On Monday, Phillip posted a sweet blog. Read it 2 or 3 times and let it sink in. If after 3 reads it still doesn't sink in - find something heavy and hit yourself in the head with it. This does nothing to aid your understanding of Phillip's collegiate writing, but it does make me laugh. If you could find a hamster to hit yourself with, I would laugh a little harder.
My partner in crime points out that we are not who we think we are.
I disagree. We are exactly who we think we are. The beliefs and assumptions we carry with us create our reality.
When someone believes that he is not who he thinks he is, what he means is that he is not who YOU think he is. He's living somebody elses reality. To put more simply, this is wussy behavior.
Phillip is not a wussy. But he might play one on TV. I kinda picture him as a day time soap star. He's the Doctor who tells the distraught wife-to-be that her knight in shining armor will not be riding off into the sunset with her anytime soon.
Dr. Phillip: "Miss...I'm sorry, but Mr. Wussbag didn't make it through operation."
Terrible actress: "No! NO! WHY GOD WHY?!"
Dr. Phillip: "Probably because God intended for him to have small genitalia, and by trying to enlarge his manhood on my surgical table, he's slapping God in the face. Look, I'd love to do this crying thing with you, but honestly, God hooked the good doctor up - gimme your number."
Terrible actress: "I want you."
Okay, even in that pointless faux TV script, Dr. Phillip was not a wussy.
What was I trying to say about thoughts and reality? Oh yeah, your thoughts are your reality.
However, people can build a reality that is incongruent.
If your self-image conflicts with your actions and the feedback you get from your enviornment, expect to burn the fuck out once you come to your senses.
Now you're really in a bitch of a situation because the drugs and/or people you've been using to maintain this false self (pathological narcissism) are gone.
Now you're all alone with a complete stranger - you.
Sucks. I feel for you, but not too much - cuz it's your fault.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Adrift and at Peace.
Where is the balance of things? How do we equilibriate between a projection and transference of ourselves into and onto the world--in an attempt to shape the ever-dynamic world to reflect the one that wrought us, in order to be consonant with who we are as people--and a genuine absorption of experience that is freedom from this projective pollution?
Is this untainted primary "sensory" experience of life not precisely what is required for change? For maturation? Insofar as we rationalize and confabulate to confirm our biases and reaffirm who we are, is biased experience not simply an effort to distance us from this process of development as beings, and by extension an effort to distance ourselves from ourselves? This seems evinced in how we frame descriptions of who we are and what we are going through, as a society. "It's just a phase." "He's just a free spirit. "She's just witty and charismatic, the life of the party; everybody loves her!"
In reality, if we were willing to embrace the reality of who we are as human beings, we'd tell the truth. "I am concerned it's gone beyond phasic, and represents an ingrained feature of who you are." "He's a thrill-seeking drug addict with little to no risk aversion." "She has identity disturbances--able to be chameoleonic because she has no consistent sense of self; she is a narcissist, who ironically and sadly does not love herself enough to have a strong self image, to be comfortable with who she is and who others are."
When we unwittingly promulgate this process of obscuring & muddying reality with biases in order to feel comfortable in our own skin, in order to keep ourselves from changing, is it not a tainted assessment to think this is a volitional matter of free will, of "choice", instead being a natural consequence of neuropsychological malnourishment? A malnourishment that results in mitigating access to who we are, to our own emotional inner workings that drive us to act in particular, predisposed ways that we, as primates, actually have little volitional control over? We reify so much of nature (and if it's unclear, I will add that by reify I mean we anthropomorphize and oversimplify things into the idea of being 'intended', 'chosen', and/or a matter of cognitive will) that the idea of humans reifying the biological reality of our epigenesis--how we relate to and integrate the environment we experience--seems irrefutable at this point.
In life, there are no answers; at least not simple, 'ultimate' answers. Just realities.
The reality that, try as we might, we cannot hide from ourselves, nor hide ourselves from others. We betray who we are in how we carry ourselves, how we are conditioned by our experiences to reflect said experiences. It is evident in our rate of speech, our tone, our prosody. It is evident in what we produce, beit pain or compassion in others. The strange corollary to this reality is that we cannot force the world to be a glorified image of what we desire it to be, given that we, ourselves, cannot be the glorified self-concept we've put forth.
Conscious of the fact that we are not who we think we are, nor is the world exactly as we experience it--an understanding of these basic, fundamental inner fallibities restores balance when we accept it. If we accept it.
We are naked. Best to be comfortable in our own skin.
I am not who I think I am.
Your turn.
Is this untainted primary "sensory" experience of life not precisely what is required for change? For maturation? Insofar as we rationalize and confabulate to confirm our biases and reaffirm who we are, is biased experience not simply an effort to distance us from this process of development as beings, and by extension an effort to distance ourselves from ourselves? This seems evinced in how we frame descriptions of who we are and what we are going through, as a society. "It's just a phase." "He's just a free spirit. "She's just witty and charismatic, the life of the party; everybody loves her!"
In reality, if we were willing to embrace the reality of who we are as human beings, we'd tell the truth. "I am concerned it's gone beyond phasic, and represents an ingrained feature of who you are." "He's a thrill-seeking drug addict with little to no risk aversion." "She has identity disturbances--able to be chameoleonic because she has no consistent sense of self; she is a narcissist, who ironically and sadly does not love herself enough to have a strong self image, to be comfortable with who she is and who others are."
When we unwittingly promulgate this process of obscuring & muddying reality with biases in order to feel comfortable in our own skin, in order to keep ourselves from changing, is it not a tainted assessment to think this is a volitional matter of free will, of "choice", instead being a natural consequence of neuropsychological malnourishment? A malnourishment that results in mitigating access to who we are, to our own emotional inner workings that drive us to act in particular, predisposed ways that we, as primates, actually have little volitional control over? We reify so much of nature (and if it's unclear, I will add that by reify I mean we anthropomorphize and oversimplify things into the idea of being 'intended', 'chosen', and/or a matter of cognitive will) that the idea of humans reifying the biological reality of our epigenesis--how we relate to and integrate the environment we experience--seems irrefutable at this point.
In life, there are no answers; at least not simple, 'ultimate' answers. Just realities.
The reality that, try as we might, we cannot hide from ourselves, nor hide ourselves from others. We betray who we are in how we carry ourselves, how we are conditioned by our experiences to reflect said experiences. It is evident in our rate of speech, our tone, our prosody. It is evident in what we produce, beit pain or compassion in others. The strange corollary to this reality is that we cannot force the world to be a glorified image of what we desire it to be, given that we, ourselves, cannot be the glorified self-concept we've put forth.
Conscious of the fact that we are not who we think we are, nor is the world exactly as we experience it--an understanding of these basic, fundamental inner fallibities restores balance when we accept it. If we accept it.
We are naked. Best to be comfortable in our own skin.
I am not who I think I am.
Your turn.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Fun Principles Neglected by Neoclassical Theory
*Source: Neuroeconomics, by Peter Politster
*Note: This is not an attempt to reconcile the neoclassical model or integrate it with other models so much as it is an attempt to criticize its shortcomings because of its base assumption.
Neoclassical theory is a theory of economics that assumes (erroneously) that people act rationally, in that they attempt to maximize profit. Aside from citing several thousands of years of data that refutes the idea of humans being rational, I figured for this post I'd relax a bit and just cite some interesting things that go unaccounted for in this theory. I'd like to first point out how comical it is that the neoclassical model automatically gets the diagnosis wrong by assuming humans act rationally. Why does this matter?
In the Efficacy and the expanded Cost-Effectiveness 'models' for decision making, it is imperative that one diagnose, or get an accurate perception of reality, in order to understand how to go forth in managing reality. Another way of stating is this is that Accurate diagnostics are necessary for Accurate management (or action) which is necessary for a Beneficent Outcome::
Perception (Diagnosis) -> Management (How to act or react) -> Outcome (the end product of diagnosis and action) -> Evaluation (ability to process the outcome)
If one has a somewhat inaccurate diagnosis of reality to begin with, their management of the situation is necessarily limited (assuming humans act rationally is a hilarious misdiagnosis of human nature). Think of treating a patient for MS because of cerebellar signs when they really are just intoxicated with alcohol. Monumental mistake, right? It's also important to point out that management is based on evaluating hypothetical scenarios through one's mind with the goal being a benificent outcome.
Ok, now that we have that out of the way, to the fun part of principles neglected by neoclassicists.
Time Discounting: this principle essentially states that the more delayed the outcome, the less importance 'weight' it has. A corollary to this is the dynamic aspect of time discounting:
For example, people would generally prefer $1000 today over $1100 in one year; if the same scenario played out as $1000 10 years from now compared to $1100 11 years from now, the immediacy of the $1000 is blunted, and more subjects are willing to wait for the $1100, DESPITE the fact that it's still just a one year difference. The basic principle here is that people prefer the salience of immediate rewards over greater rewards down the road. This makes sense in societies where there is high inflation (it may just be rational to accept a lower lump-sum of money now over a greater amount later in such a case, though this is purely by accident).
