Socionics and Neuroplasticity

[Atlast]

A search of recent discussions yields some unintelligible thread by tcaudilllg and Korpsey's article of destructive applications of neuroscience thread. The subject of this thread was not really discussed in either (or any subject for that matter ) so I'm assuming the honor of bringing it before the court.

Neuroplasticity refers to the susceptibility to physiological changes of the nervous system, due to changes in behavior, environment, neural processes, or parts of the body other than the nervous system. The brain changes throughout life.
Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the general consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.

It has been speculated that certain parts of the brain will atrophy with lack of use and others will strengthen and grow from related activity. Now that the jury knows about as much as I do about the topic at hand, let's proceed .

If the relationship between the physical structure of the brain and type is direct, then is not type only a temporary behavioral model? Wouldn't it be inaccurate one for rapidly changing brains (e.g. children, students, etc.)? Do you believe that the origin of the expression of one's type is not necessarily found in the brain?

If you guys don't believe in the validity of neuroplastic (or neuroscience in general) research, why? Sure, it's been discredited by the business world with their silly attempts at using it to make a profit and probably has its fair share of pseudo scientific crap. However, the scientific reality of neuroscience is undeniable, and it has been and is being used to undeniably sound effects in various brain-related injuries, especially strokes and spine related injuries.

For those of you who would still believe type is in some way inherited genetically or otherwise predestined for life, I challenge you to produce an argument for how that's possible without including the brain in the explanation or otherwise soundly denounce neuroscience philosophically (an approach I would accept and respect ).

Disclaimer; This is not a neuroscience NWO thread, tcaudilllg beware. I know jack shit about anything neuroscientifically deeper than the explanation above. I'm not denouncing your awesome wet dreams about duality or socionics. Please have mercy

[Absurd]

Damn it, I thought it was Athww. And ye speculate some more.

[fen]

It has been speculated that certain parts of the brain will atrophy with lack of use and others will strengthen and grow from related activity. Now that the jury knows about as much as I do about the topic at hand, let's proceed .

I think this is perhaps a generally accepted view. I have read in my research about anxiety disorders that people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder tend to have a larger amygdala (controls fight or flight) from constant "use" and a devolving hippocampus from disuse. Not sure about the validity, or my memory, but it's interesting.

I'm not sure each function has a certain, definable, physical spot in the brain. It seems unlikely, at least with how limitedly the functions are defined. I can't say much on this though. I don't think people are born to be a certain type for sure. Hm...I mean, I dunno.
I'm not sure type is something physical, even in a genetic sense, but if it is, I'd put more stock in this theory than the idea of type being genetic.

What I'm trying to say, hah, is that...sure. It seems feasible that type can change based on usage of parts of the brain and neglect of other parts. But..that is only true, assuming that the functions are so explicitly mapped out in the brain. :S

I mean, from personal experience, like when I was in middle school and the beginning of high school, I was pretty much a stereotypical IEI, but it's as if I have lost use of that way of being...and am different now. Whether there was a physical change in my brain though, I can't say.

[Atlast]

...

I'm happy to see you have some relevant experience to share, even if fuzzy Your brain definitely physically changed; even traditional science states that it's still developing at that age. Whether or not your type was tingled in the process is the question. well articulated response btw, you experience much of my confusion

This is an old thread which I think is relevant: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...o-neuroscience

Ah! I had read the OP but not your perceptive comment. I will quote it here for its content and will read and think about it between now and later.

I have more of a neuroscience background than a socionics background, so my criticisms and suggestions tend to address the beginning rather than the second (probably more interesting, in terms of this forum) half of your post.

Neuroscience

I've been mulling over the neuroscience people have proposed on this board for some time, and a lot of it disagrees with the (little) neuroscience I've been taught. So I'm going to try to explain my viewpoint here:

Since socionics is based on information processing and not the acquisition of raw data, I'm pretty sure that the socionic functions are based in the cortex, most likely the neocortex. I would also tentatively suggest that they're mostly based in the frontal lobe. But neuroscience and psychology are messy sciences, so I'd be wary of naming brain regions and allocating specific processes to them.

