Archive

Monthly Archives: November 2012

Now the nitty gritty.

some information taken from:  http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2011/04/the-scientific-evidence-for-introversion/

Apparently Extroverts somehow are insensitive to dopamine leading them to require a large amount. Enough that the need direct stimulation from their environment to satisfy them. The extreme would be a thrill seeker who like street racing, clubbing and that kinda thing. This needing more dopamine actually is a perfect description of someone with a smaller population of dopamine receptors.hmm.

In contrast an introvert rarely needs external stimuli to satisfy that need to feel good. Instead, thoughts, ideas, concepts, these are the thins that feel good to an introvert. This nuero-pathway uses a different hormone, Acetycholine, as its feel good hormone. In the link above it is said that introverts actually do have more dopamine in their brains and that the receptors are structurally different than in extroverts. If by structurally different they mean there are more then it would all make sense but it could mean something else.

From the book,The Introvert Advantage by Marti Olsen Laney PsD.

“Extroverts need [dopamine’s] sidekick, adrenaline, which is released from the action of the sympathetic nervous systems, to make more dopamine in the brain. So the more active the extrovert is, the more Hap[py] Hits are fired and dopamine is increased. Extroverts feel good when they have places to go and people to see.”

“Introverts, on the other hand, are highly sensitive to dopamine. Too much dopamine and they feel overstimulated. Introverts use an entirely different neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, on their more dominant pathway…”

“Acetylcholine…affects attention and learning (especially perceptual learning), influences the ability to sustain a calm, alert feeling and to utilize long-term memory, and activates voluntary movement. It stimulates a good feeling when thinking and feeling.”
Now here is the thing. A person can up-regulate their dopamine receptor count by simply avoiding over stimulation of that pathway. You know how if you stop doing something your addicted to for long enough, it becomes easy to just stay off of it? that is because of an up regulation of dopamine receptors, meaning an increase in the number of them in the brain. If you eat candy all the time, nothing else tastes as good, but then if you stop eating candy for a long time, everything else eventually starts to taste better. So if the difference between an Extrovert and an Introvert was the number of Dopamine receptors, and if the change from using one “feel good pathway” to another, was activated by having a certain number of dopamine receptors, a person should be able to change from extrovert to introvert  if given the time for up regulation to occur.

My hypothesis is that an extrovert, someone who was accustomed to going clubbing and street racing or just eating a lot of candy, was willing to stop doing anything very stimulating, it’s possible that they would eventually turn into an introvert and become more interested in ideas and concepts ect. They would grow more dopamine receptors to balance their needs in this area and then they would star to become more reflective.

 

 

Advertisements

This is a theory on how an extrovert can became and introvert and possibly vise-versa. This transformation is actually a medical thing, it involves the hormone dopamine and its receptors and how they function in the brains of introverts and extroverts.

This first post thought will discuss the actual terms “extrovert” and “introvert” The next will describe how the transformation would work.

The terms extrovert and introvert seem to be misunderstood often so I just want to clarify my definitions of the terms before I go further. My definitions are based on this video by interpersonality on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnN-ozQNDbk&feature=g-hist     , and by this book The Introvert Advantage by Marti Olsen Laney, PsD.

So these two examples agree that an introvert is simply someone who is energized by ideas, thoughts, concepts as they gain understanding of them, (maybe things but not quite sure). So if they can convert an environmental stimulus into a thought that is intriguing to them, it makes them feel energized. Extrovert meanwhile are energized directly by the environmental stimulus(usually it would have to be a positive stimulus).

How does this relate to social interaction? : Here is an example. When you complement an extrovert , they will immediately feel energized and show their thanks. When you complement an introvert they will process it internally, analyze it, and if they can relate to the compliment in a way that is energizing to them they will feel energized and probably show their thanks. So with Extroverts they are energized because they were complimented, while introverts are only energized if the complement itself is meaningful to them which would probably depends on a lot of variables.

So as you can see, extrovert/introvert has nothing to do with being social or anti-social, However, because in most communities there are a disproportional amount of people are extroverts, and so introverts are less understood, introverts may become more socially isolated. Also I will add that extroverts gain energy directly from social interaction, giving and receiving, while introverts are energized by themselves and need time to build the energy periodically through thinking and this will take up time leaving gaps between interaction. Not anti-social, but arguably less social.