Addicts are notorious for time discounting, and despite it being analog for healthy people, addicts tend to be very digital in their desire for rewards (all-or-nothing, which makes sense since over time drugs becomes less rewarding* due to both a habituation which diminishes euphoria and the burnout of dopamine/opioid receptors), and one can see how this is reflected in populations of persecuted peoples where the capacity of addiction exists, such as in Cherokee Indians. The very reason Cherokees have a high frequency of the gene(s) for addiction, one could argue, is a result of the consonance the trait has with respect to an environment that is highly unstable. If a person "lives in the now", is very impulsive essentially, in an environment that is highly threatening, this increases the likelihood of their survival. If someone is planning to get something done tomorrow or disseminate reward over time in a genocidal environment--well, it's self-explanatory from there.
If anything, this points out how certain traits can be adaptive in one environment, and maladaptive in others; compare the average lifespan of an active addict to a non-addict in today's relatively stable environment, and you'll see what I mean. Intelligence is somewhat negatively-correlated with time discounting, in the sense that many intelligent people are incidentally willing to go deeper into debt earlier in their lives for advanced degrees, which have a greater long-term reward than just a BA, and are also less likely to seek out short-term pleasures like drinking on average.
Another corollary to this principle explains why addicts relapse so easily (bear with me). Because addicts' long-term goals need to be heavily weighted to be more rewarding than drug use, thus making the long-term goals unrealistic (in order to offset the value of the immediate rewards of getting high, they have to set the bar high enough to be worth striving for), they are more likely to relapse by virtue of not being able to live up to the rewards. This explains why the process of treating addiction is largely about "planting seeds", as Dr. Drew asserts openly, rather than an immediate cure.
More next time.
*Note: This is not an attempt to reconcile the neoclassical model or integrate it with other models so much as it is an attempt to criticize its shortcomings because of its base assumption.
Neoclassical theory is a theory of economics that assumes (erroneously) that people act rationally, in that they attempt to maximize profit. Aside from citing several thousands of years of data that refutes the idea of humans being rational, I figured for this post I'd relax a bit and just cite some interesting things that go unaccounted for in this theory. I'd like to first point out how comical it is that the neoclassical model automatically gets the diagnosis wrong by assuming humans act rationally. Why does this matter?
In the Efficacy and the expanded Cost-Effectiveness 'models' for decision making, it is imperative that one diagnose, or get an accurate perception of reality, in order to understand how to go forth in managing reality. Another way of stating is this is that Accurate diagnostics are necessary for Accurate management (or action) which is necessary for a Beneficent Outcome::
Perception (Diagnosis) -> Management (How to act or react) -> Outcome (the end product of diagnosis and action) -> Evaluation (ability to process the outcome)
If one has a somewhat inaccurate diagnosis of reality to begin with, their management of the situation is necessarily limited (assuming humans act rationally is a hilarious misdiagnosis of human nature). Think of treating a patient for MS because of cerebellar signs when they really are just intoxicated with alcohol. Monumental mistake, right? It's also important to point out that management is based on evaluating hypothetical scenarios through one's mind with the goal being a benificent outcome.
******
Ok, now that we have that out of the way, to the fun part of principles neglected by neoclassicists.
Time Discounting: this principle essentially states that the more delayed the outcome, the less importance 'weight' it has. A corollary to this is the dynamic aspect of time discounting:
For example, people would generally prefer $1000 today over $1100 in one year; if the same scenario played out as $1000 10 years from now compared to $1100 11 years from now, the immediacy of the $1000 is blunted, and more subjects are willing to wait for the $1100, DESPITE the fact that it's still just a one year difference. The basic principle here is that people prefer the salience of immediate rewards over greater rewards down the road. This makes sense in societies where there is high inflation (it may just be rational to accept a lower lump-sum of money now over a greater amount later in such a case, though this is purely by accident).
Addicts are notorious for time discounting, and despite it being analog for healthy people, addicts tend to be very digital in their desire for rewards (all-or-nothing, which makes sense since over time drugs becomes less rewarding* due to both a habituation which diminishes euphoria and the burnout of dopamine/opioid receptors), and one can see how this is reflected in populations of persecuted peoples where the capacity of addiction exists, such as in Cherokee Indians. The very reason Cherokees have a high frequency of the gene(s) for addiction, one could argue, is a result of the consonance the trait has with respect to an environment that is highly unstable. If a person "lives in the now", is very impulsive essentially, in an environment that is highly threatening, this increases the likelihood of their survival. If someone is planning to get something done tomorrow or disseminate reward over time in a genocidal environment--well, it's self-explanatory from there.
If anything, this points out how certain traits can be adaptive in one environment, and maladaptive in others; compare the average lifespan of an active addict to a non-addict in today's relatively stable environment, and you'll see what I mean. Intelligence is somewhat negatively-correlated with time discounting, in the sense that many intelligent people are incidentally willing to go deeper into debt earlier in their lives for advanced degrees, which have a greater long-term reward than just a BA, and are also less likely to seek out short-term pleasures like drinking on average.
Another corollary to this principle explains why addicts relapse so easily (bear with me). Because addicts' long-term goals need to be heavily weighted to be more rewarding than drug use, thus making the long-term goals unrealistic (in order to offset the value of the immediate rewards of getting high, they have to set the bar high enough to be worth striving for), they are more likely to relapse by virtue of not being able to live up to the rewards. This explains why the process of treating addiction is largely about "planting seeds", as Dr. Drew asserts openly, rather than an immediate cure.
More next time.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Of the Free Market, Politics, and Buzzwords
A quote about neuromarketing stood out to me in a recent book written by Kathleen Stein titled The Genius Engine:
What's troubling is that neuromarketers may be able to bypass conscious thought to tap directly into, say, liking and desiring systems to incite us to press the buy button. (pg 160)
This is not precisely a new idea--that marketing attempts to subconsciously motivate people to buy a product--but it is imperative to understand this in the context of a politicking and consumer-market driven society such as America. I should make it clear that I do not find all sources of pleasure or desire to be hedonistic or sadistic, but given a sufficient emotional 'critical mass', it absolutely is just that.
To give background on what I shall specifically refer to, it is important to note that these areas of the brain play a preeminent, superordinate role in their respective arenas:
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC): Cognitive, analytical deliberation predicated on reason
Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC): Emotional awareness and direct modulation, though influenced by the dlPFC.
Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC): Involved in reward-based learning and expectation; the vmPFC is subsumed by the OFC in some definitions
Subcortical Reward Circuitry: primitive circuitry that responds to what is liked or wanted by releasing opioids and dopamine respectively.
Now back to the idea of neuromarketing and the 'free market' we so espouse today. As Stein points out, it is clear that a consumer-driven market's goal is to activate the subcortical and primitive regions of the brain that drive an individual to desire and obtain products. It is interesting to think that our society believes a free market system is indeed just that, free, when in fact it is precisely a result of hijacking the subcortical system of the brain that entails the majority of consumption in America's society today. Is this effectively different from heroin or cocaine? Yes and no. Both utilize the reward circuitry of the brain to hijack the behavior of a person, but a consumer-driven stimulus in a commercial society will not have the same strength, obviously, as heroin or cocaine. We can choose not to act on every desirable thing we see (some people better than others), but given sufficient critical mass generated by learned consumerism--resulting from changes to the OFC which incorporate the lessons 'learned' from registering reward-circuitry activity--is it not the case that this ability to choose is selectively pressured against, mitigated, in a sense?
Furthermore, a consumer-driven economy that is predicated on novel pleasure rather than a functional improvement of one's life can be directly in conflict with a person's health in the same way (albeit less overt) that addiction operates in the brain. Examples? The preference of a cheeseburger over a salad. Buying a new car that gets 16 miles to the gallon, siphoning funds from other areas of one's life and unnecessarily polluting the environment. The desire to eat sugar until one's pancreas explodes (hyperbole) from developing Type II Diabetes. Buying a new Blu-Ray DVD instead of donating to a fund for the treatment of disease that one will inevitably develop as a consequence of the natural process of aging. It is easy to see, given the way a "free" market system operates--by subcortically driving our behavior toward short-term pleasure--that it is not as free as we'd like to think, either in terms of being free from strings attached or in terms of allowing us to freely analyze the positives and negatives based on rational thought (that we mistakenly presume to be a unique feature of humankind; we are not, in fact, driven by objective reason alone, and evidently not even predominantly so).
It stands to reason from this line of thought that a market free to run roughshod should not be given quite the subversive power it has accrued from government deregulation that allows it to subjugate our long-term interests. Given the direction of our nation comparatively to other nations in life expectancy, education, and mental health rates and indices, this is tantamount to a neural Pyrrhic Victory. I am not stupid to believe that a managed market will ultimately be a standalone solution to this, but a radical redistribution of wealth through taxation for the purpose of funding university-level programs dedicated specifically to long-term interests--such as health, education, science--is precisely what is requisite to curtail such a tacit enslavement.
To the issue of politics and buzzwords, it is first important to outline the role the vmPFC plays in monitoring & modulating more primitive limbic (emotional) areas of the brain. As Sam Harris, Joshua Greene, and to a lesser extent Vinod Goel have demonstrated, when it comes to decision-making, emotions and beliefs play a large role in dictating the appropriate course of action. While it is the case that the dlPFC also plays a role in decision-making, the course of action is dictated by the emotional salience of a stimulus. In other words, given sufficient critical emotional mass, rational thought will be subordinate to emotionally-driven beliefs that decide what is right and wrong in actions/beliefs.