The amygdala is involved in emotion, but it's only involved in instinctive emotion. That is, things like seeing a bear and being frightened, or a baby crying when it's hungry and can't see its mother. It's also involved with conditioning - seeing icecream and being happy, or a rat pressing a bar to get a food pellet. Many animals have amygdalae.

I'd say that the amygdala is to emotion what the primary somatosensory area and primary visual cortex are to sensing. The primary somatosensory area lights up when you feel something, whether it be heat, pain or something mechanical (touching a surface). The primary visual cortex lets you see things. Neither of these areas really interprets what you're sensing - it just lets you do it, to act as an interface to the outside physical world. It doesn't affect your use of it. It's like having legs and walking places - your legs let you walk, but they don't determine where you choose to walk.

On the other hand, socionics functions are far more complex. , for instance, can involve identifying the emotional atmosphere of a situation and choosing a response which, from past experiences, will affect it. This kind of process is far more advanced than what the amygdala can do; it certainly involves high order cognitive functions, which are located in the cortex.

In my opinion, what determines your strength with functions (and therefore your type) is not specific regions, but rather neurological pathways in the cortex. This is based on connections between regions in the brain.

To me, the most amazing thing about the human brain is its ability to adapt, or its plasticity. Wikipedia article on neuroplasticity says this rather well, so I'll copy-paste here:



A related concept is synaptic plasticity, which is



So in short, brain pathways change in strength due to use, sometimes with new neurons sprouting but more often simply in terms of long-term potentiation of synapses, to the point where one "mode" of thinking can be almost always activated in response to external inputs. That's my hypothesis about the neurological basis of socionic functions: for some reason (physical or merely psychological), one half of each dichotomy (e.g. N/S, i/e) is activated far more often than the opposing halves, and therefore is a "strong" function in comparison to the other one. (This is also why I think type change is definitely possible: if something as standard as the location of somatosensory inputs can be altered, then something as diverse in humans as personality can surely change.)

(My neuroscience background is certainly not strong. If anyone can point out any factual errors in what I've said, please let me know! )


Personality theory

I only know about Model A, so everything I say is based on that.

Your approach seems to be more in terms of continuums rather than dichotomies. My understanding is that socionics only operates in terms of dichotomies (whereas MBTI is very much based on continuums). Of course, like MBTI, socionics dichotomies could be based on relative weightings of the functions.

Have you considered making /// and /// add up to 100%? That's my understanding of socionic dichotomies and the placing of functions in Model A.


If anyone's read this far, thank you! I'm pretty sure this is my longest post, ever, and probably will be for some time.

[strangeling]

edited for extreme gayness

[Atlast]

Haha, I used to be sensible back then. I think the concept of pathway strength being the basis for function strength could have interesting implications for dimensionality of functions and functional development, but 2009 octo would bitchslap me for further speculation...

lol. I would agree with your earlier post in that if type somehow exists somewhere in the brain, it is probably in the higher functions. This is evidenced by how socionics is totally non-applicable to the animal kingdom. However, what complicates things in my mind is the fact that a behavioral model predicts responses, and human response is based on both the higher thinking functions and the reactionary instinctual ones. Thus, type is theoretically an interaction of both. Also, it may be possible that there is some kind of inherited or constant factor that just has us coming back to some neural pathways more than others. It would have to be more than just habit.

Interesting note; I found a cool image that portrays some data and conclusions on some common vidya games and their effects on the brain (the forum will resize it and kill its majesty). Aside from essentially proving that STs are the best at most video games ;D, it shows decreased activity in the frontal lobe.. does that diminish type if it's located in the frontal lobe? Or is it stimulating sensory (S) parts of the brain and diminishing, say N? That question could be answered by looking at Alzheimer victims and determining if they still have definite type, as the cause of their dementia is (from what I can tell) due to frontal lobe deterioration.

Unrelated article from similar site; some chicks get orgasms from weight equipment. I grow empowered by knowledge.

...

