Last night's dream was an unsettling one. Not a nightmare really, but unnerving somehow. I am still unsure what it means.
A winter storm was coming, a blizzard the likes of which we'd never seen. It hadn't arrived yet, but everyone was warned to be prepared. I was at home, alone. Where everyone else had gone I've no idea - it didn't seem to matter. You know how it is in dreams.
I looked around - the house was dark, and not warm, but the walls were sturdy and I figured I'd be all right if I chose to stay. At the same time, I'd had an offer - who knows how it came - from a group pf hippies who had set up a tent site on the edge of town. They were nice tents - more like yurts, really, specially insulated and heated - in which to ride out the storm. There were 200 tents, the hippies said, and they had one for me if I wanted it.
I was doubtful at first. I didn't even know these people, and maybe it was best to keep to myself, but the hippies convinced me it was better not to be alone, especially in a storm like this.
The tents were set up in a field below mission hill, all of them bright white. All the people were dressed in white as well, although there was no obvious reason for this. It occurred to me that when the snow came we'd all be camouflaged, invisible to any predatory eye, though whether this was intentional or not, there is no way to know.
I was shown to my tent, which was indeed very nice, and put on my warm white clothes. I then went out to wander among the people in the field. All of them were strangers, and as usual I was feeling shy. Starting conversations has never been my strong point.
After making a few nodding acquaintances, I was surprised to be introduced to someone I already knew, a woman named Lori.
Stop. Wait a moment. You'll have to bear with me because here I must digress. It's not enough to just say Lori. There is a whole tale behind Lori. Well, for me, there is a tale behind Lori. For her, I do not figure into her story much, if at all.
It's the curse of being the one who remembers.
I met Lori in second grade. Probably I don't even have to describe her, because there is a Lori in every school, every class, most likely. Think back to your own schoolroom, or your children's schoolroom, and you'll see.
These days they call such girls "natural leaders" or somesuch, but to me at age 7, it was an ineffable power, a mysterious ability to control the social order simply by existing. Well, being the prettiest girl with the best grades and the nicest clothes helped, but even if I could see some of the mechanism, I couldn't see all of it. Whatever quality it was she had, I didn't have it, and I knew it.
This fascinated me.
I don't recall envying her so fiercely at first, but soon it was gnawing at my very soul. The searing pain of comparing oneself to others and coming up short.
Our characters were very different, Lori and I, but being a child I tended to see this in simple material terms. The school took a dim view of classism, but not so my family. 'Her parents are rich," my brother said, bluntly. "You can never be like her."
The type of things Lori owned that I could never have - her snoopy watch, satin jacket, spotless Keds and ribbon barrettes among them - took on even greater significance after that. And then there was the thing that I envied most of all, the point around which all my envy had begun to coalesce...her Luv It jeans.
Luv Its were the skinny, straight-legged jeans worn by the popular girls in school. Usually they had puffy satin appliques on the pockets, in all sorts of designs: hearts, stars, peaches, lipstick, ice cream sundaes like the ad above. Sometimes the less popular girls would wear cheap knock-offs but you could always tell. That little Luv It tag (with the red heart with a bite out of it) conferred great social capital in that time and place.
Having spent spent many hours sitting at my desk behind Lori's, staring at the row of satin hearts on her pocket, it was clear to me that I needed whatever power those jeans could manifest. If there was no way to swap myself out and live another person's life, it seemed the jeans might be the next best thing.
My mother nearly did a spit-take when I told her how much they cost. "24 dollars!" she shouted, appalled. "you must be crazy." It was the same conversation many unpopular girls were having that year.
I did eventually get a pair of Luv Its, though I'd have to wait until the Christmas I was 9. They had 4 stars on each pocket, like so:
I adored them, don't get me wrong, but the moment I put them on, I understood that I would only ever be an impostor. The jeans did not confer Lori-ness. I was still just a nobody wearing Lori's jeans.
