Some Times I Speak Loud And Confidently, Sometimes I Don't. But Guess What? I Never Stutter. I Do Repeat Some Of My Words, Though. Double Double.
"HE STUTTERS"
No I Don't. I Don't Have Any Speech Impediment And I Never Have. Know What I Have Though? A Psychological Problem! I Have Social Anxiety And What Happens When My Social Anxiety Is High (Like It Is Right Now)? I AVOID INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE AND I SOMETIMES DON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE (House Nigga). What Else Happens When My Social Anxiety Is High (Like It Is Right Now)? I AVOID SPEAKING TO PEOPLE BECAUSE MY CONFIDENCE IS LOW, MY SELF-ESTEEM IS LOW, AND MY INSECURITY IS HIGH. AND PEOPLE CAN SENSE THIS WHEN I SPEAK! THEY CAN SENSE THIS BECAUSE MY VOICE IS SHAKY (QUIVERING), MY SPEECH IS HALTERING (Stopping And Going), AND I SOMEWHAT HYPERVENTILATE WHILE I SPEAK. NOW WHY DO I DO THIS? WHY DO I HAVE THESE SYMPTOMS? BECAUSE I HAVE SOCIAL ANXIETY. DUHHHHHH!
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/361134380468551681
John Dickinson
I'M NERVOUS AND SHAKY WHEN I SPEAK AND PEOPLE CAN DETECT THIS (I SUFFER FROM SOCIAL ANXIETY). READ WHY HERE:
http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2015/09/he-hadd-no-game-loafer.html
http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2015/09/he-hadd-no-game-loafer.html
R(L)INGO BINGO
Which One's Apply To ME? "I LET THAT PHONE CALL GO TO VOICEMAIL" (I Do This Every Now And Then, Especially When My Anxiety Is High!). "I READ 3+ BOOKS LAST MONTH" (At Least 3, At Least 3! At Least I Do This Back Home In California). "I ACTIVELY AVOIDED SOMEONE TODAY" (I Sometimes Do This When I Don't Feel Like Speaking To A Person Because My Anxiety Is High). "I OFTEN THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY" (Everyday). "I'M BETTER AT WRITING THAN TALKING" (Yes, I Am). "I'M A GOOD LISTENER" (Unless Your Conversation Is Sanitation Or Becomes Redundant And Uninteresting). "I'M MUCH COOLER ON THE INTERNET" (Yes, I Am, Because In Real Life I'm Boring And A Downer, Debbie Gibson Downer"). "I'M A FAN OF AUTHORS AND ACADEMICS" (Obviously).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201312/painfully-shy
For some people however, shyness can lead to social anxiety and a crippling fear that results in deliberate isolation to avoid associating with others. Extremely shy individuals are typically low in self-esteem and largely preoccupied with what others think of them. Driven by a fear of rejection, shy people often engage in self-sabotage to prevent themselves from growing closer to others and avoid social situations when possible.
Research into shyness has suggested different causes including genetic influences, prenatal influences, environmental factors (including the effects of emotional abuse in childhood), or as the result of a traumatic social episode. While usually not severe enough to merit a diagnosis of social phobia or social anxiety, shyness can have a powerful effect on a person's sense of well-being along with being linked to depression or other emotional problems due to isolation.
Continuing into adulthood, shy people are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, loneliness, and poor relationship quality than those with more social confidence. This is especially important during the transition years (18 to 26) when adolescents take on adult roles and form romantic attachments. Shy people may also be more reluctant to "try new things" which could affect their career prospects or higher education. Shy young adults are also less likely to date, get married later (if at all), and are less likely to enter into stable relationships.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201203/they-re-just-not-you-and-other-facts-help-you-beat-social-anxiety
Many people suffer from social anxiety and feel terribly self-conscious when out in public, in groups, or just talking with one or two people (even when the other people are friends or family members).
Indeed, this concern spans the gamut from mild shyness to full-blown social anxiety disorder (technically called Social Phobia); a potentially crippling condition that needlessly straight jackets some people's lives. Regardless of its severity, the roots of this problem are almost always planted in the soil of fearing embarrassment, shame, or humiliation.
And here's what you can do to conquer your social anxieties:
First, consider that many other people share your worry about shame and embarrassment to a greater or lesser extent, so you're not the only one in the room who is feeling self-conscious and concerned about other's impressions or potential embarrassment.
...
Third, self-conscious and socially anxious people often suffer from a sense of psychological transparency meaning they fear that other people can detect their anxiety as though they have psychological x-ray vision or the anxiety they're is feeling is visible on the surface.
Well, let me assure you—unless you're sweating profusely and writhing in pain like Dick Cheney is interrogating you—your mental distress is not likely to be externally visible and nobody can look into you and see your inner discomfort or fear.
Next, since socially anxious people have a heightened fear of embarrassment, it's helpful to think of their anxiety as a sort of psychological allergy to shame.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anxiety-files/200804/how-big-problem-is-anxiety
And anxiety has been increasing. The average high school kid today has the same level of anxiety as the average psychiatric patient in the early 1950’s. We are getting more anxious every decade. Psychologists have speculated about the possible reasons for this increase in both anxiety and depression over the last fifty years. Some of the reasons may be a decrease in “social connectedness”---we tend to move more, change jobs, participate less in civic organizations, and we are less likely to participate in religious communities. People are far less likely to get married, more likely to delay getting married, and more likely to live alone. All of these factors can contribute to worry, uncertainty, anxiety and depression.
And our expectations have changed in the last fifty years. We expect to have a more affluent life-style, we are driven by unrealistic ideas of what we need (“I need the latest ipod!!”), and we have unrealistic ideas about relationships and appearance.
For some people however, shyness can lead to social anxiety and a crippling fear that results in deliberate isolation to avoid associating with others. Extremely shy individuals are typically low in self-esteem and largely preoccupied with what others think of them. Driven by a fear of rejection, shy people often engage in self-sabotage to prevent themselves from growing closer to others and avoid social situations when possible.
Research into shyness has suggested different causes including genetic influences, prenatal influences, environmental factors (including the effects of emotional abuse in childhood), or as the result of a traumatic social episode. While usually not severe enough to merit a diagnosis of social phobia or social anxiety, shyness can have a powerful effect on a person's sense of well-being along with being linked to depression or other emotional problems due to isolation.
Continuing into adulthood, shy people are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, loneliness, and poor relationship quality than those with more social confidence. This is especially important during the transition years (18 to 26) when adolescents take on adult roles and form romantic attachments. Shy people may also be more reluctant to "try new things" which could affect their career prospects or higher education. Shy young adults are also less likely to date, get married later (if at all), and are less likely to enter into stable relationships.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201203/they-re-just-not-you-and-other-facts-help-you-beat-social-anxiety
Many people suffer from social anxiety and feel terribly self-conscious when out in public, in groups, or just talking with one or two people (even when the other people are friends or family members).
Indeed, this concern spans the gamut from mild shyness to full-blown social anxiety disorder (technically called Social Phobia); a potentially crippling condition that needlessly straight jackets some people's lives. Regardless of its severity, the roots of this problem are almost always planted in the soil of fearing embarrassment, shame, or humiliation.
And here's what you can do to conquer your social anxieties:
First, consider that many other people share your worry about shame and embarrassment to a greater or lesser extent, so you're not the only one in the room who is feeling self-conscious and concerned about other's impressions or potential embarrassment.
