off had to come from water, because carbon dioxide was not present.  He also showed that there were both light dependant and light independent reactions.  Finally, his work indicated that oxidation-reduction reactions are a key part of photosynthesis. 

Biology: The Effects of Temperature and Chelating Agents on Catechol Oxidation

1st Paragraph:

            An enzyme is a catalytic molecule that speeds up the rates of specific reactions by as much as several million times.  Enzymes have the ability to chemically recognize, bind, and change specific reactants.  Enzymes usually remain unchanged, so the can mediate the same reaction repeatedly.  Most enzymes are a kind of protein.  Activation energy is the minimum amount of internal energy that a molecule must have before a reaction begins.  Activation energy is also known as an energy barrier, as well as the amount of energy needed in order to align chemical groups, destabilize electric charges, and break molecular bonds.  Enzymes typically offer a stable microenvironment that is more favorable for a certain reaction than the surrounding environment would normally be. 

I just finished what was the most challenging piece of semi-scientific writing I've written yet last night.  It's still beginner level, of course, but hopefully I'm getting better at this.  The topic we studied was a theory on thinking called the dual processing theory.  Studying it actually gave me some ideas about how traditions and orthodoxies can be created, and often persist despite efforts by some to stamp them out.  I may write more about that sometime in the near future, although the next couple of months will be brutal as far as my workload is concerned.  Anyway, I know it might be a bit much for some, but here's the text of my lab report for those who are interested. 

Evidence on the Questions of Dual Process Theory

Andrew Clapper

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract

One interpretation of dual process theories proposes that the slower cognitive process is called the analytic system, and is more demanding to use because it requires the conscious use of rules and strategies.  If someone doesn't have the motivation or resources to use the analytic system, he or she must rely on the more instinctive, belief driven system called the heuristic system.  I propose there will be an interaction between cognitive load, working memory span, and conflict.   Based upon working memory score, subjects were divided into three groups after the experiment.  The subjects then evaluated the validity of logical syllogisms.  Two Easy problems and two Difficult problems were valid, and two of each problem were invalid.  Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups that varied in the cognitive load.  There was an interaction between cognitive load, working memory span, and conflict.  The fact that the different levels of working memory do not maintain position with regards to each other further demonstrates that there may not be a causal relationship between working memory and logical analysis.  However, it appears as though there are in fact separate systems being used in logical reasoning.  These findings are also consistent with those previously found.  Several possibilities exist for future exploration of research regarding dual processing theory, such as investigation of brain activity during similar experiments, as well as the usefulness of dual processing theory in explanations of orthodoxy.

Introduction

People appear to be limited to a certain degree when it comes to logical puzzles, because they tend to make mistakes when they try to solve them (Gilovich et al., 2002)  When someone is patient and deliberate with a problem, they tend to make fewer mistakes (De Neys, 2006).  However, at times it seems as though solving a problem occurs so rapidly that it appears to have been done through instinct (De Neys, 2006).  In some instances, the rapid response to puzzles can result in a high error rate, if the puzzles are of a certain nature (De Neys, 2006).  Explanations for these kinds of errors are often called dual process theories (De Neys, 2006).

One interpretation of dual process theories proposes that the slower cognitive process is called the analytic system, and is more demanding to use because it requires the conscious use of rules and strategies.  People must recognize how to apply those rules and strategies, and they can only do so if they are sufficiently motivated and have the needed resources (De Neys, 2006).  If someone doesn't have the motivation or resources to use the analytic system, he or she must rely on the more instinctive, belief driven system called the heuristic system.  Therefore, a difference in working memory spans between individuals might result in different error rates in solving logic problems.  If a conflict exists between the heuristic and analytic systems when one is thinking about a logic problem, a higher working memory span will improve the likelihood that the person will reason the problem correctly.  If the person's working memory is unable to handle the amount of information it must process, he or she will be unable to use the analytic system, and will therefore be more likely to make a mistake (De Neys, 2006).  

