David at longley.demon.co.uk
Fri Mar 12 09:34:14 EST 2004
In article <%Pi4c.16658$%06.8363 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken
<kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Z4cJPsAk8YUAFwam at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <XNd4c.16507$%06.393 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken
>> <kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
>> >"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:8KGgj6AOcKUAFw9w at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <Ob_3c.14739$%06.6605 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken
>> >> <kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >news:REXLwSAK7EUAFw4M at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> >> >> In article <2HU3c.32952$aT1.17693 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> >> >> <kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:bd30b63fbef5db982b3c1dfcfd654050 at news.teranews.com...
>> >> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:tpx3c.4952$Cm3.3521 at newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> >> > "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:e0732ced1b39cc7c757f085f6a632eaf at news.teranews.com...
>> >> >> >> > [...]
>> >> I'm not whether I should congratulate you Ken!. You would appear to
>> >> "come out" as a hillbilly!
>> >> [...]
>> >Well, I didn't want to disabuse you of your illusion.
>> >Anyway, I had in-mind a Cowboy, as in 'riding' the 'range', widely.
>> >"Oh give me a hooome,
>> >Where the buffalo roooam,
>> >And the skies are not cloudy all day!"
>> As I've said several times before, that's what's so wrong about what you
>> post - **it roams far too freely**.
>> Not only is such behaviour not good science (one needs to be specific
>> and that means specialising), it's not good behaviour quite generally.
>> You are *not* being "creative" and original Ken, you're just being noisy
>> and undisciplined. Your social community generally (and here,
>> specifically), will feed that back to you one way or another (sometimes
>> tacitly and kindly, sometimes quite explicitly and not so kindly) - in
>> either case it's an effort to shape your behaviour to be more
>> acceptable. That's normal, healthy and constructive social feedback and
>> you should be more sensitive to it.
>> You should take that on board, and change the way you behave here and
>> elsewhere. If you find you can't do that, you should get yourself
>> checked out for your own good. I recommend you do the latter anyway,
>> just to be safe.
>> David Longley
>As a result of our past 'interaction', I Expect that, between
>you and I, it'll do no good to do so, but it's in what fell to me
>to do to do the work inherent in enabling folks to not be 'af-
>raid' of 'unfamiliar' stuff.
Listen carefully Ken. Everyone is neophobic to some extent, including
you. It's a UCR, and it's very probably (in view) the sine qua non for
learning (albeit not perhaps in the way we normally think of it). My
own work was on this many years ago (see my report "Naloxone Enhances
Neophobia" in Brit. J. Pharm 1981, or on the web ).. It's a defensive,
reflexive behaviour. Now given that, what you are talking about, is what
everyone has to deal with, and not only when they encounter something
they can say that they don't "know" or "understand" (sometimes we refer
to these experiences as "exciting", "interesting" or "surprising" (the
latter being a favourite of learning theorists over the past 30 years or
The point you need to grasp is that thousands of psychologists and
behavioural neurobiologists have worked on what they refer to as
"motivation" and "learning", "reinforcement" and "incentive"
"discrimination learning" etc and they have been doing this for the best
part of 40 to 50 years! Approach-withdrawal behaviour, conditioned
incentive, contrast effects, blocking, latent inhibition, complex
schedule effects, you name it - there is an enormous amount of work
which has been done (largely on monoamines, and neuropeptides) but in a
language which just seems to have passed you by.
What I'm saying here is that you are not telling anyone anything (or at
least, you shouldn't be!). You are, however, being vague and
indeterminate, and that's because *you* don't know about the enormous
body of detailed empirical work which has been painstakingly accumulated
over the last half century. You may think you brought yourself up to
speed in neuroscience back in the 80s, but having read AoK, and seen
what you have to say here, I can assure you that you didn't and you
Take my word for it, you are roaming far too widely. If you want anyone
to take you seriously you are going to have to start listening more. You
aren't and that suggests you have a problem, and one quite unrelated to
what you're interested in neuroscience.
>There's only the one way to do that.
>In the way that they Dictate with respect to my Being, your
>posts are really-Hurtful, David.
They are meant to make you look at what you are doing/saying
*critically*. I'm encouraging you to look at your *behaviour*. Your
verbal behaviour is one facet or fragment of that. What I am suggesting
to you may well hurt, but it's no different to suggesting to an
undiagnosed type II diabetic that they have themselves checked out.
Leaving that unchecked can also have dire consequences.
>You are welcome to take, or leave, the work I do, and you are
>Free to say whatever you will say to others, but let's you and I
>go our separate ways, OK?
No Ken, I agree with Dr D on this. You need to be challenged and
forcefully so. Not doing so would be even more 'hurtful'.
>I've Chosen to do this work.
>I shall do it.
>ken [k. p. collins]
But you're not doing any productive work - are you?. I'm suggesting why.
If you listened a bit more, and acted on the advice/feedback you're
given, all that *could*, in time, change. You just don't know. What
you're doing now will, I predict, just leave you frustrated and unhappy.
It is not productive.
More information about the Neur-sci