Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The point I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly, is that “human nature” in the form of instinctual behaviours and brain stucture are a sizeable componant of our repertiore of behaviours.
They form the bedrock of our ongoing development and learning, and how we learn and what we learnt is varied but is biologically dependent.
However these instincts and brain structure of humans (and to all mammals to a larger or lesser extent) are strongly linked (through evolution) to cooperation, mutual aid, nurture and care for other members of our species and to care for other species (that’s why we have pets and why most of these pets are mammals, you don’t get much affectional back from a tarantula)
I think you have missed the point that I was trying to make.
The point is, is that the way that experience shapes/adapts our brain to survive in its environment is based on not only the experience itself but on the options for development set by the biology of the brain for it to develop in the first place.
You say “ That the way an individual behaves shapes the physical brain, in the ways you point out, again shows that the genetic structure a human has at birth has even less influence on their behaviour”.
I didnt say that the “way the individual BEHAVES” I said it is the biologically evolved ways the organism responds to the experiences the organism encounters, that influences the ways in which the brain develops.
So in the example I have of the higher levels of cortisol that are produced in regularly anxiety provoking experiences, (especially in infants and young children) the cortisol inhibits growth in areas such as long term memory, strategic planning and relaxation. It also increases the level of arousal, vigilance and short term reactivity. These responses are not conscious but occur as part of a “pre programmed” useful survival response and changes occur because of our evolutionary inheritance.
The process is far more complex than a simple learned behaviour.
This is why personality typology is linked to experiences, psychopaths personalities for example are not generally born but are generally results of many factors, including their early experiences.
If in the example given, the process of being psychopathic was a simple learned behaviour based on what the “genetic structure a human had at birth” it would be a simple process to support the individual to unlearn their behaviour, unfortunately that is not the way it works out in practice.
ALB – “what is determined by these (genes) is the capacity to learn behaviour, a fairly wide range in the case of humans”
Without being overly critical, I think it is too simplistic to state that our genes set us up as some kind of learning computer which then takes in information and then learns behaviour from the experiences it encounters.
Similarly those who criticise the classic Behaviourist Theories of people like Skinner, which state that behaviours are learned from the environment, that innate or inherited factors have very little influence on behaviour, do not state that learning from the environment does not exist, but rather that behaviour, personality, etc are a more complex interplay of instinct, functionality and experience.
For example Alan has described the caring and empathetic behaviour of some animals with regards to the young of other species (this can also be observed with some animals caring for the young of its own species, even though they are not their own offspring).
What is important to note is that when we see this kind of nurturing and empathetic behaviour, it is behaviour which is seen by animals which are mammals (very occasionally it might be seen by birds, but this is on a much less develop way and is much, much less common).
This behaviour has not been learned through some form of operant conditioning, if that was the case what would be the “tangible reward” of giving up your “survival energy” in order to care for another creature which does not aid the survival of the nurturing animal or its offspring and nor does it reward it in any tangible way.
Nurture, cooperation, mutual aid is part of the evolutionary inheritance of all mammals. For animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, testudines, etc. the survival conundrum is solved by number. For example a frog produce thousands of tadpoles and only need two to survive to breeding in order to maintain the species. The adult frog provides no protection.
For Mammals the production of milk and the associated nurture of the vulnerable infant increases the survival chances. Through a process of natural selection, which began from the emergence of the first mammals, those mammal mothers who were instinctively most nurturing and supportive were more likely to survive, similarly those infants that sought out nurture were also more likely to survive.
More complex mammals have longer periods of infant vulnerability. This is because the brains of more complex animals are bigger and therefore need to be born earlier in development. If the brain develops too far before birth the birth canal is too small to cope with the large brain. These mammals also produce fewer numbers of offspring, therefore the survival of the individual infant is more important to the survival of the species.
Human babies are born at a very early stage of development; if you compare the skills and behaviour of a new born lamb and a new born human child you can see the difference in terms of development. A new born lamb can walk and suckle independently within the first day of life.
Because of this the impact of infant care giver attachment relationships are more complex in mammals who are born in earlier stages of development, because they experience a greater time period where they are dependent and vulnerable. The formative experience is based on their instinctive response to nurture and the instinctive nurturing of the mother animal.
The imporance of nurture as opposed to food, as a determinent of attachment was clearly demonstrated by the harrowing experiments of monkeys undertaken by Harlow and Harlow.
This is a mix of not just instinct and learned behaviour but we also need to take into account the level of brain development that takes place during those experiences. A new born human baby’s brain is not the same as a 2 year old baby’s brain. A simple example of this is the use of internal language. A new born baby has no external language, but it also does not have any internal language, the internal speech we have which is also known as the interpsychic conversation. As the baby has no speech, the way they process experience is different from the way that the verbal child or human processes experience.
Vulnerability and safety have a profound impact not just in terms of learning and understanding the world but also in terms of the developing brain. For example high levels of cortisol (which is produced when we experience anxiety) reduce brain growth in more logical areas of the brain which leads to an increase in neural connections in the reactive limbic system, this is seen most clearly in scans of the brains of infants who have experienced poor early years care or have experienced abuse and or neglect. The brains of these infants are differently shaped compared to those who have experienced good early years care.
This is part of the process of the brain adapting to the most successful way of surviving in what has become a dangerous and an often life threatening situation. A reactive response with high levels of monitoring, high levels of anxiety and low levels of relaxation are more successful in this situation, than having a more thoughtful reflective response, which might end up with you being killed or maimed. Statistically the most likely people to kill you in infancy are your family.