De Neys (2006) gathered evidence related to his version of dual process theory by attempting to cause the working memory of subjects to be overloaded while they solved problems that required logical analysis.  The type of logic problem he used involved the evaluation of hypothetical syllogisms.  A hypothetical syllogism is valid when the third statement presented follows logically from the previous two given statements.  Subjects were asked to asses the validity of syllogisms presented.  Some of the statements conflicted with common knowledge, while others did not.  De Neys (2006) brought about a load on the working memory of the subjects by having them remember a visual pattern while they worked to solve the logic problems.  Some subjects had no memory task, others had to remember simple patterns, and the third group had to remember complex patterns.  De Neys (2006) believed that easy problems are solvable no matter the cognitive load because they are solved by using the heuristic system.  He proposed that cognitive load would have an effect on the ability to solve difficult problems, however, because they required the use of the analytic system.  A measurement of the working memory capacity of the subjects was obtained to allow him to assess the data he gathered (De Neys, 2006).

De Neys (2006) found that the storage task did not affect performance when the heuristic system was all that was needed to determine the correct response to a problem.  When the logical response conflicted with the instinctive response, the storage task was associated with decreased performance.  Evidence was that all individuals have both the analytic and heuristic systems, because performance on the logic problems decreased even in the low capacity groups, but performance when no conflict was present was unaffected (De Neys, 2006). 

If the procedure used by De Neys (2006) is closely approximated, a number of hypotheses can be tested.  I propose that a main effect of working memory (WM) will be observed, because individuals with the highest WM span will process the greatest amount of information over time.  Those with a high WM span will be followed by medium WM span, which in turn will come after those with a low WM span.  It is also hypothesized that there will be a main effect of cognitive load, because cognitive load will on average decrease performance the most when it is highest, followed by low cognitive load, followed by no cognitive load.  I propose there will be a main effect for conflict, because conflict will result in lower performance than no conflict.  I hypothesize that a WM Span x Conflict interaction will be observed, since the effect of WM Span on Throughput will be present only in the Conflict condition.  I also propose that a Cognitive Load x Conflict interaction will be present, because the effect of Cognitive Load on Throughput will only occur in the Conflict condition.  I hypothesize that there will be a Cognitive Load x WM Span interaction, since the effect of WM on Throughput will depend on the Conflict condition.  Lastly, I propose there will be a Cognitive Load x WM Span x Conflict interaction, because the interaction between Cognitive Load and WM Span will be observed only in the Conflict condition. 

Method

The participants included 218 subjects.  Students enrolled in the Laboratory Research in Psychology class for the spring 2007 semester at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were subjects.  The subjects reported to room 110 of Davie Hall at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to participate in the study during their regularly scheduled class time.  The subjects followed prompts that appeared on the computer screens that gave directions and asked specific questions.

The first part of the study involved of a measure of working memory. Subjects evaluated arithmetic equations and were in the meantime asked to remember a series of words.  The number of words that the subject could remember was the measure of working memory.  Based upon working memory score, subjects were divided into three groups after the experiment.  The three groups were High, Medium, and Low working memory score. 

The second part of the study was meant to generate data to evaluate the main research questions.  The subjects evaluated the validity of logical syllogisms. The subjects had to solve eight syllogisms.  Four syllogisms were Easy, and four were Difficult.  The Easy syllogisms were either believable and valid or unbelievable and invalid.  For example, "Cats have tails.  Tigers are cats.  Therefore, tigers have tails."  The Difficult syllogisms were either believable and invalid or unbelievable and valid.  An example of a Difficult syllogism is "Bears have fur.  Gummy bears are a type of bear.  Therefore, gummy bears have fur."  Two Easy problems and two Difficult problems were valid, and two of each problem were invalid.  Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups that varied in the cognitive load.  For the High Load condition, the subject was asked to remember a complex pattern of dots while evaluating the syllogism.  Subjects had to remember a simple pattern of dots while solving the syllogism in the Low Load condition.  No secondary memory task was present in the No Load condition.  De Neys (2006) asked subjects to re-create the dot patterns in his experiment, but in this experiment the subjects chose the pattern they remembered from a choice of six patterns.