...
After changing schools, I didn't see Lori again until we took driver's ed together the year we were 15. By then, Lori was busy doing the sort of things that upper-middle class girls do to prepare for the future. Rainbow Girls, Junior League, twirling lessons - you know the drill. By that time, I was modelling for a punk rock hair salon, so it was obvious to anyone with eyes that we were on different life paths. Lori would chair committees and be president of the PTA, and I would be...god only knew.
But still. I remember standing outside the temp trailer, listening to her talk about Days Of Our Lives when a sort of shudder went through me. All that potential, all of that golden light, channeled into being perfectly, sensibly and competently dull.
Perhaps that's too harsh. I'm sure people who do such things get something out of it, that there must be some worthy achievement there. It's just that I've never understood it. Garden clubs, museum boards and the like always seem to be filled with well-dressed ladies with manicured, venomous claws. But then, since that elementary school experience, social maneuvering has always left me cold.
Anyway, it does seem Lori's life has turned out just as she planned. I haven't seen her in years, but one hears things, you know. Married with 2.5 children and dog. A lovely home in a tony suburb. President of the parish council and indeed, the PTA.
So you can imagine she was the last person I'd expect to turn up among a bunch of hippies in my dream. Dream? Oh, yes, that dream I was telling you about....
I shook the now grown-up Lori's hand and said "I don't know if you remember me." She said, "oh, of course I do" and I replied "well, we have known each other since the age of 7."
Just then, though, my hand began to bleed, ghastly red dripping all over our clean white clothes. I apologized, although I couldn't quite explain it. "It's no problem" Lori was saying, but by then I had noticed that the blood had run into the lines of my palm - the left palm, the lines that mark the potential with which you were born.
That's when I woke up.
...
I still don't know what it means, though the blood in my fate lines is a probably a clue. But it seems awfully late in the day to mourn something that I never was. I've long ago given up the poisonous envy that marred my childhood, if that was the point.Then again, perhaps I'd suddenly become stigmatic, which would mean something else entirely. And just what was Lori doing there, anyway? Unless the dream was saying that the storm we were waiting for would come for us all, junior leaguers and hippies alike.
It remains to be seen. I'm keeping my eyes open.
*It would be disingenuous to say I never had any of the things in the link above. I did manage to accumulate many of those kinds of things but it was later, after my teachers started saying I looked like Brooke Shields and suddenly out of nowhere I had some value.
Showing posts with label social interaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social interaction. Show all posts
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Monday, April 2, 2012
Neuroscience Vs Philosophy, Again.
Neuroscience wants to be the answer to everything. It isn't.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7714533/brain-drain.thtml
Nice article by Roger Scruton in The Spectator, concerning a particular thorn in my side. Just one example, from the article:
"So just what can be proved about people by the close observation of their brains? We can be conceptualised in two ways: as organisms and as objects of personal interaction. The first way employs the concept ‘human being’, and derives our behaviour from a biological science of man. The second way employs the concept ‘person’, which is not the concept of a natural kind, but of an entity that relates to others in a familiar but complex way that we know intuitively but find hard to describe. Through the concept of the person, and the associated notions of freedom, responsibility, reason for action, right, duty, justice and guilt, we gain the description under which human beings are seen, by those who respond to them as they truly are. When we endeavour to understand persons through the half-formed theories of neuroscience we are tempted to pass over their distinctive features in silence, or else to attribute them to some brain-shaped homunculus inside. For we understand people by facing them, by arguing with them, by understanding their reasons, aspirations and plans. All of that involves another language, and another conceptual scheme, from those deployed in the biological sciences. We do not understand brains by facing them, for they have no face."
I have the argument mentioned in the article all the time, albeit from varying angles. There is a hard dividing line that seems very difficult if not impossible to communicate across. Most of my efforts have been toward finding a way to communicate this that extreme scientific systemizers (in my case, usually those with significant social deficits) will be able to accept, if not understand. The arguments in the comments section of the linked article are all too familiar.