How precisely does this relate to Buzzwords? Politics in the last 10 years has seen an exponential increase in terms that are based on manipulating feelings to a point that influences one's opinion to a politician's advantage. This is not news either, but is important to know that this is analogous to the supposed "free market" model we so adore. If an individual is asked if they would mind if the government has the immune right to tamper with their private lives without requiring evidence to support the effectiveness of this putative government right, almost universally people will say "no." However, if you label it the Protect American Act, the emotional tide turns and people most certainly will be enraged by any effort not to protect America, thus giving the emotional critical mass necessary to override cognitive, rational thought generated in the analysis of the actual plan itself. Isn't it ironic that "free" market itself is simply ostensible, a buzzword to generate emotional dissonance toward government management?
In summation, it is precisely due to a wildly consumerized pandering to the evolutionarily lowest common denominator of the subcortical and emotionally-laden circuitry of the brain that society digests things that otherwise may not be good for them, that come at the cost of the long-term interest of the species, and effecitvely reduce one's ability to cognitively predicate 'opinion' on empirical evidence. It is precisely why today we continue to slide in our cultural dedication to education, science, physical health, and mental health, and that unless we change the way we perceive the world, our nation will be diminished. Based on the tenets of what is neuroscientifically understood to drive human behavior, one must not--as Republicans suggest inaccurately--implicitly trust a lay individual engulfed in such a society to *necessarily be* an authority on how money ought to be used, that somehow the individual outweighs the whole. Inextricable to health and self-interest is, in fact, a necessary mitigation of self-indulgence that is exacerbated by the Republican "free" market culture.
From Goel and [others'] work, it is certainly apparent how influential and deeply embedded in logical thinking are irrational, emotion-dominant belief systems. These subterranean affective wellsprings undoubtedly can be tapped and harnessed to incalculable coercive control and profit. "People make tons of decisions and often they don't know why," [Marco Iacoboni of UCLA] said. (pg 162.)
These are the reasons FDR was right.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The Guile of Wickedness
It is imperative that I say, of course, the usual pleasantries that are egocentrically satisfying: "Of course things are getting better. Consider the systematic mitigation of disease, warfare, and general atrocities of mankind." I genuinely do believe this, but on a provisional basis in the same way creationists believe "the jury is still out" on Evolution. This is to say that while change has no inherent valence, given our stronger interpersonal interconnections stemming from a global economy and cultural exchange, the future does look bright when juxtaposed with the repugnant prevalence of ethnocentrism merely 50 years ago.
While a burgeoning population does run risk of destroying itself through blatant disregard for its environment, as strongly and accurately argued by leading Anthropologist Jared Diamond along with many climatologists who provide evidence of global warming, it is important to make the point that our morality as a whole improves as technology and nutrition improves. Acute disease reduces as a result of a general improvement in nutrition, which augments our intellectual standing as a society as well. I've too much to add to the issue, but suffice it to say the link above outlines exactly how 'more modernized' societies are more consequentialist in their decision making. This is to say that the results dictate action, rather than deontological dictation, which is essentially a punitive, retributivist form of reciprocity.
Be that as it may, the guile of wickedness is simply put, the reduction of what is acute into what is chronic. It is tantamount to the famous Boiling Frog Syndrome, but shall I tweak the analogy for purposes of acumen. As Joshua Greene (link above) points out, emotions play a predominant role in decision-making, and there appears to be a subjective threshold as to when emotional stimuli saliently incur an overriding effect on decision-making, which is largely predicted upon direct personal involvement or agency. This threshold differs from person to person, but it is essentially relative to the prefrontal cortex's capacity to successfully curtail the emotional activity in the limbic lobe, and whether or not sufficient environmental stimuli are present to activate emotional circuitry in the first place. To zoom the picture out, this is to say, simply, cognition may have the capacity to curtail emotions, but emotions inevitably guide our decisions (given sufficient stimulation), and in an unreliable manner.
Now to the Boiling Frog Syndrome. Simply put, if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. However, if you pot the frog into the put, then slowly increase the heat to the point where it is boiling, the frog will inevitably boil to death. To me, this is not dissimilar to the use of atomic bombs vs. carpet bombing in World War II. The United States carpetbombing campaign in Japan (and Europe) sufficiently leveled many cities, but unfortunately did not carry the emotional 'critical mass', if you will, that was necessary to override the zealotry of the Japanese at the time. However, once the atomic bomb was implemented (or twice, to be exact, given that the Japanese were mostly unaware of the first bomb), emotional critical mass was sufficiently met to cause a cessation in fighting. This works both ways of course, in that emotional critical mass can create war just as much as end war. The point is that it induces people to act in search of a resolution, or put another way, forces them out of complacency.
This pattern has similarly repeated itself in a cyclical manner throughout history, where atrocities meet a certain critical mass of emotional salience (normally that which is local or familiar enough to us to cause up roar), causing people to spring into action in an inevitable attempt to seek a resolution. The Boston Massacre. Archduke Ferdinand's Assassination. The World Trade Center bombing. The blitzkrieg of ally Poland. The personal attack at Pearl Harbor. None of the above are truly similar to the atomic bombing of Hiroshoma & Nagasaki, but in effect they are, insofar as they represented a dramatic spike in the emotional salience of the environment at that time. Peace + 9/11 = punctuation of emotions not dissimilar to atomic bombings during war time. Essentially, people need an emotional critical mass to act, and as such, a Machiavellian adaptation to such a critical mass would be by not throwing people into a boiling pot, but rather just ratcheting up the heat a degree or two per hour, creating a slower yet equally disastrous resultof death.
By relegating the wickedness of certain selfish actions that once sufficiently caused traumatic emotional stress (and summarily an unintended reaction against the wickedness) into that which keeps people below critical emotional mass, by essentially disseminating suffering temporally into a chronic illness, individuals who control far more lives than they ought to have successfully navigated the stormy weathers of human emotion. I find it imperative that we look at this through a cognitive lens, rather than emotional, as the effects of chronic illness in America are truly more salient than any terror attack in the history of mankind, but do not in any measurable form cross the threshold that evolutionarily has spurred man into action. As a society, we have had the wool pulled over our emotions by increased economic, political, and social stratification that causes immeasurable suffering that the majority are born into. We must be aware, and cognitively understand that death is death, and the ripping of ones innards is serious, but not as serious, mathematically, as the diabetic neuropathic destruction of the lives of two people.
Math matters.
While a burgeoning population does run risk of destroying itself through blatant disregard for its environment, as strongly and accurately argued by leading Anthropologist Jared Diamond along with many climatologists who provide evidence of global warming, it is important to make the point that our morality as a whole improves as technology and nutrition improves. Acute disease reduces as a result of a general improvement in nutrition, which augments our intellectual standing as a society as well. I've too much to add to the issue, but suffice it to say the link above outlines exactly how 'more modernized' societies are more consequentialist in their decision making. This is to say that the results dictate action, rather than deontological dictation, which is essentially a punitive, retributivist form of reciprocity.
Be that as it may, the guile of wickedness is simply put, the reduction of what is acute into what is chronic. It is tantamount to the famous Boiling Frog Syndrome, but shall I tweak the analogy for purposes of acumen. As Joshua Greene (link above) points out, emotions play a predominant role in decision-making, and there appears to be a subjective threshold as to when emotional stimuli saliently incur an overriding effect on decision-making, which is largely predicted upon direct personal involvement or agency. This threshold differs from person to person, but it is essentially relative to the prefrontal cortex's capacity to successfully curtail the emotional activity in the limbic lobe, and whether or not sufficient environmental stimuli are present to activate emotional circuitry in the first place. To zoom the picture out, this is to say, simply, cognition may have the capacity to curtail emotions, but emotions inevitably guide our decisions (given sufficient stimulation), and in an unreliable manner.
Now to the Boiling Frog Syndrome. Simply put, if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. However, if you pot the frog into the put, then slowly increase the heat to the point where it is boiling, the frog will inevitably boil to death. To me, this is not dissimilar to the use of atomic bombs vs. carpet bombing in World War II. The United States carpetbombing campaign in Japan (and Europe) sufficiently leveled many cities, but unfortunately did not carry the emotional 'critical mass', if you will, that was necessary to override the zealotry of the Japanese at the time. However, once the atomic bomb was implemented (or twice, to be exact, given that the Japanese were mostly unaware of the first bomb), emotional critical mass was sufficiently met to cause a cessation in fighting. This works both ways of course, in that emotional critical mass can create war just as much as end war. The point is that it induces people to act in search of a resolution, or put another way, forces them out of complacency.
This pattern has similarly repeated itself in a cyclical manner throughout history, where atrocities meet a certain critical mass of emotional salience (normally that which is local or familiar enough to us to cause up roar), causing people to spring into action in an inevitable attempt to seek a resolution. The Boston Massacre. Archduke Ferdinand's Assassination. The World Trade Center bombing. The blitzkrieg of ally Poland. The personal attack at Pearl Harbor. None of the above are truly similar to the atomic bombing of Hiroshoma & Nagasaki, but in effect they are, insofar as they represented a dramatic spike in the emotional salience of the environment at that time. Peace + 9/11 = punctuation of emotions not dissimilar to atomic bombings during war time. Essentially, people need an emotional critical mass to act, and as such, a Machiavellian adaptation to such a critical mass would be by not throwing people into a boiling pot, but rather just ratcheting up the heat a degree or two per hour, creating a slower yet equally disastrous resultof death.
By relegating the wickedness of certain selfish actions that once sufficiently caused traumatic emotional stress (and summarily an unintended reaction against the wickedness) into that which keeps people below critical emotional mass, by essentially disseminating suffering temporally into a chronic illness, individuals who control far more lives than they ought to have successfully navigated the stormy weathers of human emotion. I find it imperative that we look at this through a cognitive lens, rather than emotional, as the effects of chronic illness in America are truly more salient than any terror attack in the history of mankind, but do not in any measurable form cross the threshold that evolutionarily has spurred man into action. As a society, we have had the wool pulled over our emotions by increased economic, political, and social stratification that causes immeasurable suffering that the majority are born into. We must be aware, and cognitively understand that death is death, and the ripping of ones innards is serious, but not as serious, mathematically, as the diabetic neuropathic destruction of the lives of two people.
Math matters.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Hypothesis, Counterhypothesis.
This post is going to be pretty nifty. Really.
Actually, if you're looking for comic relief or an argument for the origins of life, you're looking in the wrong place. I just want to put forth a hypothesis founded upon well-understood empirical evidence that I have already touched on in The Torture of BPD blog.
Specifically, why is it the case that hyperamygdalar activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli would occur, if the amygdala happens to be smaller in size? This seems counterintuitive on the surface, but when one relates it to the interconnections of the amygdala, especially the prefrontal cortex, it seems to make a bit more sense. In cases of Borderline Personality disorder, the amygdala & pre-frontal cortex are diminished in size in comparison to people without BPD. With that said:
1. It stands to reason that given the interconnectivity and modulatory effect of the Prefrontal Cortex with/on the amygdala, a reduction in size of both is likely to reduce the synaptic connections and receptor cells. Thus, the ability of the PFC to successfully negate a more sensory emotional reaction to stimuli in the amygdala would be largely curtailed.
2. Quantitative change, bringing about quantitative change. This is a bit of a broad hypothesis that isn't inconsistent with hypothesis 1. at all, and is predicated on some of the tenets put forth by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger in Big Brains: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence. Evidence suggests to Lynch & Granger that despite differences in the per capita brain size between primates, proportional sizes of the neocortex, brain stem, and pretty much all areas of the brain relative to the overall brain size follow a linear trend. This is to say that our neocortex relative to the size of our brain overall will be proportionally similar to a Chimpanzee's neocortex relative to its overall brain size. They further argue that only true difference between our brain and other primates' brains is simply quantitative differences; there is very little in the way of genuinely unique areas or types of cells in the human brain. If it is the case that all of this is true, then let's extrapolate the principle that Quantitative changes bring about Qualitative changes:
We'll say theoretically that the Prefrontal Cortex is 400 cubic centimeters, and the amygdala is maybe 50 cubic centimeters (nowhere near accurate). This means there is a 350 cubic centimeter difference at a 7:1 ratio.
If they both experience similar proportional changes due to environmental selection or epigenetic stress, in which the prefrontal cortex and amygdala are both decreased in size by 5%, then the sizes would be PFC: 332.5 cubic centimeters to Amygdala: 47.5 centimeters, a difference of 285 cubic centimeters.
Quantative differences between the two brains would be 350 to 285 cubic centimeters, despite having a similar proportion. If there are quantitative changes that bring about qualitative changes with respect to PFC modulation of emotional activity in the amygdala, then perhaps this explains why the amygdala in the second brain is much more difficult to moderate.
3. Both of the above, synergistically producing Hyperamygdalar activity to noxious stimuli.
Perhaps my math is oversimplified. Perhaps the bit about linear predictability of specific brain regions relative to overall brain size is unnecessary, given the principle of quantitative-qualitative differences. Feel free to let me know if that is the case.
Actually, if you're looking for comic relief or an argument for the origins of life, you're looking in the wrong place. I just want to put forth a hypothesis founded upon well-understood empirical evidence that I have already touched on in The Torture of BPD blog.
Specifically, why is it the case that hyperamygdalar activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli would occur, if the amygdala happens to be smaller in size? This seems counterintuitive on the surface, but when one relates it to the interconnections of the amygdala, especially the prefrontal cortex, it seems to make a bit more sense. In cases of Borderline Personality disorder, the amygdala & pre-frontal cortex are diminished in size in comparison to people without BPD. With that said:
1. It stands to reason that given the interconnectivity and modulatory effect of the Prefrontal Cortex with/on the amygdala, a reduction in size of both is likely to reduce the synaptic connections and receptor cells. Thus, the ability of the PFC to successfully negate a more sensory emotional reaction to stimuli in the amygdala would be largely curtailed.
2. Quantitative change, bringing about quantitative change. This is a bit of a broad hypothesis that isn't inconsistent with hypothesis 1. at all, and is predicated on some of the tenets put forth by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger in Big Brains: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence. Evidence suggests to Lynch & Granger that despite differences in the per capita brain size between primates, proportional sizes of the neocortex, brain stem, and pretty much all areas of the brain relative to the overall brain size follow a linear trend. This is to say that our neocortex relative to the size of our brain overall will be proportionally similar to a Chimpanzee's neocortex relative to its overall brain size. They further argue that only true difference between our brain and other primates' brains is simply quantitative differences; there is very little in the way of genuinely unique areas or types of cells in the human brain. If it is the case that all of this is true, then let's extrapolate the principle that Quantitative changes bring about Qualitative changes:
We'll say theoretically that the Prefrontal Cortex is 400 cubic centimeters, and the amygdala is maybe 50 cubic centimeters (nowhere near accurate). This means there is a 350 cubic centimeter difference at a 7:1 ratio.
If they both experience similar proportional changes due to environmental selection or epigenetic stress, in which the prefrontal cortex and amygdala are both decreased in size by 5%, then the sizes would be PFC: 332.5 cubic centimeters to Amygdala: 47.5 centimeters, a difference of 285 cubic centimeters.
Quantative differences between the two brains would be 350 to 285 cubic centimeters, despite having a similar proportion. If there are quantitative changes that bring about qualitative changes with respect to PFC modulation of emotional activity in the amygdala, then perhaps this explains why the amygdala in the second brain is much more difficult to moderate.
3. Both of the above, synergistically producing Hyperamygdalar activity to noxious stimuli.
Perhaps my math is oversimplified. Perhaps the bit about linear predictability of specific brain regions relative to overall brain size is unnecessary, given the principle of quantitative-qualitative differences. Feel free to let me know if that is the case.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Elitism: The Modern Witch Hunt
Only in America can the basic definitions of patrician and elite become inaccurately interchanged. I suppose this is of no surprise as America continues to dramatically dip in education rankings, especially in math and science, in the International forum (see: here, here, here, and here). According to American Heritage Dictionary, 'Elite' means "the best or most skilled members of a group." It carries no specific denotation of being out of touch with the average person in the way bourgeoisie or patrician do, so let's start using correct terminology here. Now that we have that out of the way, it's important to ask what exactly causes this extreme dissonance toward achievement & intelligence. I like to think of it as an ingrained feature of a culture driven by what the mainstream media offers them.
The media, by virtue of self-interest, continue to be complicit in America's pathological trend toward idiocracy by making sure to dumb down every aspect of a subject. When it comes to the election, for example, what is important to Americans? Is global warming important? Maybe increased economic stress & stratification? Is the American life expectancy rate, which is dropping in some areas of the U.S. (something unheard of for an industrialized nation), important? Maybe the lack of universal health care, and the desegregation of commerce and scientific research and the consequences thereof are important? Perhaps the strain on our military and national economy, as well as the inhumane truth of 500,000 to 1 million dead in Iraq is an important issue.
If you say yes, the media is here to inform you that you are WRONG. What is important is: a lapel pin, a Bosnian story, a religious person, and the all-important opinionating of what should be characterized as important by non-authoritative pundits. (Sidenote: Great job MSNBC with your primary coverage; let's allow Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough to set the tone as to what is important for the Democratic primary, clearly a smart move. Nothing like a couple of bulldog Republicans to characterize Obama as a wimp, as if him being temperamental, aggressive, or confrontational is a good thing.) If you don’t believe me, just ask Chris Matthews, who equated the Reverend Wright as “Obama’s Iraq”. Yes, that’s right, Reverend Wright is tantamount to causing a million deaths, I forgot how stupid we all are. The media and cultural desire for dilution of substance, that results from our consumer-driven & service-based economy is what generates this dissonance toward any type of elitism by virtue of dumbing down every aspect of an issue to the lowest common denominator: stupid people. Yes, I’m aware dumbing is not a word.
The point of all of this is to say, clearly, that as a nation we are genuinely stupid. We are. The tell-all feature of a stupid person is their lack of ability to listen to someone who is smart, and basically to act accordingly when their own judgment (as a stupid person) is not to be trusted. (*A corollary to this is to say that stupid people shouldn't vote. Just saying.) And as a nation, since being elite is apparently a bad thing, this makes us stupid as a whole. As someone who would consider himself an elite American, except that term is apparently oxymoronic by virtue of my logical deduction, I would like to say screw all of you who are so entirely insecure with your self-concept that you would prefer to vote for a guy who couldn’t multiple ¾ and ½ over a guy who, might just understand the sociological implications of behaviors such as religious zealotry. Damn that man for having an Internationally ranked first class education! Clearly he doesn't understand the intricacies of drinking shots and asking how the Phillies are doing. This definies stupidity. It’s nice to know that as a nation we think of ourselves as the only superpower--elite as a whole--but detest American citizens that happen to be elite in their individual academic pursuits. Love the paradox of western Individualism: let's chastise those who are *actually* individuals! How dare they refuse to conform to our anti-conformist conformity by not being retarded media-loving drones.