Results

No main effect of WM span (p = NS) was observed.  There was a main effect of Cognitive Load (F(1,210) = 5.1, p<.01), because the no Cognitive Load condition (x = .1229) showed higher Throughput than the low (x =.1065 ) and high Cognitive Load conditions (x = .1083). (See Table 1)  A main effect of Conflict (F(1,210) = 362.9, p<.001) was present because the Conflict group (x =.0829) showed lower Throughput than the No Conflict (x =.1406) (See Table 1).  There was no WM Span x Conflict interaction (p = NS).  However, there was a marginal Cognitive Load x Conflict interaction (F(2,210) = 2.97, p = .05) (See Figure 1), and a significant WM span x Cognitive Load interaction (F(2,210) = 2.7, p < .05) (See Figure 2).  There was also a Conflict x WM Span x Cognitive Load interaction (F(4,210) = 3.43, p = .01) (See Figure 3).

Discussion

The hypothesis that a main effect of working memory (WM) would be observed was not supported because individuals with the highest WM span did not process the information differently than those with medium or low WM span.  The hypothesis that there will be a main effect of cognitive load was supported, because the no Cognitive Load condition showed different Throughput than the high or low Cognitive Load conditions.  The hypothesis that there would be a main effect for conflict was supported because the Conflict group showed different Throughput than the No Conflict.  The hypothesis that a WM Span x Conflict interaction would be observed was not supported, since the effect of WM Span on Throughput was present in both conditions.  The hypothesis that a Cognitive Load x Conflict interaction will be present was supported, because the effect of Cognitive Load on Throughput will occurred differently between No Conflict and Conflict.  The hypothesis that there would be a Cognitive Load x WM Span interaction was supported, since the effect of WM on Throughput depended on the Conflict condition.  Lastly, the hypothesis that there will be a Cognitive Load x WM Span x Conflict interaction was supported, because the interaction between Cognitive Load and WM Span was different than the interaction between WM Span and Conflict.

The fact that there was no main effect of WM casts doubt on the idea that those with high WM will have more resources to provide the analytic system to use.  However, this finding is consistent with what De Neys (2006) found.  These findings suggest that WM level does not necessarily predict how well someone uses the analytic system, or how well they might do with logical analysis.  Also, the fact that the different levels of working memory do not maintain position with regards to each other further demonstrates that there may not be a causal relationship between WM and logical analysis.  However, since Throughput was in fact affected by Cognitive Load and Conflict, it appears as though there are in fact separate systems being used in logical reasoning.  These findings are also consistent with those found by De Neys (2006). 

A number of improvements may help the study yield higher quality data to be analyzed.  A larger number of logic problems may result in more consistent trends in the data, although subject fatigue might then become a risk.  Also, the study can be improved by using different sampling methods.  For example, this study used an ad hoc sample of psychology students at one particular school, and in order to be able to generalize to the rest of the human population, either a more random sample should be obtained or it should be demonstrated that the ad hoc sample does not differ from the general population with respect to cognitive functioning.  It may also be case that the study needs a larger sample in order to yield a normal distribution of data. 

Several possibilities exist for future exploration of research regarding dual processing theory.  Perhaps if the brain activity and blood flow are measured while the study is conducted, researchers may gain insight into what regions in the brain are used during the cognitive processes under investigation.  Such measurements might also provide evidence that either supports or contradicts dual processing theory itself.  It is possible that dual processing theory may help explain the phenomena of orthodoxy, and the idea deserves further investigation.  Perhaps culturally orthodoxical ideas can be used in the syllogisms and be compared to non orthodoxical ideas as one way of investigating the possibility of dual processing and orthodoxy.  Also, in a similar line of reasoning, perhaps ideas involving cultural norms could be tested against each other in order to investigate the role of environment on what De Neys (2006) calls the belief based heuristic system. 

References

De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner.

Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The

 psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix: Table 1
Condition	Throughput
High Load	0.1083
Low Load	0.1065
No Load	0.1229
High WM	0.1148
Medium WM	0.1103
Low WM	0.1108
Conflict	0.0829
No Conflict	0.1406

A Warning to Readers

You might notice that lately I've begun to talk about topics that are more controversial than ones I've covered in the past.  I should warn you now, I will write from time to time about religion, atheism, polyamory, and human sexuality.  I may cover other controversial topics, but those are the ones I can think of at the moment.  I often have positions on these topics that might not be considered mainstream, and you may in fact find them offensive if they go against what you were taught and what you believe.   If you have questions about something I write about, or if you disagree, you are more than welcome to email me.  That being said, if you do disagree or find something offensive, I believe that we can discuss the matter like calm, rational adults.  Let us talk about it in such a way. 