...
Third, self-conscious and socially anxious people often suffer from a sense of psychological transparency meaning they fear that other people can detect their anxiety as though they have psychological x-ray vision or the anxiety they're is feeling is visible on the surface.
Well, let me assure you—unless you're sweating profusely and writhing in pain like Dick Cheney is interrogating you—your mental distress is not likely to be externally visible and nobody can look into you and see your inner discomfort or fear.
Next, since socially anxious people have a heightened fear of embarrassment, it's helpful to think of their anxiety as a sort of psychological allergy to shame.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anxiety-files/200804/how-big-problem-is-anxiety
And anxiety has been increasing. The average high school kid today has the same level of anxiety as the average psychiatric patient in the early 1950’s. We are getting more anxious every decade. Psychologists have speculated about the possible reasons for this increase in both anxiety and depression over the last fifty years. Some of the reasons may be a decrease in “social connectedness”---we tend to move more, change jobs, participate less in civic organizations, and we are less likely to participate in religious communities. People are far less likely to get married, more likely to delay getting married, and more likely to live alone. All of these factors can contribute to worry, uncertainty, anxiety and depression.
And our expectations have changed in the last fifty years. We expect to have a more affluent life-style, we are driven by unrealistic ideas of what we need (“I need the latest ipod!!”), and we have unrealistic ideas about relationships and appearance.
Passage From Matthew Lieberman's Social Concerning Public Speaking Coming Soon!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201609/new-research-shows-how-manage-public-speaking-anxiety
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201609/new-research-shows-how-manage-public-speaking-anxiety
Don't Suppress Or Try To Temper The Anxiety Of Public Speaking! Instead, Allow It To Excite You And Fire You Up! Use Its Adrenaline Enhancing Effects To Your Benefit. Use It To Keep You Sharp And Alert! Pump Yoself Up Befoe That Speech!
I Think Too Inwardly. I'm Too Introspective. I'm Too Self-Obsessed. And This Is A Major Contributor To My Social Anxiety. When My Mind Is Preoccupied By Things Other Than Myself (i.e. When I'm Not Thinking About Myself And How I Come Off To People And How People Think Of ME) I Become Much Less Anxious! In Other Words, When The Attention I Direct Towards Myself Is Distracted By Some External Stimuli (Work, Reading A Book, Watching TV, Interacting With A Person) And Redirected Toward That External Stimuli I Become Much Less Anxious. I'm A Basket Case!
These differences between the sexes emerge early on. A Canadian study invited boys and girls aged nine and ten to play games that measured competitiveness. Girls were reluctant to take toys away from each other unless it was the only way to win, but boys claimed toys regardless of how this affected the game's outcome. Girls competed only if necessary, but boys seemed to do so just for the sake of it.
Similarly, upon meeting for the first time, men check each other out by picking something - anything - to fight over, often getting worked up about a topic they normally don't care about. They adopt threatening body postures - legs apart and chests pushed out - make expansive gestures, speak with booming voices, utter veiled insults, make risque jokes, and so on. They desperately want to find out where they stand relative to one another. They hope to impress the others sufficiently that the outcome will be in their favor.
This is a predictable event on the first day of an academic gathering when egos from the far corners of the globe face each other in a seminar room or, for that matter, at a bar. Unlike the women, who tend to stay on the sidelines, the men get so involved in the ensuing intellectual jostle that they sometimes turn red or white. What chimpanzees do with charging displays - with their hair on end, drumming on anything that amplifies sound, uprooting little trees as they go - the human male does in the more civilized manner of making mincemeat of someone else's arguments or, more primitively, giving others no time to open their mouths. Clarification of the hierarchy is a top priority. Invariably, the next encounter among the same men will be calmer, meaning that something has been settled, though it's hard to know what exactly that is.
For males, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and an addictive one at that. The violent reaction of Nikkie and Yeroen to their loss of power fits the frustration-aggression hypothesis to the letter: the deeper the bitterness, the greater the anger. Males jealously guard their power, and lose all inhibition if anyone challenges it. And this hadn't been the first time for Yeroen. The ferocity of the attack on Luit may have been due to the fact that it was the second time he had come out on top.
The first time Luit gained the upper hand - marking the end of Yeroen's ancient regime - I was perplexed by the way the established leader reacted. Normally a dignified character, Yeroen became unrecognizable. In the midst of a confrontation, he would drop out of a tree like a rotten apple, writhing on the ground, screaming pitifully, and waiting to be comforted by the rest of the group. He acted much like a juvenile ape being pushed away from his mother's teats. And like a juvenile who during tantrums keeps an eye on mom for signs of softening, Yeroen always noted who approached him. If the group around him was big and powerful enough, and especially if it included the alpha female, he would gain instant courage. With his supporters in tow, he would rekindle the confrontation with his rival. Clearly, Yeroen's tantrums were yet another example of deft manipulation. What fascinated me most, however, were the parallels with infantile attachment, nicely captured in expressions like "clinging to power" and "being weaned from power." Knocking a male off his pedestal gets the same reaction as yanking the security blanket away from a baby.
When Yeroen finally lost his top spot, he would often sit staring into the distance after a fight, an empty expression on his face. He was oblivious to the social activity around him and refused food for weeks. We thought he was sick, but the veterinarian found nothing wrong. Yeroen seemed a mere ghost of the impressive big shot he had been. I've never forgotten this image of a beaten and dejected Yeroen. When power was lost, the lights in him went out.
I've witnessed only one other such drastic transformation, this time in my own species. A senior professor, a colleague of mine on a university faculty with extraordinary prestige and ego, had failed to notice a budding conspiracy. Some young faculty members disagreed with him on a politically sensitive issue and successfully rallied a vote against him. Until then, I don't think anyone had ever had the guts to go head-to-head with him. Support for the alternative proposal had been cultivated behind his back by some of his own proteges. Following the fatal vote, which must have come out of the blue, given his expression of disbelief, all color drained from the professor's face. Looking ten years older, he had the same empty, ghostlike appearance Yeroen had after he had lost his top spot. For the professor, this was about much more than the issue at hand; it was about who ran the department. In the weeks and months following the meeting, his entire demeanor changed as he strode the corridors. Instead of saying "I am in charge," his body language now said "Leave me alone."
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's The Final Days describes Persident Richard Nixon's breakdown after it became obvious that he would have to resign: "Between sobs, Nixon was plaintive. How had a simple burglary...done all this?...Nixon got down on his knees...[He] leaned over and struck his fist on the carpet, crying, 'What have I done? What has happened?" Henry Kissinger, his secretary of state, reportedly comforted the dethroned leader like a child. He consoled him, literally holding Nixon in his arms, reciting all of his great accomplishments over and over until the president finally calmed down.
It's hard to name a single discovery in animal behavior that enjoys wider name recognition than the "pecking order." Even if pecking is not exactly a human behavior, the term is ubiquitous in modern society. We speak of the corporate pecking order, of the pecking order at the Vatican (with "primates" on top), acknowledging inequalities and their ancient origins. We're also mocking ourselves, hinting that we - sophisticated human beings - share a few things with domestic fowl.
It is something a child can see, and I mean this quite literally. The momentous discovery of the pecking order was made at the beginning of the twentieth century by a Norwegian boy, Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe, who fell in love with chickens at the tender age of six. His mother brought him his own flock, and soon each bird had a name. By the age of ten, Thorleif was keeping detailed notebooks, which he maintained for years. Apart from keeping track of how many eggs the chickens laid, and who pecked whom, he was particularly fascinated by the occasional exceptions to the hierarchy - "triangles" in which hen A is master over B, and B over C, but C over A. So from the start, like a real scientist, the child was not only interested in the regularities but also the irregularities of the rank and order. We now find the social ladder that young Thorleif discovered - and later wrote up for his dissertation - so obvious that we cannot even imagine that anyone could miss it.
Likewise, watching a group of people, one will quickly notice which individuals act with the greatest confidence, attract the most glances and nods of agreement, are least reluctant to break into the discussion, speak in a softer voice yet expect everybody to listen (and laugh at their jokes!), voice unilateral opinions, and so on. But there are far more subtle status clues. Scientists used to consider the frequency band of 500 hertz and below in the human voice as meaningless noise, because when a voice is filtered, removing all higher frequencies, one hears nothing but a low-pitched hum. All words are lost. But then it was found that this low hum is an unconscious social instrument. It is different for each person, but in the course of a conversation people tend to converge. They settle on a single hum, and it is always the lower status person who does the adjusting. This was first demonstrated in an analysis of the Larry King Live television show. The host, Larry King, would adjust his timbre to that of high-ranking guests, like Mike Wallace or Elizabeth Taylor. Low-ranking guests, on the other hand, would adjust their timbre to that of King. The clearest adjustment to King's voice, indicating lack of confidence, came from former Vice President Dan Quayle.
The same spectral analysis has been applied to televised debates between U.S. presidential candidates. In all eight election between 1960 and 2000 the popular vote matched the voice analysis: the majority of the people voted for the candidate who held his own timbre rather than the one who adjusted. In some cases, the differences were extreme, such as between Ronald Regan and Walter Mondale. And only in 200 did a candidate with a slightly subordinate voice pattern, George W. Bush, get elected. But this was not really an exception to the rule because, as Democrats will relish pointing out, the popular vote actually went to the candidate with the dominant voice pattern, Al Gore.
Below the radar of consciousness, we thus communicate status every time we talk with someone, whether in person or on the telephone... (Our Inner Ape)
Social Structure. Almost all species of domesticated large mammals prove to be ones whose wild ancestors share three social characteristics: they live in herds; they maintain a well-developed dominance hierarchyamong herd members; and the herds occupy overlapping home ranges rather than mutually exclusive territories. For example, herds of wild horses consist of one stallion, up to half a dozen mares, and their foals. Mare A is dominant over mares B, C, D, and E; mare B is submissive to A but dominant over C, D, and E; C is submissive to B and A but dominant over D and E; and so on. When the herd is on the move, its members maintain a stereotyped order: in the rear, the stallion; in the front, the top-ranking female, followed by her foals in order of age, with the youngest first; and behind her, the other mares in order of rank, each followed by her foals in order of age. In that way, many adults can coexist in the herd without constant fighting and with each knowing its rank.
That social structure is ideal for domestication, because humans in effect take over the dominance hierarchy. Domestic horses of a pack line follow the human leader as they would normally follow the top-ranking female. Herds or packs of sheep, goats, cows, and ancestral dogs (wolves) have a similar hierarchy. As young animals grow up in such a herd, they imprint on the animals that they regularly see nearby. Under wild conditions those are members of their own species, but captive young herd animals also see humans nearby and imprint on humans as well
Such social animals lend themselves to herding. Since they are tolerant of each other, they can be bunched up. Since they instinctively follow a dominant leader and will imprint on humans as that leader, they canreadily be driven by a shepherd or sheepdog. Herd animals do well when penned in crowded conditions, because they are accustomed to living in densely packed groups in the wild.
In contrast, members of most solitary territorial animal species cannot be herded. They do not tolerate each other, they do not imprint on humans, and they are not instinctively submissive. Who ever saw a line of cats (solitary and territorial in the wild) following a human or allowing themselves to be herded by a human? Every cat lover knows that cats are not
submissive to humans in the way dogs instinctively are. Cats and
ferrets are the sole territorial mammal species that were domesticated,
because our motive for doing so was not to herd them in large groups
raised for food but to keep them as solitary hunters or pets.
While most solitary territorial species thus haven't been domesticated, it's not conversely the case that most herd species can be domesticated. Most can't, for one of several additional reasons.
First, herds of many species don't have overlapping home ranges but instead
maintain exclusive territories against other herds. It's no more
possible to pen two such herds together than to pen two males of a
solitary species.
Second, many species that live in herds for part of the year are territorial in the breeding season, when they fight and do not tolerate each other's presence. That's true of most deer and antelope species (again with the exception of reindeer), and it's one of the main factors that has disqualified all the social antelope species for which Africa is famous from being domesticated. While one's first association to African antelope is "vast dense herds spreading across the horizon," in fact the males of those herds space themselves into territories and fight fiercely with each other when breeding. Hence those antelope cannot be maintained in crowded enclosures in captivity, as can sheep or goats or cattle. Territorial behavior similarly combines with a fierce disposition and a slow growth rate to banish rhinos from the farmyard.
Finally, many herd species, including again most deer and antelope, do not have a well defined dominance hierarchy and are not instinctively prepared to become imprinted on a dominant leader (hence to become misimprinted on humans). As a result, though many deer and antelope species have been tamed (think of all those bambi stories), one never sees such tame deer and antelope driven in herds like sheep. That problem also derail domestication of North American bighorn sheep, which belong to the same genus as Asiatic mouflon sheep, ancestor of our domestic sheep. Bighorn sheep are suitable to us and similar to mouflons in most respects except a crucial one: they lack the mouflon's stereotypically behavior whereby some individuals behave submissively toward other individuals whose dominance they acknowledge.
I WAS RAISED IN A MALE DOMINANT HOUSEHOLD WITH A WELL-DEVELOPED DOMINANCE HIERARCHY. THE LEADER OF THE PACK (THE ALPHA MALE) WAS MY FATHER FOLLOWED BY MY BROTHER GERY. NOT ONLY WAS MY HOUSEHOLD DOMINATED BY PHYSICALLY AND SOCIALLY DOMINANT MALES, BUT YOU'D BE SWIFTLY REPRIMANDED IF YOU DID ANYTHING THAT VIOLATED THE UNSPOKEN RULES OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED DOMINANCE HIERARCHY (i.e. DISOBEYED MY FATHER OR MOTHER OR OLDER SIBLINGS OR IGNORED THEM OR TALKED BACK TO THEM OR EVEN SPOKE TO THEM WHEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SPOKEN TO). IN OTHER WORDS, I WASN'T RAISED LIKE A WHITE KID WHO WAS AN ONLY CHILD (HAD NO SIBLINGS), RAISED BY TWO LIBERAL PARENTS WHO NEVER DISCIPLINED HIM AND ALLOWED HIS TO SPEAK FREELY AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTED. I WAS RAISED TO KNOW MY POSITION WITHIN THE DOMINANCE HIERARCHY, NOT CHALLENGE ANYONE ABOVE ME, AND BE SUBMISSIVE TO THOSE THAT WERE HIGHER UP THE STATUS HIERARCHY. THIS HAS HAD A LONG-TERM EFFECT ON MY PERSONALITY, PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKEUP, AND LIFE OUTCOME. IT, ALONG WITH MY GENETIC PREDISPOSITION, HAS LED TO THE SOCIAL ANXIETY THAT I'VE HAD TO OVERCOME. SEE POST HERE: http://vengeanceizmine.blogspot.com/2014/03/look-at-me-natalie-thiem-mozaryn-im-35.html
ONLY SPEAK WHEN SPOKEN TO. CHILDREN ARE TO BE SEEN, NOT HEARD.