To the point, the moral of the story here is simple: Start listening to the *elite*, and maybe the cyclical circling of the drain known as your life might actually improve.
P.S.: Since Pat Buchanan wishes to equate Barack Obama with Michael Dukakis, ask yourself one question: would the country be better off or worse off in that period of time had there been someone other than Bush in office? The economy was a house of cards (thanks, Reagan), and you may wish to bear in mind that it set the stage for George W.’s presidency.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
I knew it all along
You know that exhilarating feeling you get after accomplishing something you have put your heart and soul into? For some, it is a childhood dream realized, completing graduate work, being promoted, a Nobel peace prize, or for some of us, folding the clean laundry that has been sitting in a basket for two weeks straight.
Well I just had one of those moments. Phillip and I just compiled the results of a 2-year study titled "The Habits of the Extraordinarily Intelligent and the Cats Who Love Them". I am very excited to share the results with you.
We learned that 99% of the Extraordinarily Intelligent individuals(having an IQ >160) included in our study have a common past time. Individuals occupying the Below Average, Average, Above Average and Almost Extraordinary categories, do not share this past time. This hobby is exclusive to the Extraordinarily Intelligent individual.
Take a few minutes to brainstorm what this hobby could be. If you're reading this blog with another person, brainstorm together. If you are reading alone, discuss with yourself, perhaps with an ego state you're not currently utilizing. If you've never read our blog with another person, I suggest you try it.
If you guessed, “book learnin’”, that is incorrect.
The past time shared by 99% of all Extraordinarily Intelligent is reading this blog. I have to say, it is nice knowing that the most intelligent subscribe to our ramblings.
It hurts me to admit that the sample size for our study included only two people for the Extraordinarily Intelligent category. One of them was Phillip.
Give me a break; it’s still a cool statistic. I estimate that 1% of the world’s population, or 0.1% of the United States population, has an IQ over 160, realistically it would have been difficult to find more than 2 people to include in the sample.
Well I just had one of those moments. Phillip and I just compiled the results of a 2-year study titled "The Habits of the Extraordinarily Intelligent and the Cats Who Love Them". I am very excited to share the results with you.
We learned that 99% of the Extraordinarily Intelligent individuals(having an IQ >160) included in our study have a common past time. Individuals occupying the Below Average, Average, Above Average and Almost Extraordinary categories, do not share this past time. This hobby is exclusive to the Extraordinarily Intelligent individual.
Take a few minutes to brainstorm what this hobby could be. If you're reading this blog with another person, brainstorm together. If you are reading alone, discuss with yourself, perhaps with an ego state you're not currently utilizing. If you've never read our blog with another person, I suggest you try it.
If you guessed, “book learnin’”, that is incorrect.
The past time shared by 99% of all Extraordinarily Intelligent is reading this blog. I have to say, it is nice knowing that the most intelligent subscribe to our ramblings.
It hurts me to admit that the sample size for our study included only two people for the Extraordinarily Intelligent category. One of them was Phillip.
Give me a break; it’s still a cool statistic. I estimate that 1% of the world’s population, or 0.1% of the United States population, has an IQ over 160, realistically it would have been difficult to find more than 2 people to include in the sample.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Torture of BPD
Borderline Personality Disorder is a global, relatively stable disorder that is torturous to both the person with BPD and the people around them. It is thought to occur in 1 out of every 33 women(*Females account for 75% of people with BPD), and is relative to four specific areas: Affective, Cognitive, Behavioral, and Interpersonal impairment that can be subacute at baseline level, but when a stimulus causes excitement, borderlines become incredibly dysregulated. An example of such is when a friend of someone with BPD analyzes their life in a way to give advice, and the person with BPD perceives being talked down to or being blamed (also referred to as being "invalidated").
What causes BPD?
It is thought that an emotionally invalidating, neglectful, or abusive early childhood--combined with a genetic predisposition--creates the recipe for someone who has BPD. Specific types of abuse include sexual abuse from or not from a caretaker, as well as emotional abuse and physical abuse from a caretaker. Furthermore, it is thought that secrecy or the lack of discussion surrounding sexual abuse increases the risk factor for BPD. Weak early attachments, which create an attachment schema that fluctuates between extreme neediness alternating with fear of involvement, are also prevalent in indivudals with BPD. Generally, diagnosis is not made until adulthood, but antisocial signs in females prior to the age of 15 are significant indicators of the potential for having BPD as an adult. It is important to note that "age of onset" of symptoms generally occur from age 10-18. Furthermore, disturbed parental involvement, entailing an antisocial parent, a neglectful parent, and/or parents that get divorced are common in individuals with BPD.
Linehan theorizes that BPD entails three dialectics which people with BPD constantly swing from, such as:
1. Vulnerability vs invalidation
2. Active passivity (seeking a rescuer, accepting incompetence) vs. apparent competence (portraying competence when internally things are falling apart)
3. Unremitting crises vs. inhibited grief
Gunderson's Psychoanalytic Conception of BPD entails:
1. Intense, unstable relationships, in which the borderline always gets hurt (or perceives it that way).
2. Repetitive self-destructive behavior, so as to prompt rescue; entails suicidality.
3. Chronic panic or fear of abandonment (that entails clinging) when forced to be alone.
4. Distorted perceptions of interpersonal interactions.
5. Hypersensitivity to both verbal and non-verbal communication.
6. Impulsive behaviors that later embarrass the borderline
7. Poor social adaptation in regards to what is acceptable regarding academic and vocational performance.
Correlational Signs: Comorbidities
Individuals with borderline commonly have:
ADD-like problems with concentration, anxiety, a major depressive episode, substance abuse that requires treatment, panic disorders, social phobias, eating disorders, and substance use in general. Remission of BPD-symptoms entail reduced mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. All BPD suffers, basically, also suffer from Axis I DSM-IV disorders. Another relatively common disorder associated with BPD is Bipolar disorder. Other subclinical signs include ruminating or obsessing about the past, and having a blameful view of most interpersonal interactions.
Diagnostic Criteria
1. Shifts in mood that last for only hours.
2. Anger that is uninhibited or inappropriate.
3. Self-destructive acts, such as suicidal threats, gestures, attempts, as well as cutting.
4. Two Impulsive behaviors, including substance abuse, eating disorders, sexual compulsivity, reckless driving, excessive shopping, and gambling.
5. Marked Identity disturbances regarding: sexual orientation, long-term goals, career goals, view of friendships. Basically, an inconsistent self-image
6. Chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom, that may or may not be consciously acknowledged. Could be described as feeling as though they have a deep hole in their stomach, which is filled through relationships.
7. Unstable chaotic relationships that entail splitting between idealization and devaluation. One second you're amazing, the next you're an asshole.
8. Frantic Efforts to Avoid Abandonment, even if somewhat subconscious. Includes the alternating clinging and distancing behaviors, described by: "I hate you, don't leave me"; sensitivity to criticism or rejection; heavy need for affection or reassurance; and great difficulty trusting others and themselves.
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. This is to say, feeling "out of it" or not remembering what was said or done during stressful situations.
Miscellaneous Features
People with borderline often are charismatic, the life of the party, when not 'acting out'.
May have problems with object constancy; this is to say that they may forget or disregard their feelings for someone when they are out of sight.
Frequently work to avoid being alone, even during benign periods of time.
Have a chaotic history of vocational and academic pursuits.
Almost all have a background of either physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or a combination.
As with most Cluster Bs, a sense of entitlement, demandingness, and manipulativeness are very common, to the point that therapists and doctors need to establish firm, constant boundaries or else they risk being emotionally compromised by the borderline.
Borderlines often "freak out" over minutiae or perceptual distortion over minute aspects of social interaction.
Borderlines are notorious for being great sexual partners due to hypersexual impulsivity.
Borderlines often rage in the face of social frustration.
Prognosis:
The good news? Prognosis is generally better for individuals with BPD who have:
High IQ (>120)
Low narcissistic Entitlement
Non-divorced parents
A Presenece of physicalmutilation when admitted into inpatient treatment
The bad news? That is very few borderlines. Poorer prognosis occurs when:
The borderline has been sexually abused
There are marked impulsive behaviors, such as sexual compulsivity and/or substance abuse.
Multiple Axis I disorders
There is sexual abuse that is incestuous in nature.
Neurobiological Changes or Risk Factors
Brain evidence for borderline personality disorder includes:
Hyperarousal of the HPA-axis (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal) to emotional stimuli.
Reduced Hippocampus, Amygdala, OFC, ACC, and Prefrontal brain size.
Hypometabolism in the prefrontal cortex and ACC at baseline.
Hyperamygdalar response to interpersonal interactions
Dopamine and Serotonin dysfunction or inefficiency that entails impulsivity.
What To Do If Involved With One?
Unless the borderline is a family member, has had substantial treatment for several years in a stable therapeutic environment, or is willing to consider such treatment, one may need to consider for one's own sake whether or not to get out before they get too far in. BPD is an ingrained and relatively stable interpersonal style, rather than an acute organic disease process. Borderlines generally do not improve unless involved in intense therapy for more than a decade and/or the condition remits after the 5th decade of life. There are treatments for BPD, such as Dialectic Behavioral Therapy, and generally the point for the non-BPD person should be to avoid these type of relationship dynamics wherever possible, because an uncontained borderline is skiled in unintentionally manipulating the non-borderline into the borderline 'matrix' as it is referred to.
Again, (as well said by a dissenting comment) this is not to suggest that borderline sufferers aren't people deserving of empathy and understanding, nor is it to say that people of sinister motive who themselves are incapable of such empathy (on the contrary, I have encountered the term "hyper-empathic state" on more than one occasion as it pertained to the borderline matrix). It is a complex neurobiological 'configuration', and insofar as this person needs help to manage and contain it, it is incumbent upon someone with BPD to ensure that they are committed to such for the health of the relationship. It is also strongly recommended that one who plays the role of the counter-borderline in the relationship also receive therapeutic treatment, as it can be a highly turbulent dynamic that requires such to keep sound footing.
I've many sources, feel free to contact me for citation.
What causes BPD?
It is thought that an emotionally invalidating, neglectful, or abusive early childhood--combined with a genetic predisposition--creates the recipe for someone who has BPD. Specific types of abuse include sexual abuse from or not from a caretaker, as well as emotional abuse and physical abuse from a caretaker. Furthermore, it is thought that secrecy or the lack of discussion surrounding sexual abuse increases the risk factor for BPD. Weak early attachments, which create an attachment schema that fluctuates between extreme neediness alternating with fear of involvement, are also prevalent in indivudals with BPD. Generally, diagnosis is not made until adulthood, but antisocial signs in females prior to the age of 15 are significant indicators of the potential for having BPD as an adult. It is important to note that "age of onset" of symptoms generally occur from age 10-18. Furthermore, disturbed parental involvement, entailing an antisocial parent, a neglectful parent, and/or parents that get divorced are common in individuals with BPD.
Linehan theorizes that BPD entails three dialectics which people with BPD constantly swing from, such as:
1. Vulnerability vs invalidation
2. Active passivity (seeking a rescuer, accepting incompetence) vs. apparent competence (portraying competence when internally things are falling apart)
3. Unremitting crises vs. inhibited grief
Gunderson's Psychoanalytic Conception of BPD entails:
1. Intense, unstable relationships, in which the borderline always gets hurt (or perceives it that way).
2. Repetitive self-destructive behavior, so as to prompt rescue; entails suicidality.
3. Chronic panic or fear of abandonment (that entails clinging) when forced to be alone.
4. Distorted perceptions of interpersonal interactions.
5. Hypersensitivity to both verbal and non-verbal communication.
6. Impulsive behaviors that later embarrass the borderline
7. Poor social adaptation in regards to what is acceptable regarding academic and vocational performance.
Correlational Signs: Comorbidities
Individuals with borderline commonly have:
ADD-like problems with concentration, anxiety, a major depressive episode, substance abuse that requires treatment, panic disorders, social phobias, eating disorders, and substance use in general. Remission of BPD-symptoms entail reduced mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. All BPD suffers, basically, also suffer from Axis I DSM-IV disorders. Another relatively common disorder associated with BPD is Bipolar disorder. Other subclinical signs include ruminating or obsessing about the past, and having a blameful view of most interpersonal interactions.
Diagnostic Criteria
1. Shifts in mood that last for only hours.
2. Anger that is uninhibited or inappropriate.
3. Self-destructive acts, such as suicidal threats, gestures, attempts, as well as cutting.
4. Two Impulsive behaviors, including substance abuse, eating disorders, sexual compulsivity, reckless driving, excessive shopping, and gambling.
5. Marked Identity disturbances regarding: sexual orientation, long-term goals, career goals, view of friendships. Basically, an inconsistent self-image
6. Chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom, that may or may not be consciously acknowledged. Could be described as feeling as though they have a deep hole in their stomach, which is filled through relationships.
7. Unstable chaotic relationships that entail splitting between idealization and devaluation. One second you're amazing, the next you're an asshole.
8. Frantic Efforts to Avoid Abandonment, even if somewhat subconscious. Includes the alternating clinging and distancing behaviors, described by: "I hate you, don't leave me"; sensitivity to criticism or rejection; heavy need for affection or reassurance; and great difficulty trusting others and themselves.
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. This is to say, feeling "out of it" or not remembering what was said or done during stressful situations.
Miscellaneous Features
People with borderline often are charismatic, the life of the party, when not 'acting out'.
May have problems with object constancy; this is to say that they may forget or disregard their feelings for someone when they are out of sight.
Frequently work to avoid being alone, even during benign periods of time.
Have a chaotic history of vocational and academic pursuits.
Almost all have a background of either physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or a combination.
As with most Cluster Bs, a sense of entitlement, demandingness, and manipulativeness are very common, to the point that therapists and doctors need to establish firm, constant boundaries or else they risk being emotionally compromised by the borderline.
Borderlines often "freak out" over minutiae or perceptual distortion over minute aspects of social interaction.
Borderlines are notorious for being great sexual partners due to hypersexual impulsivity.
Borderlines often rage in the face of social frustration.
Prognosis:
The good news? Prognosis is generally better for individuals with BPD who have:
High IQ (>120)
Low narcissistic Entitlement
Non-divorced parents
A Presenece of physicalmutilation when admitted into inpatient treatment
The bad news? That is very few borderlines. Poorer prognosis occurs when:
The borderline has been sexually abused
There are marked impulsive behaviors, such as sexual compulsivity and/or substance abuse.
Multiple Axis I disorders
There is sexual abuse that is incestuous in nature.
Neurobiological Changes or Risk Factors
Brain evidence for borderline personality disorder includes:
Hyperarousal of the HPA-axis (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal) to emotional stimuli.
Reduced Hippocampus, Amygdala, OFC, ACC, and Prefrontal brain size.
Hypometabolism in the prefrontal cortex and ACC at baseline.
Hyperamygdalar response to interpersonal interactions
Dopamine and Serotonin dysfunction or inefficiency that entails impulsivity.
What To Do If Involved With One?
Unless the borderline is a family member, has had substantial treatment for several years in a stable therapeutic environment, or is willing to consider such treatment, one may need to consider for one's own sake whether or not to get out before they get too far in. BPD is an ingrained and relatively stable interpersonal style, rather than an acute organic disease process. Borderlines generally do not improve unless involved in intense therapy for more than a decade and/or the condition remits after the 5th decade of life. There are treatments for BPD, such as Dialectic Behavioral Therapy, and generally the point for the non-BPD person should be to avoid these type of relationship dynamics wherever possible, because an uncontained borderline is skiled in unintentionally manipulating the non-borderline into the borderline 'matrix' as it is referred to.
Again, (as well said by a dissenting comment) this is not to suggest that borderline sufferers aren't people deserving of empathy and understanding, nor is it to say that people of sinister motive who themselves are incapable of such empathy (on the contrary, I have encountered the term "hyper-empathic state" on more than one occasion as it pertained to the borderline matrix). It is a complex neurobiological 'configuration', and insofar as this person needs help to manage and contain it, it is incumbent upon someone with BPD to ensure that they are committed to such for the health of the relationship. It is also strongly recommended that one who plays the role of the counter-borderline in the relationship also receive therapeutic treatment, as it can be a highly turbulent dynamic that requires such to keep sound footing.
I've many sources, feel free to contact me for citation.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Learning / Love Styles
I'm convinced there is a connection between the way we learn, and the way we love. There are 3 basic learning styles, and 5 love languages.
The learning styles are:
1. Visual
2. Auditory
3. Tactile/Kinesthetic
The love languages are:
1. Words of Affirmation
2. Gifts
3. Acts of Service
4. Touch
5. Quality Time
Identifying the way your partner learns and loves is empirically important in any relationship. For the purpose of this blog, I'm focusing on spousal relationships.
We normally don't utilize the same learning style or love language as our partner. This problem is often at the base of disagreements, arguments and frustration.
This also helps us explain how the 'honeymoon' period can fade so quickly.
For example, Gary and Louise have been dating for a few months. They decide to move in together. Makes financial sense, and plus they're soooooooo in love.
Initially, things are wonderful. Lots of time together, lots of animal kingdom type love makin, and nothing seems to upset either of them.
Some months down the road, the chemicals/hormones in the brain change. This causes behavior and perception to change. Those small problems don't seem so small. Louise is annoyed that Gary never picks up his clothes, and Gary is equally upset that Louise doesn't want to do the baby makin dance anymore.
Eventually things get so bad, Gary splits. They stop seeing each other. However, the problems don't end there. Gary and Louise are likely to experience the same problems in their next relationship. They'll be with different people with different backgrounds, baggage, genitals, and love languages, but the problem will perpetuate instead of diminish. Why?
Clearly, Gary's a slob, and that has to be dealt with. Louise sounds like a little tease, that's no good either. Beyond that, Gary didn't see a big problem leaving his undies on the floor and Louise didn't see the problem with not having sex but once a month.
It is likely that Gary best speaks the language of love through physical touch, and Louise through acts of service. Since this is my story, I'm going to say that's exactly what it was, and you'll believe me.
We often fail to recognize that the love language we speak fluently is often foreign and unfamiliar to our partners.
The best and easiest way to recognize your partners love language is to pay attention to how they show love - this is often how they prefer to receive it. Do they buy you lots of crap? Are they constantly trying to monopolize your time? Are they wanting to do the hanky panky more than 3 times a day? Do they make you feel weird with all of their compliments? Do they do your laundry without you asking?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Speak their language and get them to speak yours.
