Event-related potentials in impulsively aggressive juveniles: a retrospective chart-review study.

The assessment, treatment and management of aggressive youth represent a major clinical challenge facing pediatric mental health professionals today. Although a number of studies have examined physiological differences among aggressive patients vs. controls, the current literature lacks a comprehensive examination of the electroencephalographic activity of impulsively aggressive juveniles. The current study was designed to fill this void in the literature via a retrospective chart review of 80 male and female juveniles undergoing inpatient treatment for pathologically impulsive aggression. Clinical reports for mid- and late-latency event-related potentials (ERPs) were examined to determine their correlations with aggression characteristics, as well as any differential predictive utility of hemispheric differences and auditory vs. visual potentials. Results indicated that decrements of mid-latency potentials and ERPs evoked by auditory stimuli (vs. late-latency components and visual ERPs) were more highly predictive of aggressive behavior. No significant hemispheric differences were noted. Taken together, these results have theoretical significance for the etiology of impulsive aggression, and perhaps also clinical relevance for the treatment of this condition.

Adaptationism--how to carry out an exaptationist program.

Adaptationism is a research strategy that seeks to identify adaptations and the specific selective forces that drove their evolution in past environments. Since the mid-1970s, paleontologist Stephen J. Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin have been critical of adaptationism, especially as applied toward understanding human behavior and cognition. Perhaps the most prominent criticism they made was that adaptationist explanations were analogous to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories (outlandish explanations for questions such as how the elephant got its trunk). Since storytelling (through the generation of hypotheses and the making of inferences) is an inherent part of science, the criticism refers to the acceptance of stories without sufficient empirical evidence. In particular, Gould, Lewontin, and their colleagues argue that adaptationists often use inappropriate evidentiary standards for identifying adaptations and their functions, and that they often fail to consider alternative hypotheses to adaptation. Playing prominently in both of these criticisms are the concepts of constraint, spandrel, and exaptation. In this article we discuss the standards of evidence that could be used to identify adaptations and when and how they may be appropriately used. Moreover, building an empirical case that certain features of a trait are best explained by exaptation, spandrel, or constraint requires demonstrating that the trait's features cannot be better accounted for by adaptationist hypotheses. Thus, we argue that the testing of alternatives requires the consideration, testing, and systematic rejection of adaptationist hypotheses. Where possible, we illustrate our points with examples taken from human behavior and cognition.