This one has to do with children reared in England. It came to my attention - thanks to my weakness for British mystery novels - that generations of upper-class British males were reared in a way that doesn't make sense in terms of the nurture assumption. The son of wealthy British parents spent most of his first eight years in the company of a nanny, a governess, and perhaps a sibling or two. He spent little time with his mother and even less with his father, whose attitude toward children was typically that they should not be heard, and if possible, not be seen either. At the age of eight the boy was sent off to a boarding school and he remained at school for the next ten years, coming home only for "holidays (vacations). And yet, when he emerged from Eton or Harrow, he was ready to take his place in the world of British gentlemen. He did not talk and act like his nanny or his governess, or even like his teachers at Eton or Harrow. In his upper-class accent and his upper-class demeanor, he bore a close resemblance to his father - a father who had virtually nothing to do with bringing him up.
In case you were wondering whether imitating the same-sex parent might work better in a less complex society, the answer is no. In preindustrial societies, the distinction between acceptable adult behavior and acceptable child behavior tends to be even greater than our own. In village societies in the Polynesian islands, for instance, children are expected to be restrained and submissive with adults and to speak only when spoken to. The adults do not behave this way, either when interacting with their children or when interacting with other adults...children who behave like grownups are considered impertinent. (The Nurture Assumption)
One possibility is that the times they are a-changing, such that the
modern world is becoming less dangerous than it was even back in 1946.
Although the newspapers continue to dwell on the dangers of modern life,
it is in fact much less dangerous to live today than it was in the good
old days (see Is the world becoming a nicer place to live?).
Another possibility is that anxiety is still adaptive, but only in
very small doses -- the level of worry that keeps most normal people
from rock climbing in Yosemite without a rope or jumping into the tiger
cage at the zoo. Higher than normal levels of anxiety may not be
necessary, and may indeed be harmful, especially in the modern world.
Why do some individuals have anxiety levels that interfere with, and eventually shorten, their everyday lives? Northwestern University's Jon Maner and I discussed several possibilities in a paper called “When adaptations go awry: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of social anxiety.”
For one, there is sometimes a mismatch between our current
environments and the environments in which our psychological mechanisms
evolved (most of us no longer need to worry about lions, tigers, or
bears). For another, every decision involves trade-offs: anxiety can
keep you out of troubles, but worry-driven avoidance can also keep you
from enjoying many of life’s opportunities. Where you set your personal
smoke detector will depend in part on your recent and chronic
experiences. A combination of genetic predispositions and past
sensitizing experiences will lead to a range of individual differences
in anxiety, and some of us will simply be less lucky than others.
NONE OF MY SIBLINGS HAD ANY ANXIETY PROBLEMS, AT LEAST THAT I'M AWARE OF. IN FACT, SOME OF THEM WERE THE EXACT OPPOSITE (WE'RE AS OUTGOING, TALKATIVE, AND UNINHIBITED AS THEY COME).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shyness-is-nice/201401/do-you-have-social-anxiety-disorder
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shyness-is-nice/201304/symptoms-social-anxiety
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shyness-is-nice/201305/is-social-anxiety-getting-you-down
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shyness-is-nice/201304/the-social-anxiety-spiral
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shyness-is-nice/201302/three-treatment-issues-when-you-have-ocd-and-social-anxiety
SHYBOY
(Another Username The Adversary Created On The Siccness)
 |
| http://www.wsj.com/articles/not-an-introvert-not-an-extrovert-you-may-be-an-ambivert-1438013534 "He SHY". Actually, I Wasn't A Shy Infant, Toddler, Child, Or Teenager. You Couldn't Have Gotten Into As Many Fights As I Did During This Time Of My Life And Be A SHY Person. Know What I Was? An AMBIVERT (Not Too Introverted And Not Too Extroverted) Like Most Of You. MY MIND HAS FUCKED ME UP OVER THE YEARS. (Know Who's Shy, Reserved, And Inhibited? East Asians And Many Students At 4-Year Universities! They're Pussies! How Do I Know? Because I Punk And Have Punked Them On The Hoop Court And They've Done Nothing In Return Other Than Leave The Court And Talk Behind My Back (Say Nasty Thing Behind Back!).) http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014//11/bashful.aspx BABY BASHFUL  https://www.amazon.com/Social-Anxiety-Overcome-Shyness-Forever/dp/1540857123/ |
There is also some indication that the average differences carry over into adulthood. One of Freedman's students, Nova Green, found that Chinese American children in Chicago nursery schools spent less of their time in approach and interaction with playmates and more time on individual projects than did their European-American counterparts. They also displayed interesting differences in temperament:
Although the majority of Chinese-American children were in the "high arousal age," between 3 and 5, they showed little intense emotional behavior. They ran and hopped, laughed and called to one another, rode bikes, and roller-skated just as the children did in the other nursery schools, but the noise level stayed remarkably low and the emotional atmosphere projected serenity instead of bedlam. The impassive facial expression certainly gave the children an air of dignity and self-possession, but this was only one element affecting the total impression. Physical movements seemed more coordinated, no tripping, falling, bumping or bruising was observed, no screams, crashes or wailing was heard, not even that common sound in other nurseries, voices raised in highly indignant moralistic dispute! No property disputes were observed and only the mildest version of "fighting behavior," some good natures wrestling among the older boys.
Navaho infants tested by Freedman and his coworkers were even more quiescent than the Chinese infants. When lifted erect and pulled forward they were less inclined to swing their legs in a walking motion; when put in a sitting position, their backs curved; and when placed on their stomachs, they made fewer attempts to crawl. It has been conventional to ascribe the passivity of Navaho children to the practice of cradleboarding, a device that holds the infant tightly in place on the mother's back. But Freedman suggests that the reverse may actually be true: the relative quiescence of Navaho babies, a trait that is apparent from birth onward, allows them to be carried in a confining manner. Cradleboarding represents a workable compromise between cultural invention and infant constitution.
Given that humankind is a biological species, it should come as no shock to find that populations are to some extent genetically diverse in physical and mental properties underlying social behavior... (On Human Nature)
HEY, MY FATHER USED TO SAY "THOSE SEA-HEADS (THAT'S HOW HE REFERRED TO ASIANS, SPECIFICALLY CHINESE) ONLY LIKE TO PLAY INDIVIDUAL SPORTS." HE WAS REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF ASIANS SEEMED TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS, GOLF, PING PONG, GYMNASTICS, THE PIANO, THE VIOLIN, ETC. RATHER THAN TEAM SPORTS LIKE BASKETBALL, BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, ETC. COULD THIS OBSERVED BEHAVIORAL TRAIT BE THE REASON, "Chinese American children in Chicago nursery schools spent less of their time in approach and interaction with playmates and more time on individual projects than did their European-American counterparts. EAST ASIANS MAY BE GENETICALLY INCLINED TO ENJOY THE SOLITUDE OF INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES.