To learn more go buy the book the 5 love languages by Gary. I forget his last name, but I don't think it's the same Gary from the above story.
Next time I'll talk about learning styles and identifying them, then tie them together with the love languages in a metaphorically beautiful arrangement of text.
The learning styles are:
1. Visual
2. Auditory
3. Tactile/Kinesthetic
The love languages are:
1. Words of Affirmation
2. Gifts
3. Acts of Service
4. Touch
5. Quality Time
Identifying the way your partner learns and loves is empirically important in any relationship. For the purpose of this blog, I'm focusing on spousal relationships.
We normally don't utilize the same learning style or love language as our partner. This problem is often at the base of disagreements, arguments and frustration.
This also helps us explain how the 'honeymoon' period can fade so quickly.
For example, Gary and Louise have been dating for a few months. They decide to move in together. Makes financial sense, and plus they're soooooooo in love.
Initially, things are wonderful. Lots of time together, lots of animal kingdom type love makin, and nothing seems to upset either of them.
Some months down the road, the chemicals/hormones in the brain change. This causes behavior and perception to change. Those small problems don't seem so small. Louise is annoyed that Gary never picks up his clothes, and Gary is equally upset that Louise doesn't want to do the baby makin dance anymore.
Eventually things get so bad, Gary splits. They stop seeing each other. However, the problems don't end there. Gary and Louise are likely to experience the same problems in their next relationship. They'll be with different people with different backgrounds, baggage, genitals, and love languages, but the problem will perpetuate instead of diminish. Why?
Clearly, Gary's a slob, and that has to be dealt with. Louise sounds like a little tease, that's no good either. Beyond that, Gary didn't see a big problem leaving his undies on the floor and Louise didn't see the problem with not having sex but once a month.
It is likely that Gary best speaks the language of love through physical touch, and Louise through acts of service. Since this is my story, I'm going to say that's exactly what it was, and you'll believe me.
We often fail to recognize that the love language we speak fluently is often foreign and unfamiliar to our partners.
The best and easiest way to recognize your partners love language is to pay attention to how they show love - this is often how they prefer to receive it. Do they buy you lots of crap? Are they constantly trying to monopolize your time? Are they wanting to do the hanky panky more than 3 times a day? Do they make you feel weird with all of their compliments? Do they do your laundry without you asking?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Speak their language and get them to speak yours.
To learn more go buy the book the 5 love languages by Gary. I forget his last name, but I don't think it's the same Gary from the above story.
Next time I'll talk about learning styles and identifying them, then tie them together with the love languages in a metaphorically beautiful arrangement of text.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Your Weekly Dose of Logic: To Misconstrue or Not to Misconstrue
Historical examples exist where certain statements' meanings have been lost in translation, either by accident of perception or purposely to propagandize a situation.
An example of such lie in the Potsdam Declaration of1945; the Allies demanded the Japanese surrender, laying out several conditions which need be met for the surrender to be accepted; somewhere amongst quotations and translations, either Truman himself or the Emperor ended up interpreting such as meaning the "unconditional surrender" of the Japanese people. Needless to say, though Emperor Hirohito wanted peace, such a thought is tantamount to complete subjugation or slavery, and thus the Japanese replied with "mokusatsu", which is also ambiguous, having two meanings in the Japanese language--one meaning to scornfully condemn through contemptuous silence, another meaning to silently consider further. Needless to say, given that the Japanese were the aggressors and had recently stepped up their resistance in the Pacific Theatre, the Allies appropriately (arguably) did not give the Japanese the benefit of the doubt, and continued on with the eventual atomic bombing of Japan.
The point of this is to make clear how easy it is for misinterpretation to be rampant in the telephone game of language. People hear what is said, and based on their preferences in perception, decide the underlying meaning, often negatively misinterpreting statements in politics because they wish to spin topics to their advantage. An example of this lie in the recent issue between Clinton and Obama.
Obama's statement that Reagan was a political figure who was able to make his party one of ideas says nothing of Obama's opinion on the ideas themselves. Out of convenience, Clinton uses the sentiment against Obama, claiming Obama liked Reagan's ideas. There is a logical difference in the statement "ideas" and "good ideas"; one lacks a modification of quality, the other denotes approval. Obama never declared approving of said ideas, and thus it is unfair to claim such. This is a typical straw man fallacy, used to distort statements and beat up what was "supposively" said rather than the actual statement.
Furthermore, Clinton brought up that Obama apparently was for a single payer health care system. There is a logical difference between a conditional statement, such as "if we started from scratch, then single payer would be optimal", and simply declaring "single payer is optimal". One says "if p then q", the other just says "p". This is a suppression of evidence, where one chops off the hypothetical aspect of the statement in order to fit their goal of distorting their adversaries opinion.
Such tactics do a disservice to the public, who are easily motivated by biases to accept these spins as accurate; moreover, this is precisely the type of politicking Obama has railed against in his presidential campaign. It is quite alright to question his record and statements, but it is another thing to spin his record and statements into propaganda as the Clintons have done. As an individual who loathes such sociopathic maneuvering, it discourages me from supporting Hillary Clinton in any national election if she were to be nominated.
Beware of such fallacious distortions and ones possible biases to them (as seen in the historical distortions of the Potsdam Declaration) before accepting them as fact.
An example of such lie in the Potsdam Declaration of1945; the Allies demanded the Japanese surrender, laying out several conditions which need be met for the surrender to be accepted; somewhere amongst quotations and translations, either Truman himself or the Emperor ended up interpreting such as meaning the "unconditional surrender" of the Japanese people. Needless to say, though Emperor Hirohito wanted peace, such a thought is tantamount to complete subjugation or slavery, and thus the Japanese replied with "mokusatsu", which is also ambiguous, having two meanings in the Japanese language--one meaning to scornfully condemn through contemptuous silence, another meaning to silently consider further. Needless to say, given that the Japanese were the aggressors and had recently stepped up their resistance in the Pacific Theatre, the Allies appropriately (arguably) did not give the Japanese the benefit of the doubt, and continued on with the eventual atomic bombing of Japan.
The point of this is to make clear how easy it is for misinterpretation to be rampant in the telephone game of language. People hear what is said, and based on their preferences in perception, decide the underlying meaning, often negatively misinterpreting statements in politics because they wish to spin topics to their advantage. An example of this lie in the recent issue between Clinton and Obama.
Obama's statement that Reagan was a political figure who was able to make his party one of ideas says nothing of Obama's opinion on the ideas themselves. Out of convenience, Clinton uses the sentiment against Obama, claiming Obama liked Reagan's ideas. There is a logical difference in the statement "ideas" and "good ideas"; one lacks a modification of quality, the other denotes approval. Obama never declared approving of said ideas, and thus it is unfair to claim such. This is a typical straw man fallacy, used to distort statements and beat up what was "supposively" said rather than the actual statement.
Furthermore, Clinton brought up that Obama apparently was for a single payer health care system. There is a logical difference between a conditional statement, such as "if we started from scratch, then single payer would be optimal", and simply declaring "single payer is optimal". One says "if p then q", the other just says "p". This is a suppression of evidence, where one chops off the hypothetical aspect of the statement in order to fit their goal of distorting their adversaries opinion.
Such tactics do a disservice to the public, who are easily motivated by biases to accept these spins as accurate; moreover, this is precisely the type of politicking Obama has railed against in his presidential campaign. It is quite alright to question his record and statements, but it is another thing to spin his record and statements into propaganda as the Clintons have done. As an individual who loathes such sociopathic maneuvering, it discourages me from supporting Hillary Clinton in any national election if she were to be nominated.
Beware of such fallacious distortions and ones possible biases to them (as seen in the historical distortions of the Potsdam Declaration) before accepting them as fact.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Your Weekly Dose of Logic: Golden Age? Part II
So, I've laid out an argument for the idea that technology will gradually bring people together in a more symbiotic manner over time, thereby reducing war and augmenting health, both emotionally and physically. Now I wish to address some of the basic rebuttals to Scott Adams' post to explain why the arguments are fallacious or irrelevant to the point:
I though to get to some kind of "Golden Age" we'd have to first go through some kind of ... revolution. i.e. the Rennaisance? I mean doesn't there have to be some kind of reform of our government and society BEFORE we can get to the Golden Age?
Fallacy Category: Complex Question Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance
The reason this is obfuscatory and fallacious is because of the fact that it is implying that reformation isn't occurring in the line of questioning...social reformation is perpetual--beit positive or negative, by high level of reformation as in democracy or in revolution as in monarchial systems--and as such, the point being made here is inaccurate. Every generation neurologically evolves based on experiential-dependent instruction, which implies no one person's situation is the same as the prior generation, more or less entirely interacting social bodies. History may appear to repeat itself macroscopically, but the reality is that evolution is an ongoing process, and given the human capacity to manipulate his environment, "anthroselection" is certainly entering a Golden Age because of technology.
There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I thought that the world was getting a little better. That finally, people started to learn to live together. That they started to understand that that is the only option to have a good life, without being killed or killing.
That was a time that I was optimistic and maybe not realistic. Then some planes flew into some buildings ...
Fallacy: Appeal to Fear, Red Herring?