Yes, I see what you're saying. I've observed that as we go from physical ------> abstract, the empirical (hard) sciences become less relevant. Even language usually fails to express high abstractions. I also agree that philosophy and psychology (soft) have far greater potential than science to give us understanding of the human psyche, and that a chemical/empirical explanation for our experience will never suffice. Jung's system of typology is an admirable effort (which is why I'm here ).

However, the implications of neuroplasticity seem to breach both disciplines. It's a strange thing when we can solve psychological problems by applying an empirical principle (neuroplasticity) combined with psychological principles (therapy targeted at stimulating empirically defined parts of the brain that are damaged/afflicted/unused) with success.

And that took too long to type.

Most things worth posting usually do

[strangeling]

edited for gayness

[tcaudilllg]

The functions don't work that way. They can't be localized to the IM processors alone, because other traits co-evolved with the type.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting note; I found a cool image that portrays some data and conclusions on some common vidya games and their effects on the brain (the forum will resize it and kill its majesty). Aside from essentially proving that STs are the best at most video games ;D, it shows decreased activity in the frontal lobe.. does that diminish type if it's located in the frontal lobe? Or is it stimulating sensory (S) parts of the brain and diminishing, say N? That question could be answered by looking at Alzheimer victims and determining if they still have definite type, as the cause of their dementia is (from what I can tell) due to frontal lobe deterioration.

Nice idea, but you'd never get it past a review board.

[Esaman]

The opening post puts it as if plasticity somehow contradicts and apposes heredity when really it mostly works to reinforce the trends in balance between faculties set by heredity.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

you guys need to go cut frogs open and leave the forum alone mkay

[ashlesha]

you guys need to go cut frogs open and leave the forum alone mkay

[Atlast]

Yeah, I mean, I don't doubt that our intelligence is malleable to an extent (that seems a given to me and how I tend to treat most people). I think/thought that's what neuroplasticity is referring to; I guess I'm not sure. The second article seems to suggest that the brain can make up for motor deficits; but I thought this was similar to how someone with no hands can end up learning how to use their feet better. They just figured out how to better use what they have. I know there are cases of people having parts of their brains removed only to find that the rest of the brain, over time, makes up for what was lost. But there are limits. And I only know of this happening in children. This adult man lost a frontal lobe or a good portion of the frontal lobes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Well, here's the deal; we can use neuroplasticity to strengthen and create neural connections in parts of the brain that are healthy but unused. However, in victims of strokes, who suffered damage permanently and physically impaired one part of the brain, the damage itself is generally not reparable; what happens I believe is that the neural pathways reorganize themselves and use surrounding or adjacent networks to compensate and re-learn the use of a limb, or whatever the problem is. That's what many neuroplastic therapy programs are designed to do. No matter what happens, using feet or a previously impaired limb, the physical structure of the brain changed
Also, you talk of that potential constant factor that would keep us coming back to certain preordained connections. It is a possibility, and I am very curious too. Alack, I haven't a degree or a laboratory . And yeah, neuroscience is one more path to a dystopian hell. So are increasing surveillance technologies. Time is running out

The functions don't work that way. They can't be localized to the IM processors alone, because other traits co-evolved with the type...

How do you figure? Only two principles are necessary to reach my dilemma; 1) functions exist and 2) they are correlated to the physical brain. If both of those things are true, how are they exempt from a physically changing brain? The review board would probably balk at socionics before the science, lol

The opening post puts it as if plasticity somehow contradicts and apposes heredity when really it mostly works to reinforce the trends in balance between faculties set by heredity.

Care to explain? Again, none of us here are experts on the matter and are just speculating out of curiosity. If you can bring any explanation so ground breaking to the table, it would be much appreciated . I was pointing out that you can ignore trends and stop using/reinforce otherwise unused parts of the brain, e.g. an overcome drug addiction.

you guys need to go cut frogs open and leave the forum alone mkay

Why don't you come over here and I'll use my empathy to change the physical structure of your brain for you

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Why don't you come over here and I'll use my empathy to change the physical structure of your brain for you

dafuq that's what a suspected LSE told me the other day.He was into the science of subliminal people manipulation and has read a tone of books on it.The poor guy was trying to teach me texas hold 'em and black jack resulting in me doing whatever and him not noticing it (pheeew).Not nearly as traumatic as the first and last time I gave UNO a try,though.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Gambling on Go Fish! with drunk people was one of my more brilliant ideas.