The card game Magic: The Gathering is a man made thing, a trading card game. It isn’t the kind of game like sports that can be easily related to an innate urge for physical dominance. Its a strategic game with a story line and artwork. I first learn of this game in grade three when a few classmates started playing it. This game brought me into a whole other world of social interaction with the other children in my class as well as being extremely educational for reading skills and thinking skills. I went through periods of obsession over this game because for me with my inadequate social skills for reasons I will discuss in other posts, This was one of my only ways of getting respect and social interaction with other human beings for the 6-8 hours I spent in school.
I did OK once I got my parents to buy me some cards but my parents didn’t have a lot of money to spend on what they saw as a trivial card game. Its not the parents fault that money becomes a a kind of prerequisite to human interaction among kids in school, although this is often the case. Often who ever has the coolest toys is most popular in primary school. Anyways, eventually girls came into the picture and MTG went out because most girls don’t value strategy games.
Now however, I have bigger concerns than girls. I need to be true to myself, and love myself, and I need to have social interaction with people that value the same things I do. I could start clubbing, or become a gym rat and meet people there but besides liking girls and exercising, I would have nothing in common with those gentlemen. Magic: The Gathering thus, seems to be like a missing link in my life. It combines so many of the elements I value, art, creative writing, thinking skills, social interaction. This combination of elements, and people who value this combination, is hard to find anywhere else, and so I am starting to think MTG would be categorized as a passion for me. One of many, but a core one. So its strange because when people talk about finding your passion, most people think it would be something like music or cars or sports, something big and core to the human experience. MTG is pretty abstract, even for a game. Most of it deals with fictional elements, magic, which is the first level of abstraction. Next is the fact that it is printed on paper, or played online, which is another level of abstraction. I’m sure many people had no trouble seeing MTG as a true passion of theirs but I had always assumed it couldn’t be something that seemed so trivial. Now writing it on paper I can see that it isn’t trivial at all. A lot of my childhood development happened through this game, as well there is a lot in this specific game to love. Another thing that kept me avoiding this game was that back in primary school Christian parents complained that anything to do with magic was bad, that it was a sin basically, even a game. I didn’t buy into it at first because consciously I knew how stupid it was. It’s not real magic, like its not witchcraft. However it did affect me, it was a scary thought and so it had an affect and so it became like a superstition for me like black cats and ladders. It never stopped me from playing if I wanted to, it was just something in the back of my mind. Maybe when I wondered about what my passions would be, MTG was never aloud to be considered for this reason as well as for the fact that it seemed trivial as well as for the fact that it seemed materialistic. Logic and love over fear, everyone. If I haven’t already, I will write a post on Materialism VS Art VS possessiveness.

I really value constant development and always learning more. Imo that is the best side of ourselves. The healthy side. The growing side. The living side.

For example if you like to act silly naturally, if you just have that urge, and if people object, then be the side of yourself that would want to know why the f they don’t see things the way you do. Then you might see what I described in my last post.

So maybe, I’m not sure yet, but maybe people should try something like what kenny werner describes in the Master class for jazz improvising and playing. [When you are performing, so when you have an audience, a social thing, other people listening to you, love everything you play and don’t be attached to the outcome. Perform only the things you know you can perform. Then when you are by yourself, practice what you think you most need to practice. Learn more and grasp the concepts fully so that they flow out of you naturally in performance.]

So some of this may not be completely applicable but I like the idea of loving yourself and everything that comes out of you. This way you maintain your humanity, your human love energy that will flow into everything you say an do socially. You’ll be you, and in this way you will deliver true information to other human beings, in it’s truest form. Its like in the Celestine prophecy when one character was saying that when people direct their love at you, your words flow effortlessly and make more sense and you may even have epiphanies yourself. What I am discussing here is kinda the same expect you get that energy from yourself through true love of yourself. Be social this way and the people that are feeling you, the people like where your coming from and where your headed, will stick around. The rest might not which is their responsibility to themselves cause they need to find their best sources of information. But they will respect you no matter what, cause they know you respect yourself.
Then when in private, or just when you are the audience yourself, learn more, still not judging how good you are or how good you should be, just that your learning more and therefore growing more. Growing more is good, cause it means more living.

 

I was a silly kid growing up. I got shunned by other kids
and sometimes even my parents for it. I eventually repressed the desire
to express that side of my self and have been living with a part of me missing
ever since. Until now. And I’m writing this for me and for anyone else who
has gone through any of what I just described. I found the 2 reasons people
don’t like that silliness sometimes(besides if they are just in a mood which
could be often depending on who you are around).

Reasons:

1. The silliness/acting is out of context
[A kids natural silliness, a repertoire of selected phrases
and or actions, usually comes from tv movies ect and
is acted out because of this raw urge to act. Silliness
is a raw form of the urge to express emotion and or get a laugh.
These kids have that natural drive to be actors and comedians but acting
and comedy are hard ideas for kids to fully grasp so they often
fail a lot, and with the proper coaching will eventually learn to repress
those natural urges to fit in with society.]

