IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

'Indirect' Causes [was Re: Can a haircut cause brain damage?]

KP_PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Oct 23 17:39:36 EST 2003


"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hn7tw94.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca...
| On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:48:14 GMT, KP_PC wrote:
|
| >What the query under discussion entails is finding
| >an example of a haircut causing brain damage
| >=directly= - no intervening stuff.
| >
| >Fire up your "search engine" :-]
|
| I disagree. The OP didn't phrase his question
| carefully enough, is all. Or else you're picking
| nits for the sake of argument, which ill becomes
| you.

I agree with you - on all counts.

I was actually reacting to the way another poster
jumped Dag.

But, while on a trip to a bookstore this afternoon,
this 'haircut' stuff kept popping into the 'interstitial
spaces' of my browsing.

There are many analogues that occur in everyday
experience [not to mention the instance in which
the barber gives the guy a noogie :-]

I'm addressing my insufficiently-thought-through
statement with respect to 'direct' cause and effect.

But what about instances in which prisoners of war
must exist in harsh environments, including, perhaps,
torture [as was the case for U. S. POW's during the
Viet Nam War]?

Everything correlated exists on a continuum that
includes this 'haircut' stuff.

I mean, it's obvious from commonplace experience
that seemingly-indirect environmental conditions
can have cummulative effects within nervous systems.

Think about the Child who grows to maturity in an
abusive household, or in an environment that's
generally deprived relative to 'normal' developmental
environments.

The Child's nervous system is literally damaged by
her/his experiencing of the abusive and/or deprived
conditions.

And all those around the Child [the pols, etc.] 'excuse'
themselves by saying, "Hey, it's none of my business."

Such 'excuse'-making is right-there, =in= the cummula-
tive effects that accrue within the Child's nervous system
as the Child grows to maturity.

And, then, when the Child ventures forth with his/her
behavior that is adapted to the abusive/deprived
environmental conditions that the Child experienced,
but maladapted with respect to 'normal' environmental
conditions, 'society' locks the person up.

There are no 'indirect' causes.

Experience matters.

Extreme experience can, and does, damage nervous
systems.

Everything correlated exists on a continuum that
includes this 'haircut' stuff.

Even Ethics is included.

Think about the Barber who doesn't know that his
Client has this hair-tussling-triggered epilepsy.

"Snip, snip, snip..."

And the Client has a seizure.

"But the Barber didn't know."

He does know, now, through his own experience.

If he cuts the guy's hair again, without taking precautions.
then whose nervous system is it that's most-obviously
Damaged [and Damaging]?

The Same-Stuff exists all over the place during 'normal'
interactive dynamics.

There was a Report on NPR's =All Things Considered=
this evening that discussed the way that some 'financial'
folks were dealing under-the-table in after hours mutual
fund trading.

Same-old, same-old.

So the question that I 'thought' was a light-hearted [or
mean-spirited] jest, is actually rather profound in the
scope of its applicability.

It exists =everywhere= within Human interactive dynamics.

Even in my short-shrifted prior reply.

k. p. collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net