HEY, HAVE YOU EVER GONE TO A BASKETBALL COURT WITH A GROUP OF SAMOANS OR GROUP OF TONGANS OR GROUP OF NIGGAS? AS SOON AS THEY STEP ON THE COURT THERE'S MUCH MORE TENSION, CONFLICT, ARGUING, POTENTIAL FOR VIOLENCE, AND DOMINANCE DISPLAY. THEY DO THINGS (INTERRUPT GAMES, INTIMIDATE PEOPLE, STEAL BASKETBALLS, CHEAT* DURING THE GAME, AND CAUSE GENERAL MAYHEM (ALL THINGS THAT I'VE DONE AND SOMETIMES STILL DO)) THAT EAST ASIANS AND CAUCASIANS WOULD NEVER EVEN CONTEMPLATE DOING. PLUS THEY'RE MORE BOISTEROUS, IMPETUOUS, AND UNRULY THAN THEIR EAST ASIAN AND CAUCASIAN COUNTERPARTS.
*THEY CHEAT AFTER THE GAME TOO. THEY CHEAT ON TESTS, TAXES, WIVES, AND GIRLFRIENDS.
HEY, HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED A GAME OF BASKETBALL WITH EAST ASIANS (OR ASIANS IN GENERAL) OR CAUCASIANS? THERE'S MUCH LESS DISAGREEMENT IN THESE GAMES (AND IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT IT'S RESOLVED QUICKLY AND PEACEFULLY), THERE'S MUCH LESS DISRESPECT IN THESE GAMES, AND THERE'S MUCH LESS POTENTIAL FOR TROUBLE. WHY? BECAUSE THE EAST ASIANS AND CAUCASIANS TEND TO PLAY THE GAME BY THE RULES, THEY TEND TO PLAY WELL TOGETHER (GET ALONG) AND AVOID STEPPING ON ONE ANOTHER'S TOES, LITERALLY (ARE AFRAID TO DISRESPECT OR EVEN DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER). COULD THIS OBSERVED BEHAVIORAL TRAIT BE THE REASON WHY, "the majority of Chinese-American children...showed little intense emotional behavior. They ran and hopped, laughed and called to one another, rode bikes, and roller-skated just as the children did in the other nursery schools, but the noise level stayed remarkably low and the emotional atmosphere projected serenity instead of bedlam. The impassive facial expression certainly gave the children an air of dignity and self-possession, but this was only one element affecting the total impression...no screams, crashes or wailing was heard, not even that common sound in other nurseries, voices raised in highly indignant moralistic dispute!" THEY'RE MUCH MORE SUBDUED, QUIET, OBEDIENT, AND WELL-BEHAVED THAN THEIR POLYNESIAN AND AFRICAN COUNTERPARTS.
"Niggas Ain't Gorillas, They Moe Like A Fox!" - Joe
"I'm SMART As A Fox With My Shirley Temple Lox! - Bruce (The Boss)
https://www.noted.co.nz/planet/planet-planet/dogs-the-strange-evolution-of-our-bff
"Ever Since Snoopy Was A Pup His Tail Was Strait Up Ready To Shake, Rattle, And Roll!" - Mac
https://www.noted.co.nz/planet/planet-planet/dogs-the-strange-evolution-of-our-bff
"Ever Since Snoopy Was A Pup His Tail Was Strait Up Ready To Shake, Rattle, And Roll!" - Mac
Dogs That Changed The World, Part 1of2 (Documentary Full Length)
You Can See Similar Differences Among The Craniums Of Individuals From Different Races And Ethnic Groups. That Is, Human Races Show As Much Difference In Cranial Shape And Structure As Do Dogs!
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE BREEDS OF DOG SHOWN ABOVE AND ALL OF THE BREEDS OF DOG THROUGHOUT THE WORLD EVOLVED FROM WOLVES? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL DOGS DESCENDED FROM WOLVES? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT WOLVES ARE THE ANCESTORS OF DOGS. BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT'S THE EVOLUTIONARY AND GENETIC TRUTH!
![How to Tame a Fox (and Build a Dog): Visionary Scientists and a Siberian Tale of Jump-Started Evolution by [Dugatkin, Lee Alan, Trut, Lyudmila]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41pLeUYPDtL.jpg)
How many "species" are there?
Are dogs, coyotes, and wolves a single interfertile species or three separate ones? What about the Red Wolf (a coyote-wolf hybrid)? Should it be protected under the Endangered Species Act?
Or do these obvious ambiguities prove Species Don't Exist?
The red wolf of the Eastern USA is a wolf / coyote hybrid. Obviously, wolves and coyotes are pretty interfertile, but, for the purposes of Endangered Species Act, scientists have recently socially constructed it into its own species.
Of course, race is just a social construct.
But, actually, scientists argue a lot about whether types of animal--e.g., dogs, coyotes, wolves, red wolves--are separate species or not, even though these questions can have billion dollar implications under the Endangered Species Act.
Nature has a lot of fuzzy sets.
CARTA: Domestication: Transformation of Wolf to Dog; Fox Domestication; Craniofacial Feminization
Dog Evolution
https://www.amazon.com/How-Dog-Became-Wolves-Friends/dp/1468302698/
Our December cover story: The Origins of Dogs. Find the rest of the issue on newsstands now! http://bit.ly/2eLMRJm
The Origins of Dogs - New genetic research may finally reveal their roots http://bit.ly/2fQuQHE via @DiscoverMag
RACE DIFFERENCES IN DISPOSITION AND PERSONALITY. READ THE PAIGES BELOW. (THE GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMAN RACES IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BREEDS OF DOGS. ROOF.)
Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs
A breed bred to fight viciously with minimum provocation and maximum bite strength ends up killing more humans than all other breeds put together, but the respectable explanation is "bad training."
The best counter-argument I've heard is that a lot of attacks by other breeds get counted as 'pitbull attacks' because a lot of breeds look extremely similar.
dogster.com/dog-breeds/dog!
Brian Wood Retweeted
When dogs were used as kitchen slaves -- chilling history of cruelty to animals.