Therefore the computer based analogy of hardware (instinct and genes) software (learning and experience) interaction is not really correct. The interplay of experience actually alters the physical hardware, these physical changes are changes that have been determined by the experiences we face but the ways in which the changes take place are preset because of our physiology, which has developed as a part of our evolutionary and therefore genetic inheritance.
Alan said “TS prefers to believe the Russian account”
To be fair to True Nazi he doesn’t just believe only Russian accounts, he was more than happy to believe a whole load of bullshit from Hitler that I fed him.
It seems he’s not too picky, he’ll believe anything he thinks comes from Putin, regardless of what it says and regardless if it actually came from Putin.
The irony is that if this easily fooled, gormless git was living in 1930s – 1940s Germany, he’d be first in the queue for the Nuremberg Rallies and would be in his element smashing up Jewish shops.
He’s already demonstrated that he finds the concept of turning human beings into fertiliser. I’ve no doubt he’d make a first class Nazi concentration camp guard.
Then he’d be able to live out his macabre fantasies without any real physical risk to himself, which would suit him as he clearly demonstrated that he’s a physical coward as well as an intellectual coward.
True Nazi “ And declaring Hitler to be a threat was also false? Listen to yourself”
I thought you supported Hitler’s occupation of the Sudetenland?
Make your mind up
True Nazi wrote “I didn’t want to be rude but how the hell would he know what the Nazi was thinking?”
Perhaps READING and trying to COMPREHEND what he wrote might help you.
Chelmsford actually wrote “I don’t think they were really ‘Nazis’, they were not into ideology, political theory and all that palaver, they just enjoyed a good punch-up.”
He used the words “I don’t think they were really Nazis”
You will note he said THINK, that signifies an OPINION.
If he had said “KNOW” (which is the word you used), that would have meant he was stating a fact. Which he wasn’t. So just to clarify for you, he said he thought it, he didn’t say he knew it.
Your comment also raises the question “how the hell” he would have reached that opinion (not know it as you state)
Well, to be fair to Chelmsford he gave you a little clue. If you read a little further (take it slowly, I don’t want to stress you out) he also said “they were not into ideology, political theory and all that palaver,” which allowed him to EXPLAIN the reason for the OPINION he expressed.
Not only that, he very kindly offered an opposing theory to explain their Nazi style behaviour “they just enjoyed a good punch-up”.
To add to the joy our readers get from your ability to misunderstand practically everything, you then move on to congratulate Chelmsford for punching a Nazi, where in fact Chelmsford wrote that he “somehow tottered up to this huge skinhead and…purchased a copy of Spearhead.”
What Chelmsford was showing was SELF DEPRECIATING HUMOUR. He was laughing at his lack of bravery as he didn’t confront the skinhead, he bought a copy of his magazine. Spearhead was the magazine of the National Front. Through this device of self deprecation he was also inviting us to join him in laughing at the nature of the human condition, i.e. being attracted to a young woman but not being able to follow up his attraction due to his (very understandable) fear of said skinhead.
So when referring to later developments, Chelmsford stated that “Fortunately this was the late 1970’s and there was still plenty of NHS dental treatment available and I only paid a nominal sum toward the upper denture. And you know I still have that relic of the anti-‘Nazi’ struggle in me gob. I do look like Albert Steptoe though”
What Chelmsford was implying, through the use of IRONIC HUMOUR, that the result of the confrontation was it HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE MOUTH and it was indeed Chelmsford who lost his teeth. That is why he said “I only paid a nominal sum towards the upper denture.
The final section of his beautifully developed contribution ended with “I do look like Albert Steptoe” related to a 1960s-79s Situation Comedy which had a character based an old rag and bone man named Albert Steptoe who was well known for his poor oral hygiene and his dentures. Another humorous and ironic aside.
Comprehension’s not your strong suit, then really what is?
On the plus side, we can add “understanding the way that the English Language” works to your ever increasing list of things you don’t understand.
Apologies to Chelmsford, humour does tend to suffer a little when it’s deconstructed for idiots.
True Nazi
“Great anecdote. Good on you for punching a Nazi.”
So we can add bathos into the list of concepts you don’t understand.
😂😂😂True Nazi “My god you people are dim.”
Not dim enough to fall for Hitler’s words masquerading as Putin’s.
If you can fall for that one, what other Nazi inspired bullshit are you falling for.
😂😂😂True Nazi – “Lol. All-in with the ruling elite thinks the Economist publishes “facts”. How many times your mama drop you on your head as an infant? Honest question.”
Just to enlighten you a little, Karl Marx regularly used The Economist (founded in 1843). His work, which you admit you have never read, has many, many references to his work.
Are you not starting to get a bit sick of making yourself look like a fool?
True Nazi said “ There, fixed it for you. Honest question, does anyone here take Alan seriously?”
Said the guy who agreed wholeheartedly with the words of Hitler, just because he was told they came from Putin.
Words, by the way he has yet to disown.
“But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here”ALB “ Something has gone wrong with the Western censors. I can get RT again on my phone.”
Looks like it’s been taken off line again. Maybe MI6 put some more pennies in their leccy meter
ALB, for the sake of consistency I assume that our resident Hitlerite/Stalinist will be part of a campaign starting out a campaign to return the Polish borders to their pre WW2 state and will be raising questions about the estimated 3-4 million Poles who were ethnically cleansed by the Soviet state and forced west of the Curzon line.
True Nazi – “I think this is all about daddy issues for you lot. You got spanked too much as a child and now rebel against all authority”
I think you have quite beautifully demonstrated one of the problems with relying on leaders, without any thought.
Followers like you are happy to follow what their leaders (or follow Hitler if you think it’s your leader) say blindly.
So seriously, True Nazi, we have you on record supporting Hitler’s views on the Sudeten German question, do you still support the speech you praised so enthusiastically?