Pretty prominent in politics today, this type of emotive appeal is very motivating because the reward pathways of the brain are emotionally driven by the amygdala and other limbic structures. Very primitive way of looking at things--the uniquely human features of the brain involve more calculated analysis, modulating emotions so as to not irrationally drive the brain due to prior trauma.
Most people simply don't understand that unless we quit producing more babies, all the technology in the world won't save us.
There will be no so-called "golden age" until this sinks in with the majority.
The time will come when we will long for the golden years of fighting over mere idealism and religion.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance with a Suppression of Evidence
This one is very bothersome because of the suppression of this point: it is not the case that the "production" of babies is somehow uncorrelated to technology; population explosion directly correlates to technological advances, as seen in the advent of agrarianism (and culture) 10,000 years ago. Population and interpersonal interaction itself drives technology via intellectual stimulation, as over 100 years of psychological evidence suggests. I am uncertain how overpopulation can even be qualified: if it is the case that population size and technology are congruous, then most certainly technology will "save us". See: the evolution of biomedicine in the 19th century if one disagrees.
A logic error at your arguments, Scott! Gotcha!
If economy at its present state is destroyed as technology developments you describe will surely render, maintaining trade links will not be that much important. And BTW, many wars of today are NOT fueled by economic reasons mainly but by cultural.
Fallacy: Straw Man Distortion
Economic exchange will be destroyed? I believe the reality is that economics will evolve to a point where more symbiotic exchange will become possible, NOT that reciprocal exchange will somehow die. This is an unqualified statement that defies millions of years of evolution. Technology has augmented and facilitated interpersonal exchange, evident in primate social systems such as orangutans (when socializing) and chimpanzees.
As one can see, naysayers often find intransigence in their arguments through being unwilling to argue logically.
Until next time, keep in mind that everything someone says or does really says something about themselves, such as fallacious reasoning founded in unhealthy emotional biases.
I though to get to some kind of "Golden Age" we'd have to first go through some kind of ... revolution. i.e. the Rennaisance? I mean doesn't there have to be some kind of reform of our government and society BEFORE we can get to the Golden Age?
Fallacy Category: Complex Question Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance
The reason this is obfuscatory and fallacious is because of the fact that it is implying that reformation isn't occurring in the line of questioning...social reformation is perpetual--beit positive or negative, by high level of reformation as in democracy or in revolution as in monarchial systems--and as such, the point being made here is inaccurate. Every generation neurologically evolves based on experiential-dependent instruction, which implies no one person's situation is the same as the prior generation, more or less entirely interacting social bodies. History may appear to repeat itself macroscopically, but the reality is that evolution is an ongoing process, and given the human capacity to manipulate his environment, "anthroselection" is certainly entering a Golden Age because of technology.
There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I thought that the world was getting a little better. That finally, people started to learn to live together. That they started to understand that that is the only option to have a good life, without being killed or killing.
That was a time that I was optimistic and maybe not realistic. Then some planes flew into some buildings ...
Fallacy: Appeal to Fear, Red Herring?
Pretty prominent in politics today, this type of emotive appeal is very motivating because the reward pathways of the brain are emotionally driven by the amygdala and other limbic structures. Very primitive way of looking at things--the uniquely human features of the brain involve more calculated analysis, modulating emotions so as to not irrationally drive the brain due to prior trauma.
Most people simply don't understand that unless we quit producing more babies, all the technology in the world won't save us.
There will be no so-called "golden age" until this sinks in with the majority.
The time will come when we will long for the golden years of fighting over mere idealism and religion.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance with a Suppression of Evidence
This one is very bothersome because of the suppression of this point: it is not the case that the "production" of babies is somehow uncorrelated to technology; population explosion directly correlates to technological advances, as seen in the advent of agrarianism (and culture) 10,000 years ago. Population and interpersonal interaction itself drives technology via intellectual stimulation, as over 100 years of psychological evidence suggests. I am uncertain how overpopulation can even be qualified: if it is the case that population size and technology are congruous, then most certainly technology will "save us". See: the evolution of biomedicine in the 19th century if one disagrees.
A logic error at your arguments, Scott! Gotcha!
If economy at its present state is destroyed as technology developments you describe will surely render, maintaining trade links will not be that much important. And BTW, many wars of today are NOT fueled by economic reasons mainly but by cultural.
Fallacy: Straw Man Distortion
Economic exchange will be destroyed? I believe the reality is that economics will evolve to a point where more symbiotic exchange will become possible, NOT that reciprocal exchange will somehow die. This is an unqualified statement that defies millions of years of evolution. Technology has augmented and facilitated interpersonal exchange, evident in primate social systems such as orangutans (when socializing) and chimpanzees.
As one can see, naysayers often find intransigence in their arguments through being unwilling to argue logically.
Until next time, keep in mind that everything someone says or does really says something about themselves, such as fallacious reasoning founded in unhealthy emotional biases.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Your Weekly Dose of Logic: Golden Age? Part I
It's been quite a while since I blogged, but such is life in the dreary desolation we call winter. Anyway, down to business. The creator of Dilbert recently posted a very intuitive blog that I wish to add neuropsychological credence to.
You may find it here
It is absolutely true that energy and medical technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace; here's a few medical headliners courtesy of Science Daily and Medical News Today:
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created Without The Destruction Of Embryos
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created That Avoid Immune Rejection
Beating Heart Created In Laboratory: Method May Revolutionize How Organ Tissus Are Developed
Skin Cells Reprogrammed To Behave Like Embryonic Stem Cells
First Primate Embryonic Stem Cells Cloned By US Scientists
To expound upon the point of technology resulting in the reduction of war, one may look simply at the development of nuclear weapons and its effective relegation of war to diplomacy as seen in the Cold War; if one sees this as insufficient, then let us consider Neurobiologist Bruce Wexler's idea of internal-external consonance . This is a refinement of the idea of cognitive dissonance, explaining how people develop a sense of internal self from the external world, and once fully developed have a difficult time assimilating change, instead largely acting to manipulate the external world around them to become consonant with their internal viewpoints:
"It is the neurobiological imperative to maintain consistency between internal structures [of the brain] and the external environment that fuels the struggle to control the story...Neurobiological antagonism to difference, and the associated pressure to eliminate strange or foreign peoples with different ideologies...contributes to violent conflict...[However,] the angry consternation of the [society's] elders will not stop the youth of each culture from assuming characteristics from the others and then changing their cultures from within as they themselves assume leadership roles and act to make the external world consonant with their hybrid selves."
With that in mind, once one considers how technology brings together cultures that, although initially resisting change because it does not fit with their internal view of how the world should be, it becomes increasingly evident that one global culture will arise--one accepting of regional differences, that works synergistically toward a common goal of individual and global health.
This is a process, like evolution, that takes many years, but America is a microscopic example of what is happening globally. The general trend of our intracultural abuse has been negative (reducing), evidence being Women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. This is also the evolutionary process foreseen by Ernest Lawrence, Neils Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Edward Teller, scientists in the Manhattan Project, who used technology to reduce war to a diplomatic antagonism by relegating the security of the West and the USSR to a state of mutual dependency.
It was an excellent post, but of course the naysayers came out in full bore, projecting their psychopathology onto Scott Adams. So let's address some of the points stated in repudiation of the idea of a future Golden Age in my next post, shall we?
You may find it here
It is absolutely true that energy and medical technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace; here's a few medical headliners courtesy of Science Daily and Medical News Today:
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created Without The Destruction Of Embryos
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created That Avoid Immune Rejection
Beating Heart Created In Laboratory: Method May Revolutionize How Organ Tissus Are Developed
Skin Cells Reprogrammed To Behave Like Embryonic Stem Cells
First Primate Embryonic Stem Cells Cloned By US Scientists
To expound upon the point of technology resulting in the reduction of war, one may look simply at the development of nuclear weapons and its effective relegation of war to diplomacy as seen in the Cold War; if one sees this as insufficient, then let us consider Neurobiologist Bruce Wexler's idea of internal-external consonance . This is a refinement of the idea of cognitive dissonance, explaining how people develop a sense of internal self from the external world, and once fully developed have a difficult time assimilating change, instead largely acting to manipulate the external world around them to become consonant with their internal viewpoints:
"It is the neurobiological imperative to maintain consistency between internal structures [of the brain] and the external environment that fuels the struggle to control the story...Neurobiological antagonism to difference, and the associated pressure to eliminate strange or foreign peoples with different ideologies...contributes to violent conflict...[However,] the angry consternation of the [society's] elders will not stop the youth of each culture from assuming characteristics from the others and then changing their cultures from within as they themselves assume leadership roles and act to make the external world consonant with their hybrid selves."
With that in mind, once one considers how technology brings together cultures that, although initially resisting change because it does not fit with their internal view of how the world should be, it becomes increasingly evident that one global culture will arise--one accepting of regional differences, that works synergistically toward a common goal of individual and global health.
This is a process, like evolution, that takes many years, but America is a microscopic example of what is happening globally. The general trend of our intracultural abuse has been negative (reducing), evidence being Women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. This is also the evolutionary process foreseen by Ernest Lawrence, Neils Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Edward Teller, scientists in the Manhattan Project, who used technology to reduce war to a diplomatic antagonism by relegating the security of the West and the USSR to a state of mutual dependency.
It was an excellent post, but of course the naysayers came out in full bore, projecting their psychopathology onto Scott Adams. So let's address some of the points stated in repudiation of the idea of a future Golden Age in my next post, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