http://humanprogress.org/blog/when-dogs-were-used-as-kitchen-gadgets
https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Cave-Wolves-Made-Human/dp/0544286561/
https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Cave-Wolves-Made-Human/dp/0544286561/
| BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT EUROPEANS AND WHITE AMERICANS TEND TO LOOK AT DOGS AS PETS AND COMPANIONS WHEREAS OTHER RACES, SPECIFICALLY ASIANS (SOUTHEAST ASIANS, IN PARTICULAR) TEND TO LOOK AT DOGS AS FOOD?! HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT? THESE NON-EUROPEAN RACES DON'T THINK OF OR TREAT DOGS AS FRIENDS OR PART OF THE FAMILY, INSTEAD THEY THINK OF THEM AND TREAT THEM AS THINGS THAT CAN BE USED, ABUSED, AND EVENTUALLY CONSUMED! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6321wj8Y_0 Wilson’s (1984) biophilia hypothesis is based on the premise that our attachment to and interest in animals stems from the strong possibility that human survival was partly dependent on signals from animals in the environment indicating safety or threat. The biophilia hypothesis suggests that now, if we see animals at rest or in a peaceful state, this may signal to us safety, security and feelings of well-being which in turn may trigger a state where personal change and healing are possible.  http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/why-are-dog-breeds-so-variable-compared-to-cat-breeds/ |
 Answer #1 (da serious one): longer domestication time combined with more varied breeding objectives. Dogs have been bred to be trackers, pointers, retrievers, weight-pullers, guards, large-animal hunters, small-animal hunders, probably numerous other purposes I don’t know about, as well as for ‘cute toys’. Cats have basically been bred with only two goals in mind: to catch vermin and as cute toys.  I am roughly the furthest thing from a biologist, so excuse me if I spew total nonsense, but I always felt it had to do with their respective places in human society. That is, dogs had certain roles (guarding, herding, fighting certain wild animals in tunnels, etc.) while cats, due to the relative difficulty in training them, had no such niches, really. Cats certainly helped in controlling vermin, etc., but for that purpose, one cat was basically as good as another. Therefore dogs were purposefully bred to maximize their utility for certain roles, while no such selective breeding took place in cats (or much less). This led to certain dog traits being emphasized in certain breeds while cat traits tended towards the average. I also always thought this might have something to do with the idea that while we actively domesticated dogs as societal helpers, cats more or less domesticated themselves. Feel free to tell me I am full of domestic excrement of either variety. READ THE COMMENTS RELATED TO Aelfric's COMMENT (THE ONES BELOW HIS COMMENT).  I think it’s because people have domesticated and bred dogs over thousands of years for so many different purposes: hunting all kinds of species from bears to badgers, guarding, fighting, racing, herding, retrieving, police work, lap sitting, and so on. Cats have been used for mouse hunting and pets, and that’s about it. You might say this gets it backwards because the variability of dogs is what makes them suited to these different roles, but I don’t think so. The innately independent character of cats makes them unsuitable. |
.jpg)
.jpg)
Pit bulls only 6% of dog population, but responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982 http://www.isegoria.net/2014/11/the-problem-with-pit-bulls/ …
Niggers Are The Pit Bulls Of Humanity! (The Nigger Is Small In Population Numbers, But Large In Population Crime! Control The Population! Spay And Neuter Your Nigger!)
.jpg)
ROOF
.jpg)
The story of how dogs and humans became so connected version 2.0.
.jpg)
Dan Freedman: Racial differences in newborn behavior, 1974
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/
http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/12/are-chinese-babies-more-docile.html
http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/11/do-chinese-people-get-bored-less-easily.html
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/spent-miller-and-kanazawa.html
DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES EVOLVED DIFFERENT PERSONALITY TRAITS AS A RESULT OF EVOLVING IN DIFFERENT CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTS. SOME OF THESE TRAITS ARE BENEFICIAL TO MODERN DAY LIVING, ESPECIALLY THOSE TRAITS CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE, AGGRESSIVENESS (PASSIVITY), TIME-PREFERENCE (DELAYING GRATIFICATION), IMPULSIVENESS (PLANNING AHEAD), AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS (PUNCTUALITY, ORGANIZATION, RELIABILITY, ETC.). (WESTERN EUROPEANS AND EAST ASIANS HAVE AN ABOVE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE OF HIGH INTELLIGENCE, LOW TIME-PREFERENCE, LOW IMPULSIVENESS, HIGH PASSIVITY, AND HIGH CONSCIENTIOUSNESS IN THEIR POPULATIONS, SO THEY'RE BETTER ADAPTED TO THIS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT AND THUS OVERWHELMINGLY SUCCEED IN THIS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT WHERE THESE TRAITS ARE VALUED.)
How is it, that we classify Red Wolves and Grey Wolves as different Subspecies when they look nearly identical, but then say, well, a Greenland Inuit is the same Species as an African Pygmy. Seriously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHeSlMui-2k&feature=youtu.be
READ ME COMMENT TO JANE.
.jpg) |
| Why Are Chinks Such Passive, Non-Aggressive, Non-Confrontational People? Because They've Evolved Genes*, Specifically During The Agricultural Revolution That Swept Through China About 9,000 Years Ago, That Predispose Them To Be That Way. *Oh, And The Genes They Evolved To Cope With The Political And Economic Systems That They've Had To Endure In China For The Past 3,000 Years (This Played A Bigger Role Than Agriculture). I Read The Book Nicholas Wade! The Hole Book! http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-trust/201402/study-the-difference-between-shyness-and-social-anxiety |
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
There has been a long debate among pediatricians and child psychologists about how best to respond to a child's crying. Of course, the parent first checks whether the child is in pain or really needs some help. But if there seems to be nothing wrong, is it better to hold and comfort a crying child, or should one put down the child and let it cry until it stops, however long that takes? Does the child cry more if its parents put the child down and walk out of the room, of if they continue to hold it?
Philosophies about this question differ among Western countries, and differ from generation to generation within the same country. When I was living in Germany over 50 years ago, the prevailing view there was that children should be left to cry, and that it was harmful to attend to a child that cried "without reason." Studies showed that, when a German infant cried, its crying was ignored on the average one out of three times, or else the parent responded only after an interval of between 10 and 30 minutes. German infants were left alone in a crib for a long time, while the mother went out shopping or was working in another room. The magic words for German parents were that children should acquire Selbstandigkeit (meaning approximately "self-reliance") and Ordnungsliebe (literally, "love of order," including self-control and complying with the wishes of others) as quickly as possible. German parents considered American children spoiled, because American parents attended too quickly to a child's crying. German parents were afraid that too much attention would make a child verwohnt - an important and very, very bad word in German vocabulary regarding children, meaning "spoiled."
The attitudes of urban American and British parents in the decades from 1920 to 1950 were similar to contemporary German attitudes. American mothers were told by pediatricians and by other experts that regular schedules and cleanliness were all-important for infants, that rapid response would spoil the baby, and that it was essential for babies to learn to play by themselves and to control themselves as early as possible. The anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy described as follows the philosophy prevailing in the United States in the mid-20th century about how to respond to a baby's crying: "Back in my mother's day, educated women were under the impression that if a baby cried and his mother rushed to pick him up, she would spoil him, conditioning the baby to cry more." By the 1980s, when my wife Marie and I were raising our twin sons, that was still the prevalent philosophy about what to do with a baby who cried when being put to bed. We were advised to kiss our babies good-night, tiptoe out of their bedroom, ignore their heart-rendering sobs when they heard us leave, come back in 10 minutes, wait for them to quiet down, tiptoe out again, and again ignore the resulting sobs. We felt horrible. Many other modern parents have shared our ordeal, and continue to share it.
In contrast, observers of children in hunter-gatherer societies commonly report that, if an infant begins crying, the parents' practice is to respond immediately. For example, if an Efe Pygmy infant starts to fuss, the mother or some other care-giver tries to comfort the infant within 10 seconds. If a !Kung infant cries, 88% of crying bouts receive a response (consisting of touching or nursing the infant) within 3 seconds, and almost all bouts receive a response within 10 seconds. Mothers respond to !Kung infants by nursing them, but many responses are by non-mothers (especially other adult women), who react by touching or holding the infant. The result is that !Kung infants spend at most one minute out of each hour crying, mainly in crying bouts of less than 10 seconds. Because the responses of !Kung care-givers to crying by their infants are prompt and reliable, the total time that !Kung infants spend crying each hour is half that measured for Dutch infants. Many other studies show that one-year-old infants whose crying is ignored end up spending more time crying than do infants whose crying receives a response.