Evolution in Mollusks

Evolution is a topic that I find very interesting, and recently I had to write a short essay about it for my biology lab, so I thought I might share it with you.  Enjoy! 

  Biological evolution is the name given to the process by which genetic change occurs in a line of decent.  Typically, it happens through a process called microevolution.  Microevolution happens as a result of genetic mutations, natural selection (NS), genetic drift, and gene flow. 

One way to explain evolution is by demonstrating the evolutionary process.  In particular, we can discuss evolution in the context of a model that shows us how a hypothetical species can have variations that eventually cause the groups to diverge into two groups unable to reproduce with each other in an event called speciation.  We will use a species called the Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk in this model to show how evolution works. 

The Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk is a species that has the basic genetic and physical components of all mollusks.  These components manifest themselves as a common body plan found in all species descended from the ancestral mollusk.  The common body plan includes a mantle, radula, and ventral foot.  The Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk exists in a salt water environment that already includes at least plant life.  Random genetic mutations cause variability in the feeding behaviors and anatomy related to feeding.  Because of this variability, some of the ancestral mollusks are better suited to eating algae and only survive in areas rich with algae.  Some of the variant mollusks are better suited to catching and eating other animals, and they are soon only found in areas in or near the breeding grounds of aquatic animals, perhaps including themselves.  The two groups of ancestral mollusks stay in these separate habitats, and eventually accumulate genetic differences until the groups can no longer mate with each other and become separate species. 

The variant group that lives in areas rich in algae eventually becomes known as the snail.  Snails at first live wherever algae is plentiful, and later radiate when further mutation allows them to have a more varied diet and move onto land.  The snail has a radula that results in competition with other snails and mollusks for food.  The competition is a result of the steady increase in the snail population, or perhaps a climate change that decreases the amount of algae available.  Genetic mutations cause variations in radula in snails, which allows some snails to scrape algae off of rocks, and others to actually drill holes in the shells of other mollusks in order to eat them.  Genetic variability also results in a foot that allows some snails to move faster and to move across more surfaces.  Eventually, these snails are able to go to different habitats, including ones on land, to feed on untapped food supplies.  The foot allows the snails to reach food sources that other animals can not, including other snails.  Variability in genes that control the mantle causes snails to secrete a hard substance with the mantle.  Predation selects for the snails that create a hard shell with the mantle, because those without a shell are eaten first.  The characteristics associated with snails help them have more offspring for several reasons.  For example, snails with unique radula that allow them to feed on organisms without competition will see their population steady increase because of the lack of competition.  An advanced foot will allow snails to radiate and begin to populate new areas.  A hard shell helps snails have more offspring because it reduces the number of snails eaten by predators. 

The second group of variants of the Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk specializes in catching and eating other animals, and eventually accumulates genetic variation until it is known as the squid.  The hypothetical early squid lives in and near the breeding grounds of their prey, which might be other mollusks or small fish.  The usefulness of movement in its predatory diet causes genes that improve physical attributes of movement to be selected for.  The variants in this group that are more successful in hunting are able to spend more time, energy, and nutrients on having offspring, and are therefore able to have more and healthier offspring.  Appendages that aid the squid in catching prey are selected for because the ability for squid to eat a variety of animals, including mobile animals, increases the likelihood that the squid will survive changes in prey populations and be able to pass on its genetic information.  A mouth with a beak also allows the squid to eat the most valuable parts of its prey and increases the efficiency of its digestive tract.  The ability to maneuver is important to hunting as well as avoiding predators, and so a mantle that has fins are selected for.  A shell tends to be heavy and slow the flow of water across the squid, so the genes for the production of a shell are selected against until it becomes vestigal.   A foot that is aligned with the head will also improve water flow in a squid, as well as allow for the development of a siphon, and so the alignment is selected for.  The development of a siphon and inksac are selected for by predation.  The better a squid can escape predators, the more likely it will survive to pass its genetic information on to offspring. 