2. The silliness/acting is not understood to be just acting and because its so fluid, it’s mistaken for real.
[Especially with as a kid with kids as my audience,
but even into early adulthood, people often can’t tell that
I’m acting because it comes so easily. Unless I am on stage, or
I tell them ahead of time, or they know me and how I am, there is
a chance they will think I’m serious and obviously that could
make things very weird for everyone involved. Picture someone
pretending to be mad in a way they have seem done on tv
that was funny, but people start begging the person to calm down.
Not cool.]

 

I have the knowledge now
to know that it wasn’t the silliness that was unwanted, but
the out of context silliness. Its really only silly if it has no
relationship to the situation. If it does have relation to the
situation, its called acting. This was and is my natural urge.
To act out emotions either what I feel or just what I feel to act like I feel.
Act out something funny without the context behind it and its
just silly. Act out something funny with the context behind it
and its hilarious.

I want to have humor in my life and the life of people I care
about. I also want to be able to be silly like what used to
come natural before I was felt the need to repress it.
The humor will be the outlet for my natural acting urge
that would otherwise be repressed.

Act like the main guy in transformers when he is real upset
about something that you would only be a bit upset about,
out of context, and its silly. In context and its funny.

Its about acting like someone with an obvious flaw, either
they get angry(sometimes to disruptive to be funny)
too easy or scared too easy ect, but within the context
that would bring out that flaw in that character, and the
audience has to know you are acting.

So recap:  mistakes you gotta watch out for

Acting as if you have that flaw without the context and its silly.
Acting as if you have the flaw without the audience knowing
your acting and they’ll just think your weird.

I have done a lot of both of those mistakes but now I know
that they are mistakes, that you have to realize the audience
might not know what you know, and you have to make sure they
do before you perform. Know you audience.

Now that I know this and realize now that this is probably part
of why I’ve been unable to be myself around people, I can
fix the problem.

Now this form of acting is kinda self deprecating even if it is
funny. If I only play these types of roles,
I may eventually seem that way to my audience. that way only
as opposed to who I am which I can now say with confidence is
not simply someone who overreacts to things or acts like
he does. I am someone worthy of respect.
So how do can I balance the self deprecating side of my humor.
Simple. Point out with humor, the flaws in others as well.

If someone asks you a stupid question or does something stupid
do a bit of cocky funny thing. Show them you know when they
are being stupid. This increases your value immensely in their
eyes cause now they know you’re a critical think which you
should be. and the cocky funny thing is acting too. It doesn’t
even have to be cocky funny, it should depend on the situation.
If someone is being cocky with you or rude then you can be cocky
funny or just let them know subtly that rudeness is unbecoming
of them.

If they say something stupid out of ignorance then be funny in a
kinda way, through acting. Maybe pretend to be a teacher who is
slightly disappointed. Ect.

This full spectrum of humor should make you more valuable to
others as well as more able to express yourself and love yourself
which would also make you more valuable to others.

That is, if you are the type that is naturally silly.

I realize… once again, and I think it will stick this time, that for me to learn a language without sacrificing the enjoyment, I have to go slow. There was a time where I could have gone a bit faster and succeeded but now, after all the burnouts I’ve had, and the change to a less Asian environment, I feel like my tolerance for learning mandarin is much lower. I still feel that spark of interest in the language when I see a character in Chinese and I feel like, wow I wish I knew what that meant. However as soon as I sit down and decide I should be doing constant immersion or                                  20 sentences a day + pronounciations ect, I lose the motivation.

So I think I’m gonna try going as slow as possible, like 5 characters a day or something ridiculous, and just keep up with it. I’ll do like 2 minutes every morning. I know that if I do 2 minutes, the right way, I can learn a lot.

So to maximize ease:
– 2 min sessions(no one would break a sweat)
– focus on one aspect of the language(as much as I hate to let my listening comprehension go down the drain, I`m thinking of the long term and so far my attempts at enjoying the language are  have always been sabatoged by my own illiteracy. I need the literacy, I have been chasing literacy in Chinese since I was 7 actually, and was always the hare. What I need to really succeed in this language is literacy. The written word, and more importantly, the ability to read it, may be the biggest tool in the pursuit of knowledge. IMO all life on earth is a conquest towards knowing what we need to know to be truly happy. I can`t sit around and watch mandodramas all day, or even anime, that is`nt enjoyable enough to me. It may be partly stress of not having a good job that makes me un able to enjoy those things but either way I like to read…a lot. That is my argument for basically abandoning my quest for spoken/written fluency in favor of reading, as part of the easiest method.

To maximize effectiveness:
– 10 cards(enough that there is guessing being done between them)
– Sentences(added context strengthens over all recall ability)
– Traditional characters instead of simplified(cause they look better, are easier to distinguish, and are used in Japanese as well

The most efficient 2 minutes would be the study of sentences in Hanzi as srs cards. Hear is the format I think is most effective.

