St..Da

cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sat Apr 18 18:40:55 EST 1998


(Sorry, slightly stoned...;-)


> The problem is to  predict 
>    how  a person is going to behave. In what manner  should 
>    we go about this prediction?
Ask them at the right time. Or someone who has known them real long.

>    We may order 
Who tries to order people might not have understood much about
equality and lag a bit behind even the French revolution...
Except if they make it clear beyond doubt that they like you to order
them to do something.

>The  combination of  all  these  data 
>    enables us to CLASSIFY the subject; 
How do you wish to classify someone?
List dozens to hundreds of subprograms in the amygdala and
hypothalamus and elsewhere + their connections 
that  have to do with the troubles?
English and German do not have names for them, so it is impossible.
As long as the language is not constructed to name them, you can not
classify correctly.

I guess a language could be constructed and maybe should be
constructed, but I assume that might take a long time, and at the
moment the ones who might be able to do it often neither have the
money not the interest to do it.

My first idea would be to make the basolateral part of the amygdala 1,
the area from there forwards upwards that has to do with upsetment 2,
the one that makes the aggressions and rank stuff (hypothalamus?) 3,
the own emotions 4, the adrenal glands 5, etc.,
and to then add letters and more numbers within the blocks (f.e.1
pregn. for the pregnanacy programs in a woman in the first block, or 1
child-parent-binding-program, ...)
and other connections at the end. (f.e. 3 ...,...,... CRH-->ACTH--->5
Cortisol ----> blablabladecreaseofdendrites&axonsetc.inthebrain....)

Though I am not sure that that is a good system; just the first one
coming to mind when thinking about how to make a "classification",
though I would pick another name.
If one could list a lot of the subprograms and connections and
alterations, that might help some to find the solutions.
But I must admit that I am more for the old-fashioned ways that have
been highly effective for thousands of years and just adpat them to
the folks that have the problems.
It is tradition of a good healer to be able to help most people to
O.K. within a few hours or days, and I see it so, too.
Eternal listings and classifications are not going to make the person
stable enough and content enough with life and the living and being
able to handle death and responsible enough to see to one's tasks and
watching to not disturb the others too much in the ways they pick for
their lives..
If a healer who can subperceive was to list every bioprogram that is
on a not good setting, that would take longer than to get it back to
where is should be.

I think the power of a healer is better invested in getting the person
back to an O.K. life within the next hours or days, 
than in making classifications as if one person was exactly like the
next, had the same connection- and cell-numbers, the same
transmitter-heights, the same past, the same parents...

Presonally I believe he might make classifications afterwards if that
is his sort of thing (though I am not really sure what for),
but first priority should be to balance the person back to feel O.K.
enough within and within society.

>and once having made  such  a  classification,  we  enter  a  statistical   or 
>    actuarial table which gives the statistical  frequencies 
>    of  behaviors of various sorts for persons belonging  to 
>    the  class. 

I do not think so (probably you just mean how often they occur) 
but are these real frequencies?  (If so, please send me all info about
that and job-availabilities in that area.)

>... we formulate, as a psychiatric 
>    staff   conference,   some   psychological    hypothesis 
>    regarding  the  structure  and  the  dynamics  of   this 
>    particular  individual. 
How the hell do you get, say the basolateral programs, into terms?
I have been struggling together with friends quite hard to describe
the structures of programs being connected with various other programs
in other sectors making sort of complicated structures, but usually we
gave up after a few minutes or just tried to send the program and hope
the other one catches it.
It's nearly futile. There are thousands of programs, and from the
rank-aggression-thingie there seem to be hundreds if not thousands
branching in and out, which were beyond the reach that I had back
then.
How the f... do you want to discuss "the structure"?
Enlish is not my language, and I feel awkward and restricted when
using it, so I might be mistaken, but I believe it is impossible to
put the structures of the subprograms of emotion-senders in the brain
and body into words in English or in German.
Last time I met some from the shrink front they were still classifying
the amygdala and hypothalamus and every endorphine and hormone to do
with emotions, etc., as the "ES" (it) or "the subconsious" in my
language

>In  the  actuarial  or  statistical  method the  human  judge  is 
>    eliminated  and conclusions rest solely  on  empirically 
>    established relations between data and the condition  or 
>    event  of  interest. 
Robot, you have been classified with dysfunction  "...",
you are ordered to move to class "..."!
Next one.

"I feel ignored by all."
"Classification: inferiority complex. Class "...". - Next one."
 