            The proposed hypothetical model shows how squid and snails might have evolved from the Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk.  The unique changes in the radula, foot, mantle, and shell helped the snail and the squid adapt to their new habitats.  We have mentioned how the variations in the Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusk were the result of genetic mutations.  We have also discussed how the food supply in different habitats might cause two variations of the ancestral mollusk to undergo speciation into squid and snails.  Environmental factors, such as the kind of food available and presence of predators, were shown to select for particular traits in the variants of the ancestral mollusk.  The fact that the squid and snail are descended from a common ancestor demonstrates how random mutations might help an organism survive and reproduce more successfully when the surrounding environment changes. 

Today, I wrote a description of UNC and other psychology schools for someone who is decided on where to pursue his/her studies.  Here's what I wrote.  It might give you an idea of what the best schools are in this area for psychology (as far as I can tell), as well as what it is like studying psychology at UNC.

Well, the schools I know have all of your criteria except for the first.  That being said, a big school isn't necessarily a bad thing.  True, if you end up taking biology 101 or chemistry 101 at UNC, you might end up with a class of 300 to 400.  However, none of my psych classes have been larger than 80, and most are about 25.  I think the required classes are the ones that are around 80.  Even then, the instructors have been very accessible and respond to emails quickly.  They always encourage students to visit them during office hours.  Also, if you're able to find a branch of psychology that is your favorite, there are usually not more than 5 to 10 professors in each category.  Of course, I can tell you more about UNC than the other schools I know of, but I may be able to point you in the right direction.  North Carolina also has Duke University and North Carolina State.  They combine with UNC for the best 3 schools in NC for psychology.  The only school I would recommend in South Carolina for psychology is the University of South Carolina, but they do have an excellent program that is highly regarded.  There is also the University of South Florida in Tampa, which is committed to high standards in psych research.  In Georgia, I think your best schools will probably be near and in Atlanta.  For the best foundation in scientific research, you might find that these larger schools are your best bet.  Also, I think you will find many more research opportunities with these schools.  I know someone who graduated from Clemson last year with a psych degree, and she said she didn't do any research there.  At UNC, we're required to take a statistics class for psych majors, as well as a research methods class, which I'm taking this semester.  For our final project, we're designing and running our own experiments in groups, and writing reports on them in science journal format.  Also, at UNC all full time professors conduct research, and you can browse the department's website to find each person's research interests, and email them to volunteer to help them with their research.  It's best to do that the first week or two of classes each semester.  Also, undergraduates can participate in research for credit.  I'm planning on applying to the honors program for the psych department.  I'll be expected to conduct my own studies and do a senior thesis on them for that.  Anyway, that hopefully gives you a taste of what the better schools have to offer.  Let me know if you have any questions.  -Andrew

Lately, I've been writing in a Myspace group, and I entered into a discussion about sexuality, and the fact that Myspace had started restricting the group access to adults over 18.  The group is based on polyamory, which I recommend a google on polyamory to find out more about it.  I'll write about it more at some point.  Anyway, here's something I wrote:

Well, I suppose there are so-called sexual predators on the internet. I've always wondered about the term, however, since in biology a predator is an organism that hunts/catches prey in order to eat it. I think our society goes too far in order to protect children, although I think it is valid to protect children from unhealthy relationships with people much older than them. That being said, I think we often go too far and decide to protect children from sexuality entirely. We prevent them from spending any time in private with members of the opposite sex their own age, which is a mistake. I think that practice, along with promoting ignorance regarding sexuality and sexual health, results in immature young adults who often have to then spend their first few years away from their parents exploring their sexuality away from a responsible mentor.

The group talked a bit more about sexual predators, and I wrote:

I think people under 18 should be free to discuss sex openly. How better way for them to learn to protect themselves? If they don't feel like they have someone to talk to about it, how can we expect them to report abuse if it occurs? Anyway, I think I do remember reading about how sitles like google video and youtube were becoming stricter in order to have access to markets like China, and it may be the same for social net sites.

Someone then quoted that last paragraph and asked me if I am the parent of the teenager.  The person went on to say that all parents of teenagers would feel strongly against random adults talking to their teenager(s).  The person then said that it is unethical, that it won't help protect teenagers, and that it would make the members of the group seem like sexual predators.