While it may seem unrelated on the surface, I couldn't help but recall Brugger's experiments regarding apophenia and dopamine. Among other things:
"In his July 2002 report, Brugger stated that during the first stage of the experiment the individuals who believed in the paranormal were much more likely to see a face or a word when there was none. The skeptics were more likely to miss the real words and faces when they appeared on the screen."*
The link between patternicity and paranormal beliefs aside, I had noticed something interesting. When trying to communicate the nuances of interpersonal social interaction to these extreme systemizers and analyzers, I was being asked the same questions again and again: How can it be possible to understand another's motivations if it's not explicitly stated? What is the mathematical formula for friendliness? What is "flirting" and why should I believe it exists if I can't perceive it? Feelings are only a neurochemical process, so why should they matter in relationships? Trying to explain that many people experience empathy and emotional attachment feels like trying to tell a skeptic there is a ghost standing behind them.
There was so much missing of what was actually there that I thought of the apophenia experiment. One day I asked, rather frustrated, "when you look at clouds, do you ever think they resemble other things? Like, faces.or horses or ships...anything like that?" The answer was (and almost always has been since) a puzzled no. Clouds look like clouds, those other things are not clouds, so why should there be any resemblance? What's more, people who said they saw such things were either lying or crazy, or perhaps these stories of cloud shapes were just a peasant superstition cherished by the ignorant. Sort of like sasquatch or God.
It might only be anecdotal (and hence unacceptable to those same folks I'm talking about) but such consistency perked my interest. For all the mockery of those who believe in the paranormal (or who experience apophenia, pareidolia, cartocacoethes, synchronicity or what have you) such a consistent absence of such among a group who were not seeing, nor sometimes even believing in things like empathy or social nuance was intriguing. Could it be that detecting patterns plays a not insignificant role in successful social interactions? Thanks to my own tendency toward patternicity, it was pretty easy to see the similarities between the two groups. :p In my estimation, it's not so different from those who would see consciousness as simply a neurobiological process and nothing more, a "brain in a box" more than a whole person.
Personally - in all my crazed, irrational, philosophical unscientific-ness - I don't believe the views (and the theories) of those who are super-rational are the only correct explanations. Nor do I believe those who grab hold of any pattern (or convenient bit of mysticism, or worse, conspiracy) to explain their world are necessarily correct either. However, I do believe (and have been damned many times for saying so) that there is an added level of experience for those who are able to sense something beyond being a bag of water and chemicals, where everything simply corresponds to a precise formula. Being a synesthetic, for instance, I am a great test taker, always have been. Why? Because I'm using several senses to peg the answers in my mind. It's that much easier when you know how the answer tastes, feels, and what color it is. My friend over there, the non-synesthetic, has far less sensory information to help him out. Our experience of the senses and how they affect us is not the same. By the same token, a person who has a feel and understanding of philosophical concepts as well as the scientific is going to have an edge. Just because a person experiences something and you don't, it doesn't always mean they are a fool. Sometimes it only means they have a different experience than you.
Neuroscience has its place and it's an important one to be sure, but more is necessary to help us explain our experience as people.
*I've lost track of the source of this quote. Will find and add later.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7714533/brain-drain.thtml
Nice article by Roger Scruton in The Spectator, concerning a particular thorn in my side. Just one example, from the article:
"So just what can be proved about people by the close observation of their brains? We can be conceptualised in two ways: as organisms and as objects of personal interaction. The first way employs the concept ‘human being’, and derives our behaviour from a biological science of man. The second way employs the concept ‘person’, which is not the concept of a natural kind, but of an entity that relates to others in a familiar but complex way that we know intuitively but find hard to describe. Through the concept of the person, and the associated notions of freedom, responsibility, reason for action, right, duty, justice and guilt, we gain the description under which human beings are seen, by those who respond to them as they truly are. When we endeavour to understand persons through the half-formed theories of neuroscience we are tempted to pass over their distinctive features in silence, or else to attribute them to some brain-shaped homunculus inside. For we understand people by facing them, by arguing with them, by understanding their reasons, aspirations and plans. All of that involves another language, and another conceptual scheme, from those deployed in the biological sciences. We do not understand brains by facing them, for they have no face."