Front:
– Sentence in Hanzi [ full short sentence, 5 – 7 characters ]

Back:
– Meaning of full sentence

10 cards per day, or less with reviews, x 356 will be around 3000, 2 years at 3000 is 6000 which is almost what khatz did in 18 months. Of course I maybe add to my daily activity but the 2 min/day should be enough as until I am functionally literate. A year from now I can will be able to read and then Chinese will start to become fun. Might as well get over the hump slowly but surely instead of repeatedly trying to run up the steep slop and rolling back down only to try again with less energy. 2min/day is plently

It’s hard for the hare type to slow down this much. Having to slow down this much makes the goal feel like it’s almost not even worth it. This is the problem tho, this is where you become like your own parent making plans for when you get older, plans you almost couldn’t even care about right now. However you have to look at things logically and you’ll be able to see through the faulty logic. Things like, “What, 3 years from now? but I don’t care about if I’ll know Chinese 3 years from now, I just want to know Chinese now!” That is the type of thinking people need to grow out of. It’s hard for someone who hasn’t failed repeatedly being the hare, to figure this out tho. After being the hare and failing a lot I know now that 3 years later I would enjoy being Fluent in Chinese. I know that If I try to get fluent now or in 5 months it wont work because I don’t want it THAT bad, not THAT bad that I could sustain that want over a 5 month period working really hard. I do know that if I do 2 min every day, that in 3 years I will be very glad I did. So like a parent planning their child’s future almost, I will do it the long and fool proof way. Doing what I know will be good for my future, in a way I can tolerate in the present.

I am of the opinion now that it is a sin for any human being to not take full 100% responsibility for themselves from the moment they are born. *** Woah wait a second, from the moment they are born? What can a baby do to take responsibility for its self from the moment they are born? They can’t do anything for them selves, who will feed it? *** I said 100% responsibility not 100% result. The baby cannot go out and by a milk carton to feed itself. However, are you going to put it on I.V. on drip, or will you let it cry for milk it’s self. Naturally a baby takes 100% responsibility, if you believe in God you might say this is how God intended. Even an unconscious human being reacts to tissue damage with 100% accountability forming blood clots and scar tissue.

With human being of modern times however, a lot of people are not taking that 100% responsibility for themselves, doing everything they can for themselves. There are a few observed ways I can think of that allow for or create people that do not take responsibility for themselves but it seems to often come down to fear.

When someone fears the result of someone else doing something wrong, they would rather do that thing themselves. This isn’t good when it is a parent doing something for the child that the child could do for it’s self. When a child is old enough to do chores the child should or else he will have a harder time transitioning to doing so later. Kids should be 100% self responsible with parents there only as aids, to answer questions, warn children of hazards and teaching the children techniques to become even more self reliant.

Even adults are being  subjected to this tyranny of leadership in the form of welfare and managers at work paying rip-off wadges that leaves people feeling unmotivated and even more willing to do the minimum instead of working from the mindset of 100% responsibility where they would be doing the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM. A manager who takes full responsibility themselves supporting a bunch of adults who don’t take full responsibility for themselves in my opinion is oppression of growth and therefore of life. I never want to be a manager because I don’t believe other humans need to be lead like that. It may be helpful in large companies to have a designated organizer just for communications between departments, but in each department I think the employees should be made up of individuals who take 100% responsibility for themselves and can organize themselves through communication as well. Mentors as I’ve said, are helpful to learn from, not to depend on for any longer than necessary. We live in abundance, life flourishes on earth, we can survive and thrive on our own ability to learn.

negative impact of the tyranny of leadership

BULLYING – a bully is often someone who chooses to keep others down instead of taking responsibility for themselves and developing as human beings.

Ignorance – with one person doing everything for another, that other never learns how to do those things.

Dependance -> less competent Human beings -> less work done in the word -> Leaders will have a lot more work to do for a lot less reward than would otherwise be out there.

Poverty, Low self-esteem, low ability, lower life expectancy, ect ect.

The Tyranny of leadership, of always having someone want to tell other what to do, and someone wanting to be told what to do, is that is completely stunts the personal growth of the dependent, the follower, and possible the leader in a way who never learns how to teach, and to believe in others ability to learn.

The long term Leader-Follower relationship is a fear based relationship, and as I might have said already in a previous post, fear is an enemy of modern civilization. Applying fear where knowledge should and could be, is a recipe for oppression.

Life began with 100% responsibility. It Flourished with 100% responsibility. That is the way of life. The way of death is the opposite. It is people being led like sheep, never growing or improving. The way of life on earth is that it is either flourishing or decaying. There is no in between.

I could have gone into more detail in many areas but the post would have been very long that way. I hope anyone reading this will take a minute to comment on a point they agree or disagree with so we can have a discussion. Thanks.