Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: neuroscience

Posted by gardenergirl on September 19, 2005, at 12:29:40

In reply to gardenergirl Sorry, I was in some kinda hurry, posted by 64bowtie on September 17, 2005, at 1:40:37

> Part 'B' of the issue is that the results don't change by your settling your mind about the exactness of my representations of the etiology of the model...

True, but if I could put what you are saying into the language I learned about neurology, then I could form a better opinion of what you are saying.

>The outcome is that, with the population of neurons being actually more in the 'gut' than in the brain at birth, and feelings end up being stored in the gut, it's likely that reasoning via feelings can leave us missing a better big picture of our lives as adults...

See, here's where I am confused. Are you talking about the connections from the autonomic nervous system to the internal organs and mesentery? If so, I wouldn't necessarily characterize that as neurons "in" the gut. Rather, I would call it a connection to the gut. As far as reasoning via the gut, surely taking in the "data" from feelings and integrating it with the rational mind would lead to better "outcomes" in understanding what's going on with us? They don't call intuition a "gut feeling" as a derogatory, but rather view it as a useful tool.
> Since I keep bringing up that sticky little point that toooo many folks with toooo many troubles end up by age 35 or 40 feeling a need to end it all, I am contiuing to connect this negative results to a propensity to hold on to a part of themselves that no longer exists, their childhood... I can be partly wrong when anyone wants to ignore the obvious... I'll take on that risk...

Rod, my childhood certainly does still exist. It exists within me and is part of the sum total of who I am. I would absolutely HATE to think of what I'd be like if that were not there. That's not to say that I don't sometimes act from drives and needs from childhood. Learning to recognize what those drives and needs are, and finding ways to meet them in "adaptive for this time in my life" ways is a huge part of my therapy process. But even if I accomplish that on a more consistent basis, it does not mean that I am letting go of childhood. You CAN'T let go of it. You can't erase the past, you don't get a re-do, and the issues, needs, drives, etc. from childhood continue to be a force. It's how much else is a force in your life, how much more of you there is, that correlates with adaptive functioning.
> Along with childhood comes the accepted limitations of black and white reasoning, seeking of feel-goods instead of options when problem solving, and overall poor impulse-management... So, why would anyone seek the comfort of childhood???

Have you ever, as an adult: swung on a swing? Jumped in a pile of fall leaves just to hear their crunch and release that marvelous fall smell? Skipped stones on a pond or lake? Danced or sang from simple joy? Watched a cartoon? Eaten fish sticks and macaroni and cheese for dinner? Colored? Stared up at the stars and wondered how far they are or how they got there?

Being in touch with your child-like nature is a good thing. It affords balance in life, and it is a source of simple joy if you let it. And being able to regress at times, to connect with your child-like nature does not mean that you regress in your thinking to more concrete stages. It's possible to be child-like at times and still be a rational thinker.
> I suggest its because of convenience... Laizefaire is always more convrenient, except when it isn't; anymore; when it's toooo late to change and adapt...

I don't think this is fair to those who have not had the opportunity or environment to develop fully. It's not because it's more convenient. It's not because they choose not to. A plant needs a certain amount of light, water, nutrients, and shelter in order to thrive. Even if all that is needed is in place, the plant could still be less developed, diseased, or even die. I don't think you can make generalizatoins about why people are or are not they way the are when there are way too many factors in the mix.

>Exempli gratia is the levees around New Orleans... It was easier to spend the moneys elsewhere, and now that was a big mistake...

I think saying it was easier is too simple. There lots of political, social, and economic forces affecting that outcome. You also cannot quantify the contribution of the personal experience, character, intellect, etc. of the person's involved in the decision.
> I seek folks strategies at overcoming the suffocating effects of holding onto what our 'gut' tells us inappropriately, inappropriately because we can do better than that!!! We're adults and no longer trapped by our childhood limitations...

Okay, I get that you are referring to "inappropriate" use of the gut as a tool. But define inappropriate?
> I keep refering to the book, "The Second Brain" which expands the accuracy of this information... Go ahead and read the book... If I'm wrong, I'll eat my truck (my 1964 'Bowtie' pick-up)

I'll have to add that to the list for post graduation. Did I link to the correct book?
> Rod
> PS: I don't have academic accesses that I used to... Perhaps I accept the principle toooo early in the discussion when safety would dictate that I get my bibligrophy in place before I open my mouth.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

That probably would help others more readily accept what you are saying .





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:gardenergirl thread:554523