[Absurd]

For those of you who would still believe type is in some way inherited genetically or otherwise predestined for life, I challenge you to produce an argument for how that's possible without including the brain in the explanation or otherwise soundly denounce neuroscience philosophically (an approach I would accept and respect ).

Type isn't inherited in any way whatsoever. For this to actually work your mum and dad would have to be both SLI to begin with, as in, blessed with deltaness by the holy spirit plus you have to distinguish between family resemblance and genetic resemblance. Many traits are familial but not heritable, that is, familiality is often confused with heritability, when it is supposed that the resemblance of parents and children is a demonstration of the power of heredity.

The greatest similarity between parents and offspring can be said, is in two social traits, religious sect and political party, in some countries, that is, U.S. for example. Yet no serious person would suggest that the very high family resemblance for these traits is a result of genetic determination.

EDIT: Meow, cluck, moo. These traits are actually heritable:

Height,

Weight,

Arm length,

Foot length,

Hip circumference,

Cephalic index,

Masculinity-femininity,

IQ,

Extroversion,

Neuroticism.

I don't see any type there. There, I challenged those geniuses you refer to this forum has to offer. Beer me now

[Esaman]

Challenge this, challenge that. Why would anyone want to debate on complex subject with random people who seam invested and defensive in their position. Since we all have at best amateur scientific knowledge on the subject we can only exchange information and views without much authority. That is a discussion not a debate, and for discussion to take place you need to at least faint interest and receptiveness to what people disagreeing with you say.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Type isn't inherited in any way whatsoever. For this to actually work your mum and dad would have to be both SLI to begin with, as in, blessed with deltaness by the holy spirit plus you have to distinguish between family resemblance and genetic resemblance. Many traits are familial but not heritable, that is, familiality is often confused with heritability, when it is supposed that the resemblance of parents and children is a demonstration of the power of heredity.

The greatest similarity between parents and offspring can be said, is in two social traits, religious sect and political party, in some countries, that is, U.S. for example. Yet no serious person would suggest that the very high family resemblance for these traits is a result of genetic determination.

EDIT: Meow, cluck, moo. These traits are actually heritable:

Height,

Weight,

Arm length,

Foot length,

Hip circumference,

Cephalic index,

Masculinity-femininity,

IQ,

Extroversion,

Neuroticism.

I don't see any type there. There, I challenged those geniuses you refer to this forum has to offer. Beer me now

Those are different aspects, dingus.

[Absurd]

Those are different aspects, dingus.

I don't know what different aspects means, Jerusalem.

[Leader]

Without including the brain in the explanation? Hmm?

Well, when we say types are genetic, we aren't necessarily talking about heredity. We mean encoded in the very dna of a person, but how or for what reason...I do not know. Every type is a template.

A simple way of explaining it in the best way I can...

Take a prism in the shape of a triangle for example. This prism represents one of the 16 types. A prism is originally transparent and untampered with, which represents a person's original and most basic perception of reality (meaning from when they were first born). As you begin to introduce different spectra of colors (life experiences, environment, drugs, etc) into the equation, the focus/color (thoughts, actions, etc) of the prism begins to change. But it is always filtered through this lens, this prism in the shape of a triangle. It does not change into a prism in the shape of a rectangle, which would represent an entirely different type, it shape (type) always stays the same although its color (perception, thoughts and actions) has changed.

No amount of neuroplasticity, is going to change your type because you can only work with what you are given. If your brain, dna, whatever doesn't have the prerequisites for a certain function, it can only do so much and until it reaches it's limit.

