Rumple4skinStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England UK980 posts
Lana2: If a culture values explicitness and unconcealed confidence then shyness is inevitably predisposed to be regarded as weakness, and thus…….in such a culture a shy person may seem (and only seem) brazen, non-amicable or disinterested. Such inappropriate general perception of some shy individual tends to create a number of frustrations for him/her, and brings about a whole array of communicational barriers between the X and ‘them’….(i.e. the individual whose psychological profile is interpreted incorrectly by the majority of people around him/her and the given social group). However, in another culture, shy individuals may be seen as possessing some of the most wonderful of all human characteristics (highly intelligent, wise, considerate, empathetic, and always there to listen and really hear his/her interlocutor)…etc. I hope this helps to clarify this matter Ben :)
Cheers :))
Shyness probably is a weakness from an individual and also Darwinistic point of view.
However, the reflective nature common to introverted people can be an asset to art, society, science & techology.
jac379pontyclun, South Glamorgan, Wales UK12,293 posts
Rumple4skin: I know full well the difference between autism and ADD.
But to say any of these disorders is merely 'inherited' displays a complete ignorance as to how genetics work. What behaviour causing genetics are is a tendency which the environment/experience either amplifies or subdues. You must have heard of that highly intelligent Autistic person who was able to 'train' themselves away from autism - which proves that the condition is not set in stone and that an act of will can defeat them.
Considering that, short of eugenics, we can do nothing about the genetic factors leading to these disorders then to talk of the social factors is the most sensible & practical - unless genetic engineering was significantly more advanced than it is today and you or I were experts in the field.
So, you missed the bit in my post where I pointed out that technology can be a potential learning tool and not just detrimental to inherited conditions?
Rumple4skinStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England UK980 posts
jac379: So, you missed the bit in my post where I pointed out that technology can be a potential learning tool and not just detrimental to inherited conditions?
I'm just being difficult, as difficult as you were.
But I would still disagree that on aggregate technology is beneficial to these conditions, these conditions are becoming more and more commonplace - as people in general become more atomised - and so we're obviously not turning the tide.
One could counter with the no-win, stalemate argument of "people in the past weren't diagnosed" but I think time will(is)show(ing)this claim to be quackery and that people genuinely are becoming less well adapted socially, it's not just a perception.
Lana2OPTower, Federation of B&H Bosnia and Herzegovina303 posts
Rumple4skin: Shyness probably is a weakness from an individual and also Darwinistic point of view.
However, the reflective nature common to introverted people can be an asset to art, society, science & techology.
The reflective nature.....my first association is John Donne... ....yes, his poetry lives on.....his treasure is still here (or an asset if you wish)....
Rumple4skinStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England UK980 posts
Lana2: The reflective nature.....my first association is John Donne... ....yes, his poetry lives on.....his treasure is still here (or an asset if you wish)....
Warm regards to you R4S :))
'No man is an island..'
Quite fitting to mention him when I'm talking about the atomisation of society.
Best regards - sounds like a birthday card - to you too :)
jac379pontyclun, South Glamorgan, Wales UK12,293 posts
Rumple4skin: I'm just being difficult, as difficult as you were.
But I would still disagree that on aggregate technology is beneficial to these conditions, these conditions are becoming more and more commonplace - as people in general become more atomised - and so we're obviously not turning the tide.
One could counter with the no-win, stalemate argument of "people in the past weren't diagnosed" but I think time will(is)show(ing)this claim to be quackery and that people genuinely are becoming less well adapted socially, it's not just a perception.
I wasn't being difficult.
I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
Why would pointing out that awareness is growing of learning differences be a stalemate argument?
If awareness increases then those who have learning differences will more likely to have access to education which suits their needs. I fail to see the problem with that.
Lana2OPTower, Federation of B&H Bosnia and Herzegovina303 posts
Rumple4skin: 'No man is an island..'
Quite fitting to mention him when I'm talking about the atomisation of society.
Best regards - sounds like a birthday card - to you too :)
Hhehehheeh....quite fitting, naturally so :))
He invented the conceit after all.........
(An extended metaphor with a complex logic that governs a poetic passage or entire poem. By juxtaposing, usurping and manipulating images and ideas in surprising ways, a conceit invites the reader into a more sophisticated understanding of an object of comparison).