>....it is only if we have a 
>    reference  class to which the event in question  can  be 
>    ordered   that   the  possibility  of   determining   or 
>    estimating a relative frequency exists.. 
The "reference class" is within the brain and it tells you a lot about
the other one. But there are also differences and these you have to
replace with questions and thoughts.
And it is not a class, it are like secondary programs and thousands of
primary programs, some likely dating back millions of years, others
comparatively young, a lot of which are on certain "levels", but some
can go "off the own" and generate other levels for a short time, and
then you observe what changes and that is how you know the answer, and
that is also one way how you advance as a healer.

If you need classes then download stuff from others into your systems
as far as you can.

Or read the shrink classifications and seek the according base
programs within yourself.

And, as said, my first move would likely be to ask the person about
their behaviours if I wonder about them, and if I want to estimate
anything about them to certainly listen to their own extimate about
themselves, and to listen to the seriousness / doubts / ... with which
they make it.

>  It  is proposed that when people  attempt  to 
>    report  on  their cognitive processes, 
That would be tricky. 

>... the  standard  means  of 
>obtaining information for 'reports' on inmates for purposes of review, 
>and the standard means of assessing inmates for counselling is on  the 
>basis  of clinical interview. In the Prison Service this makes  little 
>sense,  since  it  is possible to  directly  observe  behaviour  under 
>relatively  natural  conditions of everyday activities.  The  clinical 
>interview,  is  still  the basis of much of the  work  of  the  Prison 
>Psychologist  despite the literature on fallibility  of  self-reports, 
>and  the  fallibility  and  unwitting  distortions  of  those   making 
>judgments  in  such contexts has been consistently  documented  within 
>psychology:

Aah, so you mess someone up by locking him up and then want him to
tell you exactly how much it messes him up.
Now, THAT would be worth a psychological study on a human doing that
to another human.


>    'Surely  we  all know that the human brain  is  poor  at 
>    weighting 
Lift a bottle. How often to YOU have to check how much is in it.
The human brain & body is amazing at knowing my muscle whatevers and
other stuff what is heavier than another thing, how much pressure and
what angle are needed to throw a stone of a certain size at a certain
target and so on.

> and  computing.  
And the data processed in the substations of my brain is so
mind-bogglingly high, that if I dock into the second "CPU" of my brain
I cannot even follow half of the data being processed there even if I
dock with my entire capacities.
I think you are not aware what amounts of data are processed if you
just go down a street,
just for moving your feet, legs, arm, processing the pictures, the
other freuquencies, the smells, comparing data, storing data and so
on.
And if you talk with someone there are many thousands of words, and if
I awitch to English a different grammar to my own, that are used in a
certain style, and though I am not good in English in it, there can be
already hell of a processing being going on to chose very specific
words that foten imply somthing else, too, 
so say that for example in my language I would fall to an old style,
the other would know that it is ironic. Or in English the length of a
world can say a lot.
Take a little child and put them two years in a country with another
language.
You'd be amazed about the amounts of data they have about the words,
the implied meanings, when you are (not) to use which word, word games
and so on. Not to talk about the speed of adapting to the next
culture.
I think the human mind is not bad at weighing and computing, as when
it reaches it's limits it just grabs a pen and paper, builds a machine
or finds another way to solve what exceeds the own capacities.
 
>When  you  check  out  at  a 
>    supermarket you don't eyeball the heap of purchases  and 
>    say to the clerk, "well it looks to me as if it's  about 
>    $17.00 worth; what do you think?" The clerk adds it  up.
Actually there are people who do that.
Most are just too lazy to do that, put if some would train it real
hard for many years, you might be amazed at how fast a lot of them
might be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You talk a lot, but I do not see the point.
The methods yu mentioned did not sound suited to help someone to be
O.K. within a few hours or days, as is traditional custom

They sounded like making things more complicated than they are, and at
the same time ignoring the real sources for trouble.
I have noticed that you have been talking about "classifying" people
without ever mentioning even just the basolateral part of the amygdala
& that areas subprograms, nor the hypothalamus, nor own attitudes.

Excuse me, but to me it was like a long hollow babbling about
classifying and so on, but it said nothing about what you do if
someone comes to you and is crying, screaming or shaking and needs
direct help.

The real are of mental counselling is to be able to have someone come
in who is dumb like a brick, prejudiced and not willing to change, and
mentally totally out of balance, maybe on the brink of killing himself
or others, and to see to that that person is feeling O.K. within
himself and within society  within a few hours to a few days again.

All this statics babbling did not tell how to do that.

You do not heal a person with statistics, you heal them by looking at
them inside, perceiving what is out of balance and how to balance them
again in a constructive way that is going to last for a while or
forever.

That is the art of the good mental healers of Earth.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list