[tcaudilllg]

If you had researched the science, you'd know that neuroplasticity and type aren't mutually exclusive. Neuroplasticity is THE ABILITY OF THE BRAIN TO REASSIGN ITS NEURONS TO RECOVER ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTIONAL STATE. IT DOES NOT AT ALL SUGGEST A TRAIT-VARIABLE BRAIN. IF ANYTHING, IT PROVES THAT TRAIT SYSTEM ORGANIZATIONS ARE FAULT TOLERANT.

This debate has already been settled in the neuroscience community. You are just rehashing it for sport. Stop with the drama or I'll ignore you.

[Absurd]

Well, when we say types are genetic, we aren't necessarily talking about heredity. We mean encoded in the very dna of a person, but how or for what reason...I do not know. Every type is a template.

I noticed "we do not talk about heredity". Genetics deals with heredity, it is a science of heredity last time I checked.

If your brain, dna, whatever doesn't have the prerequisites for a certain function, it can only do so much and until it reaches it's limit.

Don't know why but that made me smile.

This debate has already been settled in the neuroscience community. You are just rehashing it for sport. Stop with the drama or I'll ignore you.

He's not going to stop. You're going to have to stab him well.

[Leader]

I noticed "we do not talk about heredity". Genetics deals with heredity, it is a science of heredity last time I checked.



Don't know why but that made me smile.

Last time you checked?

When is the last time you used your brain?

I know genetics deals with heredity, that's why I made it clear that when we say types are genetic or inborn...we really mean type is set somewhere in a person's own unique dna. In other words, it may or may not be inherited through genes, but is definitely established through some other means.

[tcaudilllg]

Type probably has something to do with allels of the egg and sperm: there is variation.

One thing I know for a fact is that identical twins always have the same type. I've known lots of identical twins and although they work to differentiate themselves (sometimes) they always share the same philosophies.

[Absurd]

For those of you who would still believe type is in some way inherited genetically or otherwise predestined for life, I challenge you to produce an argument for how that's possible without including the brain in the explanation[...]

EDIT: Meow, cluck, moo. These traits are actually heritable:

Blahlistblah

Last time you checked?

When is the last time you used your brain?

Last time I checked, exactly, you're seeing well. And the last time I used my brain was when you took an IQ test that was culled and adjusted so that the scores corresponded to teachers' and psychologists' a priori judgments about who was intelligent and who was not.

I know genetics deals with heredity, that's why I made it clear that when we say types are genetic...we really mean type is set somewhere in a person's own unique dna. In other words, it may or may not be inherited through genes, but is definitely established through some other means.

Procreation?

One thing I know for a fact is that identical twins always have the same type. I've known lots of identical twins and although they work to differentiate themselves (sometimes) they always share the same philosophies.

This is completely wrong a.k.a bullshit.

[Leader]

Type probably has something to do with allels of the egg and sperm: there is variation.

One thing I know for a fact is that identical twins always have the same type. I've known lots of identical twins and although they work to differentiate themselves (sometimes) they always share the same philosophies.

....Nonsense.

[Pookie]

You guys are crazy, man. You got a dart in your neck.

[Leader]

Last time I checked, exactly, you're seeing well. And the last time I used my brain was when you took an IQ test that was culled and adjusted so that the scores corresponded to teachers' and psychologists' a priori judgments about who was intelligent and who was not.



Procreation?

What the fuck are you even rambling about...

[Absurd]

What the fuck are you even rambling about...

...about...your........inherent.......ignorance... ......

[Leader]

...about...your........inherent.......ignorance... ......

But..how..you're...a.......dumbass...

You...don't....know...shit.... ...... ...

[Absurd]

Tcaud, do you think socionics is going to survive in the West after, say, the North Koreans are going to bomb U.S.A with socionics function laden bombs?

But...you're...a............dumbass...

You...don't....know...shit.... ...... ...

Tell me, what do I don't know?

[ArchonAlarion]

You're wrong!

[ArchonAlarion]

No, you're wrong!

[Absurd]

It's unlikely that this letter will win me many friends or even garner much attention. However, writing it is the only way I know to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. First off, I want to thank Brain for his causeries. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how vengeful Brain can be. We must weaken the critical links in his nexus of ignorant totalism. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into animalism.