Rumple4skinStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England UK980 posts
jac379: I wasn't being difficult.
I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
Why would pointing out that awareness is growing of learning differences be a stalemate argument?
If awareness increases then those who have learning differences will more likely to have access to education which suits their needs. I fail to see the problem with that.
You're at it again.
I'm talking about trying to quantify the volumes of people afflicted with these conditions, and to what extent the general populace is themselves tainted by the myriad of social dysfunctions that when added together in one individual amount to one of these conditions. Exactly how socially dyslexic are people of today?
Now the debate is whether the increase in these cases is genuine or whether it is simply down to said conditions being more readily diagnosed. Whilst I believe the latter is true it does not refute the former. And as we lose so many of the social factors that balance and adapt the mind it is impossible for me to believe that a rise in ADD etc is not related to this in any way.
jac379pontyclun, South Glamorgan, Wales UK12,293 posts
Rumple4skin: You're at it again.
I'm talking about trying to quantify the volumes of people afflicted with these conditions, and to what extent the general populace is themselves tainted by the myriad of social dysfunctions that when added together in one individual amount to one of these conditions. Exactly how socially dyslexic are people of today?
Now the debate is whether the increase in these cases is genuine or whether it is simply down to said conditions being more readily diagnosed. Whilst I believe the latter is true it does not refute the former. And as we lose so many of the social factors that balance and adapt the mind it is impossible for me to believe that a rise in ADD etc is not related to this in any way.
I'm at what again?
To all intents and purposes quantifying shyness, or learning differences is irrelevant. The point is, some people are shy and that maybe rooted in a number reasons, one of which might be to do with autistic spectrum traits, another might be to do with lack of confidence, another might be to do with social isolation and lack of practice.
To treat shyness as a weakness as you have done, when it might be socially functional (as current research is trying to ascertain) is to exacerbate the issue for those who find some forms of social contact uncomfortable.
To blame technology for social inadequacy when it can be a tool for greater social contact, social learning and a strategy for coping is yet another example of how you are constantly derogatory about other people's differences.
Perhaps its you who has the greater problem with social skills.
tomcatwarneOcean City, Plumouth, Devon, England UK17,106 posts
Dysfunctional is a common theme in our society these days. Almost everyone we meet seems to come from some sort of dysfunctional family, or has been exposed to a friend overcoming the pain of being in one. The word itself conjures up a negativity that makes most “sane” people withdraw, pull back and shy away…not because they lack compassion so much, but more likely because of what it might mean if they truly can relate to such a thing. It’s a fine line, one with a very sharp edge. To be touched by dysfunction is to be exposed to mental illness. It’s to walk the path of human weakness, a path no human can escape except through the essence of their own denial. Somewhere along the line, people crossed over, embracing their dysfunctional lifestyles, boldly announcing them to the world as if it were some courageous badge of honor – recognition of their bravery for attempting to overcome such a fate.
Yet, if we look at the words defining dysfunction: socially impaired, broken, flawed, unfit, defective, maladjusted, decayed – proudly claiming such a thing is nothing more than a farce, a way to seek attention and yes, deny one’s true worth within the community and society as a whole. It is also a money pit, waiting to be exploited by those who can profit from it. The overuse of the word dysfunction has created an entirely new phenomenon, providing people with an excuse to quit the game of life on various levels, and generating millions of dollars for those in the mental health industry. According to the Alliance for Human Research Protection, the American Psychiatric Association and pharmaceutical industry “…has invented and promoted diagnostic categories as the names of objective diseases without any solid way to validate them.”
Lana2OPTower, Federation of B&H Bosnia and Herzegovina303 posts
KremaP: Yeah, it looks like you forgot where you started...and turned the thread into some kind of scientific research.
I admire your brain storming but it became a bit boring. The shy people will feel embarrassed to admit their shyness now. No offence, please...
Thank you dear :)
I understand that scientific facts are not that interesting to some people....but, some others strive towards the perpetual expansion of their knowledge (vocabulary inclusive), and some do not....they have other interests.....
In any case, it would be not very tactful of me to interfere in my guests' interactions regardless of their preferences for scientific elaborations.....
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
hello Hoolet :)
Thank you dear...
Your observation is most welcome!
Cheers :)