To settle once and for all the question of whether children whose crying is ignored turn out to be healthier adults than do children whose crying receives a prompt response, one would have to do a controlled experiment. The all powerful experimenter would arbitrarily divide a society's households into two groups, and the parents of one group of children would be required to ignore their child's "needless" crying while the other group of parents would respond to crying within three seconds. Twenty years later, when the infants were adults, one could assess which group of children were more autonomous, secure in relationships, self-reliant, self-controlled, unspoiled, and endowed with other virtues emphasized by some modern educators and pediatricians.
Naturally, those well-designed experiments and rigorous assessments have not been carried out. One must instead fall back on the messy natural experiments and unrigorous anecdotes of comparing societies with different child-rearing practices. At least, one can conclude that the prompt responses of hunter-gatherer parents to infants crying do not consistently lead to children who end up conspicuously lacking in autonomy and self-reliance and other virtues. We shall return to the impressionistic answers that scholars have offered to this question of long-term outcomes.
Related to those debates about spoiling a child by promptly responding to its crying are the familiar debates about spoiling a child by avoiding punishing it. There is great variation among human societies in their attitudes towards punishing children: variation within a given society from generation to generation, and variation between similar neighboring societies within the same generation. As for variation within the same society between generations, spanking of children was much more widely practiced in the United States in my parents' generation than it is today. The German chancellor Bismarck commented that, even within a given family, spanked generations tend to alternate with non-spanked generations. That conforms to the experience of many of my American friends: those who were spanked as children swear that they will never inflict such barbaric cruelties on their own children, while those who were not spanked as children swear that it is healthier to administer a brief spanking than to practice the guilt manipulation and other behavioral controls that substitute for spanking, or to spoil kids entirely.
As for variation between contemporary neighboring societies, consider Western Europe today. Sweden forbids spankings; a Swedish parent who spanks a child can be charged with the criminal offense of child abuse. In contrast, many of my educated liberal German and British friends and American evangelical Christian friends believe that it is better to spank a child than not to spank. Spankers are fond of quoting the 17th-century English poet Samuel Butler ("Spare the rod and spoil the child") and the Athenian playwright Menander ("The man who has never been flogged has never been taught"). Similarly, in modern Africa the Aka Pygmies never beat or even scold their children, and they consider horrible and abusive the child-rearing practices of neighboring Ngandu farmers, who do beat their children.
Variation in physical punishment characterizes or characterized not only modern Europe and Africa but also other times and parts of the world. Within ancient Greece, Athenian children (despite Menander's dictum) ran around unchecked, while at the same time in Sparta everyone, not just a child's parents, could beat a child. In New Guinea, while some tribes do not even punish babies for brandishing sharp knives, I encountered an opposite extreme at a small village (Gasten) of a dozen huts around a clearing, where village life took place in full view of all the residents. One morning, I heard angry screaming, and I looked out to see what was happening. A mother was incensed at her daughter of about age eight, shouting at the daughter and hitting her, and the daughter was sobbing and holding her arms in front of her face to ward off the blows. Other adults were watching, and nobody was interfering. The mother got more and more furious. Finally, the mother went over to the edge of the clearing, bent down to pick up some object, came back to the child, and vigorously rubbed the object into the child's face, causing her daughter to scream uncontrollably in agony. It turned out that the object was a bunch of stinging nettle leaves. I don't know what the daughter had done to provoke this punishment, but the mother's behavior was evidently considered acceptable by all of the onlookers.
How can one explain why some societies practice physical punishment of children, while others don't? Much of the variation is evidently cultural and unrelated to differences in subsistence economy. For instance, I am unaware of differences between the economies of Sweden, Germany, and Britain, all of them industrialized agriculture-based societies speaking Germanic languages, that could explain why many modern Germans and British spank but Swedes don't. The New Guineans of both Gasten and of Enu's adoptive tribe are gardeners and swineherds, again without obvious differences to explain why physical punishment with nettles is acceptable at Gasten while even mild physical punishment is rare among Enu's adoptive people.
However, there does seem to be a broad trend: most hunter-gatherer bands do minimal physical punishment of young children, many farming societies do some punishment, and herders are especially likely to punish. One contributing explanation is that misbehavior by a hunter-gatherer child will probably hurt only the child and not anyone or anything else, because hunter-gatherers tend to have few valuable physical possessions. But many farmers, and especially herders, do have valuable material things, especially valuable livestock, so herders punish children to prevent serious consequences to the whole family - e.g., if a child fails to close the pasture gates, valuable cows and sheep can run away. More generally, compared to mobile societies of egalitarian hunter-gatherers, sedentary societies (e.g., most farmers and herders) have more power differences, more gender-based and age-based and individual inequality, more emphasis on learning deference and respect - and hence more punishment of children.
Here are some examples. Among hunter-gatherers, the Piraha, Andaman Islanders, Aka Pygmies, and !Kung practice little or no physical punishment. Daniel Everett relates the following story from his years of living 19 among the Piraha. He became a father at the age of 19, and he came from a Christian background that practiced physical punishment. One day, his daughter Shannon did something that he considered to merit a spanking. He grabbed a switch, told her to come to the next room where he would spank her, and she began yelling that she didn't need a spanking. The Pirahas came running at the sound of angry voices and asked him what he was doing. He didn't have a good answer to tell them, but he still recalled biblical injunctions about spanking children, so he told his daughter that he wouldn't spank her there in the presence of the Pirahas, but that she should go to the end of the airstrip and find another switch to be spanked with, and that he would meet her there in five minutes. As Shannon started on her way, the Pirahas asked her where she was going. Fully aware of what the Pirahas would think of her answer, she replied with glee, "My dad is going to hit me on the airstrip!" Out came Piraha children and adults to follow Daniel Everett as he was about to carry out this unthinkably barbaric behavior of hitting a child. He surrendered in defeat, leaving his smug daughter to celebrate her triumph. Piraha parents instead talk to their children respectfully, rarely discipline them, and do not use violence.
Similar attitudes prevail among most other hunter-gatherer groups studied. If one Aka Pygmy parents hits an infant, the other parent considers that ground for divorce. The !Kung explain their policy of not punishing children by saying that children have no wits and are not responsible for their actions. Instead, !Kung and Aka children are permitted to slap and insult parents. The Siriono practice mild punishment of a child that eats dirt or a taboo animal, by roughly picking up the child, but they never beat a child, whereas children are allowed to have temper tantrums in which they beat their father or mother as hard as possible.
Among farming peoples there is variation, with the most punitive being herders whose valuable livestock are at stake if a child looking after the livestock misbehaves. In some farming communities, discipline of children is lax, and they have few responsibilities and also few opportunities to damage valuable possessions, until they reach puberty. For example, among the people of the Trobriand Islands new New Guinea, who are farmers without livestock except for pigs, children are neither punished nor expected to obey. The ethnographer Bronislaw Malinowski wrote of the Trobriand Islanders, "Often...I would hear a youngster told to do this or that, and generally the thing, whatever it was, would be asked as a favor, though sometimes the request might be backed up by a threat of violence. The parent would either coax or scold or ask as from one equal to another. A simple command, implying the expectation of natural obedience, is never heard from parents to child in the Trobriands...When I suggested, after some flagrant infantile misdeed, that it would men matters for the future if the child were beaten or otherwise punished in cold blood, the idea appeared unnatural and immoral to my [Trobriand] friends."