So I wrote in response:

I apologize in advance for dissecting your post and relentlessly responding to each point.  However, I think I made valid points, and I feel strongly about the topic, so I believe I must defend my ideas when criticized. 

I meant in society at large rather than specifically on myspace and in this group, but I'll defend my point in both arenas. 

I am not the parent of a teenager.  However, I don't think one can make a blanket statement about parents with teenagers.  A statistical survey of parents of teenagers may find that a majority are against random adults speaking to the teenagers about sex, but I think it's unlikely that the percentage would be 100.  Also, I think there are few to no actual random adults speaking to teenagers about sex.  Sex educators in schools are chosen by schools and school boards for their training and experience.  Adults seeking relationships with teenagers do so according so some kind of criteria.  And, in the situation I was referring to, a teenager might select an online group to ask questions about sex based on his or her own preferences.  

Even if random adults speaking to teenagers about sex were unethical, on what grounds do you base this statement?  An ethical system is a system of ideas and standards by which people make decisions and base behavior upon.  Very few people are capable of unethical behavior.  In fact, only people with severe cognitive dysfunctions are capable of truly random and therefore unethical behavior.  I suspect you mean that unethical refers to beliefs and practices that do not coincide with those of society at large.  However, society uses a blend of many ethical systems.  Any one belief or behavior can go against any ethical system, depending on instance and interpretation.  I personally tend to use rule-utilitarianism combined with virtue ethics. 

Alas, I don't have scientific evidence to offer you that will support my claim, but I might if it were not for society's Victorian/Puritan approach to sex and sex research. 

It may make us look like predators (in the social sense rather than the biological) if we had adults propositioning underage teenagers here, but that (to my knowledge) hasn't happened, and that was not the practice I was advocating.  I was proposing that teenagers could benefit from being able to discuss sex openly with whomever they choose, including adults here in this group. 

In another thread (string of messages) in that same group, I posted a topic called "Polygamy/Polyandry and Marriage Lobbying."  Here's my original post:

Does anyone know of a lobbyist group asking Congress to overturn anti-polygamy/polyandry laws? It seems like Mormon fundamentalists, polyamorists, and pro-plural marriage Muslims would be able to afford lawyers to challenge the laws. I guess the U.S. isn't quite ready for that yet, but I did hear in a human sexuality class that similar laws were being challenged in Canada. Unfortunately, I don't know of any specific cases, but I can try to look some info up. Are there thoughts from the group on the topic?

I did receive some responses.  Most seemed to agree that current adultery laws should be the focus of the efforts of the polyamory community.  I wrote in response:

I can understand not wanting to rock the boat too much and attracting discrimination and hatred. From what I can tell about U.S. history, though, minority groups have usually had to make alot of noise and be in the public eye before major changes took place and more freedom granted. True, the gay marriage lobby has had some setbacks, but I think the polls (for what they're worth) show that people under 40 tend to be strongly in favor of gay rights, so it's only a matter of time. Plus, last fall's election results, gay marriage questions aside, seem to indicate that the country has reached its limit on the conservative agenda overall.

The posts that followed addressed the following topics:

Two articles that were suggested to the group by a member

The definition of marriage itself and its necessity and relevance

The stereo type that Mormons still practice polygamy

Legislating morality

The U.S. constitution

The best way to seek to have laws changed or overturned

Here is my response:

I have read everyone's post, and I also read the articles that Teufel posted links to.  The Virginia article was an interesting piece on the history and status of adultery laws, and I think the Michigan article may indicate a situation where state governments could indeed prosecute polyamorous people.  However, I think the public would probably quickly tire of polyamorous people being investigated and jailed over violent offenders. 

I have mixed thoughts and feelings about the idea of marriage itself, but I started this thread to see what people knew about the status of polyamorous groups/communities/organizations and relevant civil rights issues. 

I was afraid that I would be interpreted as using the Mormon fallacy, but I tried to take care to write Fundamentalist Mormon.  Fundamentalist Mormons are a small minority group that practices polygamy a bit more openly than others. 

Morality is indeed a ba