I have the argument mentioned in the article all the time, albeit from varying angles. There is a hard dividing line that seems very difficult if not impossible to communicate across. Most of my efforts have been toward finding a way to communicate this that extreme scientific systemizers (in my case, usually those with significant social deficits) will be able to accept, if not understand. The arguments in the comments section of the linked article are all too familiar.
While it may seem unrelated on the surface, I couldn't help but recall Brugger's experiments regarding apophenia and dopamine. Among other things:
"In his July 2002 report, Brugger stated that during the first stage of the experiment the individuals who believed in the paranormal were much more likely to see a face or a word when there was none. The skeptics were more likely to miss the real words and faces when they appeared on the screen."*
The link between patternicity and paranormal beliefs aside, I had noticed something interesting. When trying to communicate the nuances of interpersonal social interaction to these extreme systemizers and analyzers, I was being asked the same questions again and again: How can it be possible to understand another's motivations if it's not explicitly stated? What is the mathematical formula for friendliness? What is "flirting" and why should I believe it exists if I can't perceive it? Feelings are only a neurochemical process, so why should they matter in relationships? Trying to explain that many people experience empathy and emotional attachment feels like trying to tell a skeptic there is a ghost standing behind them.
There was so much missing of what was actually there that I thought of the apophenia experiment. One day I asked, rather frustrated, "when you look at clouds, do you ever think they resemble other things? Like, faces.or horses or ships...anything like that?" The answer was (and almost always has been since) a puzzled no. Clouds look like clouds, those other things are not clouds, so why should there be any resemblance? What's more, people who said they saw such things were either lying or crazy, or perhaps these stories of cloud shapes were just a peasant superstition cherished by the ignorant. Sort of like sasquatch or God.
It might only be anecdotal (and hence unacceptable to those same folks I'm talking about) but such consistency perked my interest. For all the mockery of those who believe in the paranormal (or who experience apophenia, pareidolia, cartocacoethes, synchronicity or what have you) such a consistent absence of such among a group who were not seeing, nor sometimes even believing in things like empathy or social nuance was intriguing. Could it be that detecting patterns plays a not insignificant role in successful social interactions? Thanks to my own tendency toward patternicity, it was pretty easy to see the similarities between the two groups. :p In my estimation, it's not so different from those who would see consciousness as simply a neurobiological process and nothing more, a "brain in a box" more than a whole person.
Personally - in all my crazed, irrational, philosophical unscientific-ness - I don't believe the views (and the theories) of those who are super-rational are the only correct explanations. Nor do I believe those who grab hold of any pattern (or convenient bit of mysticism, or worse, conspiracy) to explain their world are necessarily correct either. However, I do believe (and have been damned many times for saying so) that there is an added level of experience for those who are able to sense something beyond being a bag of water and chemicals, where everything simply corresponds to a precise formula. Being a synesthetic, for instance, I am a great test taker, always have been. Why? Because I'm using several senses to peg the answers in my mind. It's that much easier when you know how the answer tastes, feels, and what color it is. My friend over there, the non-synesthetic, has far less sensory information to help him out. Our experience of the senses and how they affect us is not the same. By the same token, a person who has a feel and understanding of philosophical concepts as well as the scientific is going to have an edge. Just because a person experiences something and you don't, it doesn't always mean they are a fool. Sometimes it only means they have a different experience than you.
Neuroscience has its place and it's an important one to be sure, but more is necessary to help us explain our experience as people.
*I've lost track of the source of this quote. Will find and add later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