A friend who has lived for many years among a herding people of East Africa told me that the herders' children there behave like little juvenile delinquents until the age of male circumcision, at which time they are expected to assume responsibilities. Then, following an initiation ceremony, boys begin herding the valuable cows, girls begin caring for siblings, and both begin to be disciplined. Among the Tallensi people of Ghana in West Africa, no one hesitates to punish a child who seems to deserve it, e.g., for dawdling while driving cattle. One Tallensi man pointed out to a visiting British anthropologist a scar that had resulted from his being severely whipped as a small boy. A Tallensi elder explained, "If you don't harass your child, he will not gain sense" - similar to Butler's dictum "Spare the rod and spoil the child."
The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? Diamond, p. 190-196.
I LIKE SAMOAN AND TONGAN MOTHERS WHO BEAT THEIR CHILDREN AND AREN'T AFRAID TO RAISE KILLERS (MURDERERS). This Is A Tongan Mother Of 5, Y'all, http://instagram.com/p/rTYUHyDfEC/?modal=true You'd Never Know That Based On Her Body And Movement, Huh? How Her Body Move!
"Ain't Scared To Ride The Dick Of A Killa!" - NOVATO (It's Like Ridin' A Bike, My Nigga!)
.jpg)
.jpg) |
| The other significant difference is that the effects of many or most accidents that we Americans suffer can be repaired, whereas accidents in New Guinea are much more likely to prove crippling or fatal. |
HEY, HEY, BOY. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSEHOLD AND ENVIRONMENT (NEIGHBORHOOD) I WAS RAISED IN. IT ESPECIALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY FATHER BECAUSE HE WASN'T THE WORRIER/HYPER-VIGILANT TYPE, NOR DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH MY MOTHER BECAUSE SHE ISN'T MEXICAN LIKE THAT. PLUS SHE ALONG WITH MY FATHER RAISED US IN UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THREATS TO OUR SAFETY WEREN'T A BIG CONCERN AND INJURY AND ILLNESS WOULDN'T SUBSTANTIALLY SET THEM BACK.
WHY ARE PARENTS IN UPPER CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS MUCH MORE LAX, LESS CAUTIOUS, AND LESS OVER-PROTECTIVE OF THEIR CHILDREN THAN PEOPLE IN LOWER CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS?
Now, After Reading These Three Pages Can You Understand Why People Who Come From A Lower Social Class And Poorer Background Would Be Some Of The Most Overly Cautious And Risk-Adverse People That You'd Ever Meet? No, You Don't Understand Why? You Haven't Made The Connection In Your Little, Unintelligent Mind. OK, I'll Make The Connection For You. Poorer People Come From Environments (Lower Class Neighborhoods) That Are RiFe (Fraught) With Danger. They're Much More Dangerous Than Upper Class Neighborhoods Where The Criminal Element Is Minimal To Non-Existent, Were Gang Activity Is Minimal To Non-Existent, Where Rapists, Pedophiles, Kidnappers, Murderers, Thieves, Etc. Are In Much Less Abundance, Where Reckless Drivers, Drunk Drivers, Etc. Are In Much Less Abundance And Where There's Much More Peace, Safety, And Community Involvement (Members Of The Community Look Out For One Another And Safeguard Their Neighborhood). In Addition To This, Poorer People Have Less Control Over Their Environment (Neighborhood), Since They Lack The Wealth To Buy Goods (i.e. High Quality Homes In Good Locations, High Quality Cars With Safety Features, Home And Car Security Devices, Etc.) That Buffer Them From The Unpredictability Of Their Environment (The Dangerous, Crime Infested Neighborhood In Which They Reside Makes Them More Susceptible To Negative Random Chance Occurrences). Moreover (And Related To This Latter Factor), Poorer People Have Limited* Recourse If They Do Get Injured Or Become Sick Since They Can't Afford Health Insurance Or Afford To See A Doctor And Receive Professional Medical Care. Nor Can They Afford To Become Sick Or Get Injured In The First Place Because That Could Lead To A Loss Of Income And Potentially The Loss Of Their Job (And They're Definitely Not In A Position To Lose Money Or Their Job). Consequently, All Of These Hazards, Threats, And Concerns About Their Health And Well-Being Lead Them To Be Hyper-Vigilant And To Take Every Precaution They Can To Avoid Injury And Illness, Since Injury And Illness Could Result In Their Lower Chance Of Survival And Reproductive Success (The Termination Of Employment And Thus The Termination Or SEX Or The Ability To Provide For Offspring). (Hey, You Know What? I Think There's A Strong Genetic Component To This As Well. Some People Are Just Born More Fearful And Cautious Than Others And When These People Are Raised In An Environment Where Injury And Illness Impair Their Ability To Survive And Have Success, Their Fearfulness And Cautiousness Become Exacerbated. You Know What Else I Think? I Think People With Higher IQs And Greater Openness Tend To Be Less PARANOID About Safety Dangers. Why Is This? Because Smarter, More Open People Tend To Be Better Educated Or At Least Better Able To Assimilate Information And With This Better Education And Higher IQ They Realize That The Probability Of Unforeseen And Unfortunate Instances Occurring Are Much Less Frequent Than The News Media** And Public Opinion (Common Sense) Would Lead You To Believe. For Instance, People With Little Education And A Low IQ Watch The News And Believe That We're All Going To Die Of EBOLA http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/24/7061451/youre-more-likely-to-die-of-a-shark-attack-or-bee-sting-than-contract)
TO BE CONTINUED...
WHY DO MEXICAN WOMEN AND FILIPINO WOMEN NAG SO MUCH AND ALWAYS TRY TO GIVE YOU ADVICE OR WARN YOU ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE WARNED ABOUT. FOR THE REASONS I GIVEN ABOVE. THEY COME FROM POOR, UNEDUCATED, UNWORLDLY CULTURES AND POOR, UNEDUCATED, UNWORLDLY NEIGHBORHOODS AND HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED FROM A YOUNG AGE TO BE OVERLY CAUTIOUS AND FEARFUL OF ANYTHING THAT MAY LEAD TO HARM OR INJURY (THEY LIVE IN A DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT (COUNTRY AND NEIGHBORHOOD) AND CAN'T AFFORD TO GET SICK OR INJURED, LITERALLY).
*They'll Limit YA Space, YA Space Is Narrow!
**
Khayree Shaheed @therealKhayree · 10 hours ago
Woman, 22, contracts HIV virus after sharing manicure equipment. http://tiny.iavian.net/3d26
Download Drudge Report
ANOTHER LOW IQ NIGGER WITH LITTLE EDUCATION AND WORLDLINESS WHO, BECAUSE OF HIS LOW IQ, LITTLE EDUCATION, AND LACK OF WORLDLINESS, IS EASILY DUPED BY THE MEDIA INTO BELIEVING THAT RARE OCCURRENCES LIKE THIS (A WOMAN ACQUIRING HIV FROM A NAIL SALON) OCCURS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. HEY, DUMB MOTHERFUCKER, THIS RARELY HAPPENS TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO FREQUENT NAIL SALONS, AND HENCE, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS OCCURRING IS VERY SLIM. SO, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN POST SOMETHING LIKE THIS? WHAT'S THE POINT OF POSTING IT? WHAT DO PEOPLE GAIN FROM READING IT? ARE YOU TRYING TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE TO NOT GO TO NAIL SALONS? HEY, JUST MAKE MUSIC, DUMB NIGGER.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Fear-Culture-Manipulates/dp/0452295467