How I pity Brain if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of privatism, and there are those who are not. Brain is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why he pompously claims that negativism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

I don't see how Brain can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Brain's barbs are like an enormous feudalism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must ring the bells of truth because I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, ophidian world run by the worst kinds of beggarly primates there are.

On the issue of dogmatism, Brain is wrong again. Sure, his views are not on the up and up. But not only does Brain detach people from their morally established systems of belief, but he then commands his shock troops, "Go, and do thou likewise." It goes without saying that he says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, he always ends up carrying out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his rivals. From what I understand, Brain makes it sound like the rules don't apply to him. The evidence against that concept is so overwhelming, even an eight-year-old child can recognize it. Even so, you may be worried that Brain will make a fetish of the virtues of adversarial warlordism one day. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that given the amount of misinformation that Brain is circulating, I must indeed point out that I've tried to explain to his raving cat's-paws that he has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Brain speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to place the worst classes of pharisaical poltroons there are at the top of the social hierarchy.

It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. Brain's execrations have created a disdainful universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Only within this universe does it make sense to topple society. And, only if we shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain can we destroy this ugly universe of his and express our concerns about his incomprehensible refrains.

Brain has spent untold hours trying to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that it has been proven by measurements and by analysis that we should treat his nerdy club for what it is, a sexist, unenlightened group of shiftless backbiters? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to deal with the relevant facts. His repressive allocutions really raise my blood pressure. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret his true intentions—he doesn't care about freedom as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

Maybe it's just me, but don't you think that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, Brain's grievances actually change children's values from those taught in the home to those considered chic by meretricious misfits? Although the dialectics of insecure praxis will use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to bask in the macabre shine of obstructionism before long, Brain should stop bellyaching and start healing himself. This just goes to show (to me, at least) that his harangues do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to him is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, implying that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality—is no different from implying that his obiter dicta are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people. Both statements are ludicrous.

I once pointed out to Brain that this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. All I could garner from his ensuing mussitation was some nonsense about how power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. It's this sort of blowsy response that leads me to believe that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Brain. Not only is Brain more lascivious and more unsophisticated than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but I've never bothered Brain. Yet Brain wants to suppress our freedom. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Brain has always favored providing a privileged and protected status for sleazy knuckleheads." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Brain has a strategy. His strategy is to biologically or psychologically engineer unsympathetic perjurers to make them even more shrewish than they already are. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Brain.

We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to expose some of Brain's squalid deeds. I recently heard Brain tell a bunch of people that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. I'd like to end this letter with a message for Brain. I'd like to say with emphasis and distinctness—not as a threat, but as a warning—that I will do whatever it takes to carve solutions that are neither pesky nor incoherent, and I won't let him stop me from achieving that goal.

[ArchonAlarion]

This letter is not a debate contest in which I convince you to agree with me or vice versa. This letter is concerned only with establishing the truth about The Human Body. To plunge right into it, The Human Body used to maintain that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. When it realized that no one was falling for that claptrap, it quickly changed its tune to say that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. The Human Body is honestly an empty-headed liar, and shame on anyone who believes it. The Human Body's public virtue is dwarfed by its private vice. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that crapulous cadgers attack everyone else's beliefs. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: The Human Body and its iscariotic patsies.

If I seem a bit scummy, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with The Human Body on its own level. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of The Human Body's essays from the first word to the last. The struggle against malodorous, mean-spirited theologasters must be a struggle against quislingism, Marxism, and libertinism, or it is doomed to failure.

If The Human Body gets its way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of clericalism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. A long time ago I wrote that "I must blow my whistle on The Human Body's tactics of deception and distortion". Today I might add that many people are incredulous when I tell them that The Human Body intends to glamorize drug usage. "How could The Human Body be so gruesome?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is decidedly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how The Human Body plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that it has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep its faction loyal to it. The Human Body's principal myth is that its tactics are Right with a capital R. The truth is that I can definitely suggest how The Human Body ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with The Human Body itself.

When it comes to The Human Body's jibes, I clearly allege that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to deal with it appropriately. The sooner we do that the better because The Human Body uses highfalutin terms like "establishmentarianism" and "physicophilosophical" to conceal its plans to enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth. In this scheme of its, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that The Human Body wants to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its protégés to live in an environment that can be described, at best, as contemptuously tolerant. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its epigones, who are legion.

Surely no argument is necessary to prove that you can unequivocally assume serious trouble is brewing when disgraceful blockish-types rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince The Human Body that its expostulations are merely a fig leaf that hides its efforts to encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become materialistic self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards. As I expected, The Human Body was unconvinced. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that The Human Body's apologias fail to convince me that lexiphanicism-prone trolls should be given absolute authority to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of exhibitionism, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.

[woofwoofl]

Atlast

[Absurd]

You're saying type never changes, keep in mind that you're including cases of massive head trauma, lobotomy etc. And if type isn't based in the brain, then where?

Exactly, I knew that people posting on here have been lobotomised.

New research provides a sad look at both the last days of former Argentinian first lady Eva Perón and how severe pain caused by cancer and other diseases was sometimes treated back in the 1950s. It's well-known that Perón died of cervical cancer when she was only 33, but a Yale researcher says that several months before she died "Evita" was given a lobotomy.

In an essay for the New York Times, Columbia University's Dr. Barron H. Lerner writes that in 2005 a doctor who assisted in Perón's cancer treatment revealed that she'd undergone a lobotomy, but there was little evidence to confirm this until Dr. Daniel E. Nijensohn, a Yale neurosurgeon, started to look in to the doctor's claims. Now in research soon to be published in the journal World Neurosurgery, Nijensohn says he's confirmed the story. Several other sources say Perón had surgery to manage her pain, travel records show a neurosurgeon known as an expert in lobotomy traveled to Argentina shortly before her death in July 1952, and X-rays show there are indents on her skull that are indicative of the surgery.

While now the lobotomy is seen as a barbaric procedure, at the time it was considered as a revolutionary procedure useful for treating a variety of problems, including severe pain. By severing neural connections in the front of the brain doctors believed they could reduce emotional reactions to pain. It was known that the procedure could leave patients in a child-like or apathetic state, but that was seen as preferable to the suffering caused by terminal diseases.

What makes Perón's story particularly tragic is that it seems that she didn't know she was having the operation. Her doctors and her husband didn't tell her she had cervical cancer or what exactly she was being treated for, so it's most likely that like thousands of other people who received lobotomies, Perón didn't even consent to the procedure.

Eva Perón was SEE before lobotomy. After lobotomy she is EII.

This letter is not a debate contest[...]

I see you got the gist of it. What is missing are a few people self-typing gamma and beta, preferably, to proclaim they do not know what you wrote and that they need Aquagraph to make sense of it and explain it to them.

I want to use the services of Aquagraph as well to decipher what people on here actually post when in their papal heights. That is when they're being serious.

All you need is Aquagraph. All else is error.

[tcaudilllg]

This thread disintegrated fast.

Tcaud, at least read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on neuroplasticity before you ascribe your paranoid delusions onto various sections of the scientific community, mmmk?

Agee, no amount of handwavy analogy about prisms is going to change the fact that brains can and do change structurally to a great extent in response to certain external events. If you're saying type never changes, keep in mind that you're including cases of massive head trauma, lobotomy etc. And if type isn't based in the brain, then where?

octo whatever your titles I don't think you much of a scientist. A lab tech maybe, but not a scientist.

[Pookie]

octo whatever your titles I don't think you much of a scientist. A lab tech maybe, but not a scientist.

possibly a stripper.

[Esaman]

As if anyone is saying that brain does not develops and adapts. The point is that most of development happens early on and heredity plays big role in directing it. Whatever inclinations and initial conditions DNA will set will be reinforced by practice/plasticity.
People apparently argue that mere fact of existence of plasticity is an argument against hereditary nature of type. When really plasticity facilitates development along hereditary inclinations as and more easily as in any other direction.