Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Some physiological basis for behaviour

  1. #1
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Some physiological basis for behaviour

    The Amygdala responds to stimuli differently in boys and girls and may be responsible for the tendency for girls to lose self-esteem, starting at age 10, when in the company of boys.

    For instance, the Amygdala responds differently to conflict.

    In an example that the crowd in Friday’s lecture seemed to relate to, Deak asked people to describe how a boy reacts to a schoolyard disagreement.

    They usually retort immediately, whereas a girl is more likely to retreat, then tell her friends how she was wronged, and may prolong her revenge in that cruel complicated underground way that teenage girls can display.

    Deak said there is a chemical difference that could explain this. In a conflict, boys get a shot of adrenaline and testosterone to their amygdala.

    “And we know that testosterone doesn’t make you go away and cry, because we have injected it into people called women and seen what happens,” said Deak.

    Girls on the other hand, get a shot of adrenaline and oxytocin.

    Oxytocin makes me care about another person more and about what they think of me,” Deak said.

    “Saying something back will make me feel even worse,” she said, adding that girls (and women) fear being labeled mean.
    They make a mistake by using gender as the axis, I think. I've seen examples of both kinds of behavior in the same gender. In fact, this pretty much covers the typical reaction of both "logicals" and "ethicals" to conflict. Logicals tend to think more about themselves and less on others and ethicals do the opposite.


    Long term study reveals one year old behavior can predict adult relationships

    So, Valentine’s Day is Wednesday, but you know he isn’t going to bring you any flowers. And instead of a cuddle and a kiss, you know she is going to dig up that old canard about your mother.

    Does your relationship feel like an endless rerun of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” — Edward Albee’s grim masterpiece of domestic disharmony? Do you always spend Valentine’s Day alone? Do all those smooching couples sound like idiotic moths banging their heads against a windowpane?

    If the answer to any of these questions is yes, science can finally provide a simple explanation — and a measure of grim satisfaction: Blame your parents!

    Forget about Hallmark cards and chocolate. Just in time for Valentine’s Day, scientists are announcing the results of an astonishing two-decade-long study that explored the connection between insecure infants and relationship problems in young adults. Turns out the kind of baby you were at 12 months can say a lot about the kind of lover you will be at 21.

    “If you are more insecure when you are 1, you are more likely to experience more negative emotions in your relationship with your current partner when you are 21,” said psychologist Jeffry Simpson at the University of Minnesota.

    People from Sigmund Freud on down have made arguments about the role of early relationships in later life. But Simpson and his colleagues have shown for the first time, in a paper in the current issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, an empirical connection between early behavioral patterns and romantic relationships years down the road.

    The study closely tracked 78 people over a quarter-century, starting when they were babies. Mothers and infants were brought into a laboratory, and the mothers were asked to leave briefly. The infants became upset, of course, but the psychologists were interested in what happened when the mothers returned. Some infants clung tightly to their mothers and sought comfort. In a little while, they calmed down. But others refused to calm down even after lengthy soothing. And some babies refused to turn to their mothers for comfort at all.

    Simpson said research has shown that secure infants turn to their parents when they are upset: “The kid learns, ‘I can count on my parents to calm me down.’ They learn to turn to others. Whereas insecure kids learn that my parent is either rejecting or they learn my parent is neglectful. Or ‘I have to protest to get attention.’ ”

    The researchers checked in with the children again when they were in first through third grade. They asked teachers how each child compared in social skills with other children in the class — especially when the child was upset. Did she act out her anger or reach out to others to solve the problem?

    The next check came at another developmental milestone, when the kids were teen-agers. The psychologists studied how the adolescents reached out to their best friends for support: “Do you rely on your best same-sex friend at 16 to calm you down or do you distract yourself?” Simpson asked.

    Finally, the researchers studied the people when they were between ages 21 and 23. They asked the volunteers how often they felt happy or sad in their romantic relationships. The volunteers’ romantic partners were asked to describe the relationship as well. Finally, the couples were presented with a conflict and given 30 minutes to try to resolve it. Researchers videotaped the couples as they dealt with the problem and the emotions it produced.

    “We find if you are insecure at age 1, that predicts being rated as being less socially competent than your peers during grades one-two-three, which predicts less reliance on your best same-sex friend when you are upset at 16, which then predicts more negative emotion in a romantic relationship at age 21 to 23,” Simpson said.
    This supports my claim that nurture > nature when it comes to types. Desmond Morris explained the phenomenon of neoteny in his book The Nude Ape. We are not born finished (and thus we have propensity for some kind of behaviours) but what we understand as a "type" is most likely set after birth but early in life.

    This might explain my empyrical observation that families in where both parents are sensors or intuitives children have a propensity to develop the same preference as the parents.

    I'll keep adding.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One. I think this is in the wrong place.
    One.a. This has nothing to do with socionics.

    Anyway, you contradict yourself. Assume what you said was true, nurture > nature. The first part of that post deals exactly with nature. Only the second part of the post deals with nurture > nature.

    But, you see, it doesn't matter anyway, because it has nothing to do with socionics. Whether somebody's insecure or not has nothing to do with their type. Here's a little for you to read:

    5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations. However, external behavior traits provide clues as to the person's priorities and motivations.
    From the common misconceptions of socionics topic.

    You've been trying to make socionics into a personality theory when it's not. I don't think you have a basic understanding of socionics. Because if you did, then you would know that it's more about motivations .

    oh yeah, and I think you're wrong about attributing the first thing to logicals and ethicals. Not every thing is related to socionics, and you're just going to have to accept that.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Some physiological basis for behaviour

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    They make a mistake by using gender as the axis, I think. I've seen examples of both kinds of behavior in the same gender.
    Both kinds of behaviour can be found in the same gender, but it is not a clear mistake to use gender as the axis.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    In fact, this pretty much covers the typical reaction of both "logicals" and "ethicals" to conflict. Logicals tend to think more about themselves and less on others and ethicals do the opposite.
    Yes, and the logical/ethical dimension coincides pretty well with gender. There is a biological basis for differences in behaviours between logical and ethical types, and those differences are roughly the same as those between men and women.

  4. #4
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePeddler
    Anyway, you contradict yourself. Assume what you said was true, nurture > nature.
    Not really. Nature is the domain of genes, and only the first cell (when the spermatozoid and egg combine) is controlled by genetic code. After the initial combination it starts to divide and everything on that stage is called congenital. Congenital characteristics can't be inherited to our descendants (at least not directly) and thus can be considered nurture.

    During pregnancy and early life years several things can happen that can change the way our brain works and thus the way we think. For example, it's proven that women who receive large dozes of testosterone from the mother during pregnancy act like men when adults, even if they have normal hormone levels at that age. It seems that what our brain does is largely determined by the way we develop in both pregnancy and early childhood. I'll elaborate later.

    Now, you say that behavior and internal motivations are separated, I wonder why do you think so? You might find it useful to spend some time reading about behaviorism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia: Behaviorism
    Behaviorism (also called learning perspective) is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things which organisms do—including acting, thinking and feeling—can and should be regarded as behaviors. The school of psychology maintains that behaviors as such can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind. Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).
    I don't care about socionics, to be honest. What is it anyway? The idea that there are 16 types was developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs and it remains as true today as the day it was developed. The contribution of socionics to that idea is minimal at best, as it only redefined the dichotomies. So if we are creative about it, are we really talking about socionics?

    Besides, I don't care about socionical orthodoxy. I'm holistic and don't see the hard boundaries between socionics and other parts of knowledge as you do. And I'll express myself in the way it's natural to me, not you.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •