I recently discovered this piece but wanted to re-read it. I still like it a lot. But I would put two things differently and make one substantive point. First, I would talk about our brain "recreating" or "reconstructing" reality rather than "hallucinating" it. Second, I would frame the idea here in terms of "neurodivergence", which is still a fairly new term, and embodies the spirit of tolerance for mental differences, even acknowledgment that certain forms of neurodivergence have an undeniable positive aspect. My son has ADD and refers occasionally, with humor and not overstating it, to the super-power(s) this confers on him (with respect to focus and working hard when engaged). And of course, it is recognized that certain people "on the spectrum" are brilliant. For my Substack column ,https://adamwilkins.substack.com/, I am soon going to do an article on "neurodivergence", treating these aspects. The substantive point is that the brain, in each species of vertebrate, has evolved to make good sense of the world, therefore the mental reconstruction carried out by the brain has to be fairly reliable. Even "trans-reptiles" have to be able to get dressed, prepare meals, cross the street safely, etc. Hence, whatever differences in perception and belief there are -- and there are plenty -- most brains remain quite reliable thinking organs.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comments. Regarding your first points, I agree. I used the word "hallucinating" to be a bit dramatic… You know, poetic license and all that. I don't know if it would be best to say "construct" rather than "reconstruct", but I tend to prefer the former. I agree with your comments on neural divergence… Which simply refers to the variability of any phenotype. The so-called 'divergence' is only from a theoretical, statistical mean. I don't know if that's easily defined in terms of neural systems. But I take your point. My late son (who would've been 25 now), falls in what used to be called the Asperger's range of cognitive functioning (although that term is not used any longer). I think the only difference in our opinions is that you are more teleological than I would be. Brains actually haven't evolved to make good sense of the world. There is no end goal or point to the mutations that occur. Central nervous systems have evolved over time, and those that function well enough so that the creature can reproduce persist. Those that have interfered with that reproductive demand no longer exist. I'm hard-pressed to look at any creature — especially human beings — and say they have a brain that's evolved to make sense out of the world. All told, after a brief look at the news in the morning, I'm completely convinced that like all other phenotypic characteristics, existing brains are just good enough to ensure that people have sex. Beyond that, evolution cannot act. As a lifelong professor, I know that it's of difficult task to get people to start thinking in ways that 'make sense of the world'. Thank you again for your thoughtful comment! I will take a look at your Substack. Sincerely, Frederick
Frederick, Very many thanks for your reply. I am glad that you liked my comments and felt they were worth a response. I do not think that we are far apart in our thinking but enough to be interesting. One correction, however: I do not regard my view as "teleological" but can see how my wording might have made it seem so. Of course, I do not visualize evolution as proceeding in order to achieve some large goal like "making sense of the world". Instead, it proceeds step by step, with most genetic changes having either no or minimal effect or being deleterious and being weeded out ("purifying selection") but with some leading to some slight improvement in function and being positively selected ("directional selection"). Over time, with something like the brain, there would surely have been an accretion of such positive functions and growing complexity. For an animal that has all sorts of complex behaviours, its brain must provide some relatively accurate perception of the external world (physical surroundings and other creatures, both predators and conspecifics) for it to function and survive. An animal whose brain was constantly distorting and misinterpreting the world outside itself would, quite soon, find itself unambigously dead. This view does not posit perfection in either perception or interpretation, just a reasonable fit to its needs in coping with the world. (And of course the brains of different animals would have evolved differently, depending upon their needs.) In fact, I think I will write a Substack article on this soon and send it to you for your comments (if you have time). Again, thanks for the earlier thoughts and also -- which I just saw -- becoming a subscriber to my column.
This all makes sense...to me. Are there any hypotheses as to how our brains evolved? What would be a natural selection for our perceptions of color, for example.
Kathryn: Thank you for your comment. This got lost in my stack of email. So, I'm sorry my reply is tardy. We do know a lot about how brains evolved. However, because nothing can evolve for a purpose, evolution can take any number of strange paths. Organizations that work well enough so that an animal can reproduce successfully can be inherited, as can those that are neutral regarding successful reproduction. Things that don't work well usually die. So, a sensory system like vision — to which you refer — appears first in the jellyfish as a system, but as a light sensing apparatus in single celled animals. So responding to light energy is a ubiquitous capability among animals (and plants). In primates, it looks like just a couple of small mutations gave rise to color vision (as opposed to simple black-and-white vision). It was a serendipitous happenstance that, incidentally, may have made foraging easier for these animals. And, because it wasn't deleterious, it stayed in the evolutionary line. Of course, a lot of animals don't have color vision and do fine. So, we have to understand that evolution only asks you to be "good enough". That is, good enough to reproduce. That's all. Thanks for asking, Frederick
I don't think I have the patience to read your Substack. By the time I got to the end of the article, I had the beginnings of a headache. Yes, I believe most of what you said, but I've worked hard developing my habitual thoughts and I don't want to give them up. I like things to be cut-and-dried; the background mechanics that make it all possible don't interest me that much.
If you haven't, you should read the Seth Material books. They are all about the things you are writing about.
Thanks for the note... I understand that a lot of people like cut-and-dried. I get it... BTW, the Seth Material books may touch on some of the topics about which I wrote, but they are very different, indeed.
Aged 59, I am impatient and lacking in compassion; thank you for this piece, you have reordered my thinking.
Henceforth when I meet a person inhabiting an unfamiliar reality, I will be better prepared and alert to my propensity for being an asshole. Worse, sometimes I enjoy being an asshole, not always (infrequently), but the allure would be next to impossible to resist should a person declare themselves a trans-reptile to me. No more, thanks to you.
OK, that was very funny. I must say, however that I completely empathize with you. Most often, I have to lead with my biology rather than my gut instinct. Thanks for the comment!
I knew you were being sincere. But, your comment did make me chuckle. I've often thought of writing an essay about how learning neurobiology made me much more compassionate..... It's interesting how our perspectives change, if we're open to change.
Reality is subjective, but there are some absolute Truths that I feel compelled to stand by. Such as a mammal can never actually "be" a reptile, no matter how many surgeries or special medicines such mammal may take, no matter how much the mammal wishes it were so, no matter how many other "lizards" affirm the mammal's reptilian-ness.
I agree 100% that as long as a mammal who believes oneself to be a reptile is respectful of others' opinions on the topic, said mammal has every right to pretend and enjoy an imaginary life of reptile-hood. Just don't try to make this mammal participate in your fantasy.
Thanks so much! I'm glad you found it interesting. Our brains are strange organs, aren't they? We understand so very little about them, yet they create who we are. Thanks again for your comment.
The only upside of gender ideology and 'trans' is that it's making me exercise my brain a lot more than I have for years!
Reading your essay made me remember that, in my adolescent despair and angst phase, I used to compare human beings to amoebae who'd got over ambitious notions about themselves. Now that I'm older and wiser(?), I'm actually starting to think I wasn't so wrong.
We ought to be teaching kids at school about the basics of thinkings about neuroscience, it might help them build the resilience and coping mechanisms they need to avoid the seemingly endemic plague of 'mental illness' we're seeing amongst the young.
Well, I agree with you about the amoeba issue. It would be good if we taught students more about biology, specially neuroscience. Learning neuroscience made me more accepting, generous of spirit, and thoughtful than I would otherwise be. This plague of "mental illness" to which you refer is very concerning. There is so much beauty, opportunity, and joy to be had — not to diminish the challenges that many people face — and much of it is simply ignored. Thank you so much for your comment. You're making me exercise my brain, too.
I think the biggest lesson I have learned (about myself - though I think it is probably universal?) is that the 'pursuit of happiness' is a futile and unhealthy exercise and that contentment is a better goal. I see happiness as discrete 'events', not a state of being and searching for it blinds one to all the beauty and joy in both the marvelous and the ordinary. Contentment allows one to sit and watch and listen and feel all the joy and the beauty - even to experience the little 'happies' that are so easily missed or dismissed as insignificant.
I agree with you completely. Your thinking is consistent with the principles of classical Eastern thought, I think. It took me quite a while to come to the realization that you've articulated here. I'm much more content and peaceful for it. And, thank you, Frederick
It took me till life had overwhelmed me (for a while) in my 50s. I had to do some serious thinking about what really mattered in life and how to make that my focus. It made me strip away (as much as is ever possible) the layers of expectation, value judgements, etc that we all acquire and transpose onto our thinking. Wishing you peace and contentment.
Well...OK. Does this mean that if I flap my arms REAL HARD & jump out of a 10-story window, I process the result as a catastrophic occurrence, or is that splat on the ground really an Olympic-level athlete?
OK, bluntly: I don't buy the notion that everything is subjective, that reality is how our brains interpret what is happening "out there."
I can see what you're getting at with respect to color and various sensory experiences (such as pain), but I am not experiencing the sensation of falling when I jump out of a 6th story window, or rather, I am not merely experiencing the sensation of falling.
I really AM falling, whether I believe it or not, or feel it or not. I don't have to understand the laws of gravity. I AM falling, and I will die if I do it.
Sure, I understand your point. By "subjective" I certainly don't mean that everything is arbitrary. There is a reality out there. You certainly don't have to understand the laws of physics to recognize you are falling. However, that particular experience is shaped by you or brain. You do not have any direct or unmediated experience of the world. If you understand the example of color and pain, then you understand my point. There is no other way to understand what your world is like. It is constructed by your brain. Our realities would overlap on the falling issue. You can take the extreme example and think of a schizophrenic jumping off a building and thinking that he's flying. That would be different than your experience correct? The point is that "subjective" does not mean "arbitrary". Some people enjoy roller coasters. Some people, like me, find them horrible. That doesn't mean that the laws of physics don't apply to us both. You see, for the schizophrenic, his subjective reality is just as real to him as yours is to you. Or, when you're dreaming, that is your reality at the moment. You simply can't get away from your brain. Happily, most of our brains create experiences similar enough that we can operate together in the world. However, I will never understand the world from the point of view of a woman, or a turtle, or my son Ben. The mistake that people make is thinking that with just enough convincing, we will all come to the same set of subjective experiences... That is, finally recognize the "true reality" out there. That has never worked in the entire history of human existence. There's a biological reason for that.
I think this is true: "You do not have any direct or unmediated experience of the world."
But I also think that the stuff "out there" really does exist outside of our unmediated experience.
Dogs (so the NY Times tells me) live in a world of scent. Evolution has equipped them with senses to detect things that I cannot*. There are things outside of my experience which set off their olfactory apparatus - things that are "out there." Does that mean they don't exist, because I can't smell them?
Yes, I recognize that if I only depended on my direct experience of the world, they would "not exist." But when I go hunting with a bloodhound (which I've never done, just giving an example) I know they exist even if I can't smell them.
Does a smell in the forest exist, even if there's no one (i.e. human) around to smell it? I think it does. I think the smell exists even if a bloodhound can't smell it.
Dec 6, 2022·edited Dec 6, 2022Liked by Frederick R Prete
Excellent meandering post. It really is beyond me that someone thinks they are a star fish (or, far more commonly in these communities, a dog or fox). As bizarre as liking lima beans. I wonder if ideas from evolutionary psychology can explain why we see so much variation in how people identify (ranging from human to centipede). There are the competing/complementary views that our theory of mind was developed for hunting vs social processing. Both are important for survival of hunter-gatherers, however there is a gendered comparative advantage for women and social processing. This extends to this day; facial recognition is easier for women. There is another, possibly related fact: that far more natal males identify as furries. Perhaps this is some of the hunting brain adaptation coming through and shaping their world.
Thank you very much for the comment. I think that our ability to come up with a "theory of mind" is simply a byproduct of the size of our brain, like trigonometry or taxidermy. Rudimentary forms of this ability appear in some primates like vervets. The ability has both a positive and negative aspect as all characteristics do. Thanks again, Frederick
But incredibly bizarre phenomenon in so many ways. But fascinating in other ones -- I've often argued or suggested that part and parcel of the issue is imprinting, a fairly durable psychological concept:
"Lorenz demonstrated how incubator-hatched geese would imprint on the first suitable moving stimulus they saw within what he called a "critical period" between 13 and 16 hours shortly after hatching. For example, the goslings would imprint on Lorenz himself (to be more specific, on his wading boots), and he is often depicted being followed by a gaggle of geese who had imprinted on him."
You might also be interested in Woody Allen's movie Zelig - "The Chameleon Man" - as an amusing illustration of how people pickup and "ape" the behaviours of those around them. A very human thing to do but has some serious pathological manifestations:
I guess I'd like to see evidence that some people who identify as wolves were raised by wolves 😉. I mean, I could go for them being more likely to have a family dog as a child. Completely testable.
But there is also the gender component, which imprinting doesn't explain. As many girls grow up with a family dog as boys. It's the boys that end up believing they are a dog far more often.
🙂 While Frederick didn't talk much about gender dysphoria, I kind of took, maybe erroneously, that to be the major part of the subtext. That being the most common "delusion" these days, thinking one is a member of the other sex.
In that context, I kind of wonder whether transwomen, in particular, aren't a case of a too strong imprinting of the mother on the son. Very easy for a strong personality to overwhelm a weaker one; sometimes think that's what has happened in cases of "trans widows" -- the wife being the stronger personality.
If you get a chance to watch the YouTube clips of Zelig, there are some amusing and illuminating bits there.
My ‘small-r’ reality is created by my rather small brain as it appreciates the sensations available to it. Yet - as you say - there is a Reality that is not a perception, it is what is irrespective of anyone’s perceptions. But the Reality of which you speak does not encompass ideas such as ‘tolerance’ to which your reality pays homage. As a scientistic materialist your reality encompasses only those aspects of Reality that you perceive with your senses. Immaterial moral principles are not Real, they are inventions of brains. So even though Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong about the importance of fantasies like tolerance and liberty and other such immaterial realities, in your world view - your brains reality - an insistence in demanding tolerance and liberty from those whose brains don’t care about such fantasies is difficult to defend - is it not?
This is a very good point. I am, indeed, a materialist… not a dualist. I do believe that the ideas of tolerance or liberty are equally as much a byproduct of our neural networks as anything else. I think the social framework in which we live gives rise to patterns of behavior that we refer to with terms such as tolerance or cooperativeness. In the end, it's the strictures of those who enforce the order that maintain the order. I don't know that we can "defend" good behavior in any abstract sense. Do you? I'd be very interested in your opinion.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for spelling this all out for a lay person/lizard. I wish I could show this to my daughter who is absolutely fascinated by neuroscience, but also believes she's male.
Your essays are fantastic and I find myself looking forward to new entries!
Thank you so very much! I sincerely appreciate your comment. Yesterday, you made my morning! I wish the very best outcome for you and your daughter. If there is ever anything I can write that you could show her — and that might be of some help — please feel free to ask. In the meantime, I hope that she works at being the best person that she can be. Sincerely, Frederick
Your essay on the differences in people’s perceptions, of reality is very interesting. Of course when you come to those who are convinced that they are Reptilians, it becomes a little more difficult to accept their version of reality. However, as long as those Reptilians don’t try to convince us that they are the real humans and we are not, there is no problem. Their “reality “is not one they are trying to force on us , unlike the” reality”of the trans ideology. No laws have been passed that order us to bow down to these delusional people. ;nobody has been canceled when they say “See you later, alligator. “
What I find dangerous is not just the individuals in the trans ideology who believe that as men they can become women or visa versa, but the push they exert on everyone else to believe their delusion, such as the laws against” misgendering “.. a ridiculous notion and made up term.
My concern, and it is a deep concern., is that the trans ideology is being pushed on everybody else in many countries throughout the world. As such, I am extremely worried that this is a takeover of a dangerous authoritarian movement.
My background is in biology and chemistry, both of which I have taught in high school. No educated person can deny the biology of sex, which this movement does. In that regard, they are also denying evolution .In fact, their whole belief system is based on a tissue of lies, which is why they are so defensive .
My background is also as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Thus, I can see that the trans movement is very similar to the one under which I grew up. The same atmosphere of engendered fear, the change in language, the change in laws , the punishment of those who don’t go along, the use of children … All of those point to a dangerous movement. The whole is larger than its parts. Delusional individuals may not be a problem, but the larger movement presents a danger to society that has not seen its equal since the rise of National Socialism.
That interest in neuroscience may well be a saving grace; you & she might be interested in my previous comment here about imprinting in geese.
But absolutely astounded -- or fascinated on nonplussed -- by statements like your "also believes she's a male". A fairly typical occurrence in many dysphoric kids; I see that you subscribe to PITT so you've probably seen other parents experiencing the same. ICYMI, my comment over there on the topic:
I've kind of addressed this there, but I seriously wonder why parents in that case simply can't say, for example, to their "transman daughters", "You can't be a male because to be a male you need to have testicles which you won't EVER have, regardless of how much you try to LOOK like a male and a man."
See the Oxford definitions and those in the Glossary of the Molecular Human Reproduction article:
It's not that we DON'T say these things to our captured kids - it's that they can't hear us. It would be like telling an anorexic that she's not fat. Her self perception does not match reality. These kids in the gender craze are suffering from a flawed view of themselves, and unfortunately this view is "supported" by school systems, politicians, etc.
My daughter is brilliant. IQ off the charts and likely on the autism spectrum. Quite possibly the smartest person I have ever known, but she has a blind spot where this issue is concerned. Unfortunately she's not the only one. Another ROGD mom once told me, "it takes a special kind of smart to fall for something this stupid."
I agree with your comment and your analysis. That's the point I was trying to make. How we see the world is a complex interplay between our neurophysiology, our experiences, and the interaction between us and the world. You cannot simply point out to someone that being a Republican or being a Democrat is the "wrong way" to think and expect them to change their vote. You are absolutely right in describing all of us as having "blind spots", metaphorically speaking. Further, these blind spots are self reinforcing and become progressively more entangled with everything we do and say. As we behave in terms of these blind spots, we interpret the reactions of the outside world in terms of them which reinforces our perceptions. This cannot be explained in any simple cause-and-effect way because it is a complex human behavior. Further, I don't think it's accurate to blame parents for failing to say the right things. As much as we try, we are up against overwhelmingly influential social forces.
Thank you for your comment. Given your professional background, it means a lot to me that a scientist thinks I'm essentially on the right track in my understanding.
My daughter has been sucked into this trap for a while. Longer than I like to admit. In the three conversations we have had about it, I kindly but firmly asked, "How can you believe this when you know it makes no sense?" Her answer "I don't know." The pain in her eyes tells me she is not enjoying this. There is no euphoria. She hates that it makes no sense and she's fallen for it anyway. This is a kid who had to be told about Santa years earlier than I hoped, simply because the magical logistics were stressing her out. All I can do now, really, is hope that the fact that none of this makes any sense eventually becomes too much for her and she comes back to reality.
That's a good analogy about anorexia. "gender critical feminist" and Substacker Eliza Mondegreen -- no friend of transgender ideology -- had written how she had suffered from that as a teenager, though I don't have the exact post where talked of the experience but think she echoes your take there about a "flawed view":
But, never having had kids myself, I'm not in a great position to be giving much in the way of advice to parents in general, much less those carrying the extra burden of dysphoria in their kids. However, I remember visiting my sister some 5 decades ago -- 😲 -- and was watching her feed her young son in his highchair, kid hardly more than a baby I guess. And she would spoon some Pablum into the kid's mouth and he would spit most it out onto his cheeks and chin, and then my sister would scrape that off his face and shove it back into the kid's mouth; rinse, repeat. Guess repetition has some benefits ... 🙂
I recently discovered this piece but wanted to re-read it. I still like it a lot. But I would put two things differently and make one substantive point. First, I would talk about our brain "recreating" or "reconstructing" reality rather than "hallucinating" it. Second, I would frame the idea here in terms of "neurodivergence", which is still a fairly new term, and embodies the spirit of tolerance for mental differences, even acknowledgment that certain forms of neurodivergence have an undeniable positive aspect. My son has ADD and refers occasionally, with humor and not overstating it, to the super-power(s) this confers on him (with respect to focus and working hard when engaged). And of course, it is recognized that certain people "on the spectrum" are brilliant. For my Substack column ,https://adamwilkins.substack.com/, I am soon going to do an article on "neurodivergence", treating these aspects. The substantive point is that the brain, in each species of vertebrate, has evolved to make good sense of the world, therefore the mental reconstruction carried out by the brain has to be fairly reliable. Even "trans-reptiles" have to be able to get dressed, prepare meals, cross the street safely, etc. Hence, whatever differences in perception and belief there are -- and there are plenty -- most brains remain quite reliable thinking organs.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comments. Regarding your first points, I agree. I used the word "hallucinating" to be a bit dramatic… You know, poetic license and all that. I don't know if it would be best to say "construct" rather than "reconstruct", but I tend to prefer the former. I agree with your comments on neural divergence… Which simply refers to the variability of any phenotype. The so-called 'divergence' is only from a theoretical, statistical mean. I don't know if that's easily defined in terms of neural systems. But I take your point. My late son (who would've been 25 now), falls in what used to be called the Asperger's range of cognitive functioning (although that term is not used any longer). I think the only difference in our opinions is that you are more teleological than I would be. Brains actually haven't evolved to make good sense of the world. There is no end goal or point to the mutations that occur. Central nervous systems have evolved over time, and those that function well enough so that the creature can reproduce persist. Those that have interfered with that reproductive demand no longer exist. I'm hard-pressed to look at any creature — especially human beings — and say they have a brain that's evolved to make sense out of the world. All told, after a brief look at the news in the morning, I'm completely convinced that like all other phenotypic characteristics, existing brains are just good enough to ensure that people have sex. Beyond that, evolution cannot act. As a lifelong professor, I know that it's of difficult task to get people to start thinking in ways that 'make sense of the world'. Thank you again for your thoughtful comment! I will take a look at your Substack. Sincerely, Frederick
Frederick, Very many thanks for your reply. I am glad that you liked my comments and felt they were worth a response. I do not think that we are far apart in our thinking but enough to be interesting. One correction, however: I do not regard my view as "teleological" but can see how my wording might have made it seem so. Of course, I do not visualize evolution as proceeding in order to achieve some large goal like "making sense of the world". Instead, it proceeds step by step, with most genetic changes having either no or minimal effect or being deleterious and being weeded out ("purifying selection") but with some leading to some slight improvement in function and being positively selected ("directional selection"). Over time, with something like the brain, there would surely have been an accretion of such positive functions and growing complexity. For an animal that has all sorts of complex behaviours, its brain must provide some relatively accurate perception of the external world (physical surroundings and other creatures, both predators and conspecifics) for it to function and survive. An animal whose brain was constantly distorting and misinterpreting the world outside itself would, quite soon, find itself unambigously dead. This view does not posit perfection in either perception or interpretation, just a reasonable fit to its needs in coping with the world. (And of course the brains of different animals would have evolved differently, depending upon their needs.) In fact, I think I will write a Substack article on this soon and send it to you for your comments (if you have time). Again, thanks for the earlier thoughts and also -- which I just saw -- becoming a subscriber to my column.
This all makes sense...to me. Are there any hypotheses as to how our brains evolved? What would be a natural selection for our perceptions of color, for example.
Kathryn: Thank you for your comment. This got lost in my stack of email. So, I'm sorry my reply is tardy. We do know a lot about how brains evolved. However, because nothing can evolve for a purpose, evolution can take any number of strange paths. Organizations that work well enough so that an animal can reproduce successfully can be inherited, as can those that are neutral regarding successful reproduction. Things that don't work well usually die. So, a sensory system like vision — to which you refer — appears first in the jellyfish as a system, but as a light sensing apparatus in single celled animals. So responding to light energy is a ubiquitous capability among animals (and plants). In primates, it looks like just a couple of small mutations gave rise to color vision (as opposed to simple black-and-white vision). It was a serendipitous happenstance that, incidentally, may have made foraging easier for these animals. And, because it wasn't deleterious, it stayed in the evolutionary line. Of course, a lot of animals don't have color vision and do fine. So, we have to understand that evolution only asks you to be "good enough". That is, good enough to reproduce. That's all. Thanks for asking, Frederick
What a pleasant surprise to receive your response to my comment. Thank you.
I don't think I have the patience to read your Substack. By the time I got to the end of the article, I had the beginnings of a headache. Yes, I believe most of what you said, but I've worked hard developing my habitual thoughts and I don't want to give them up. I like things to be cut-and-dried; the background mechanics that make it all possible don't interest me that much.
If you haven't, you should read the Seth Material books. They are all about the things you are writing about.
Thanks for the note... I understand that a lot of people like cut-and-dried. I get it... BTW, the Seth Material books may touch on some of the topics about which I wrote, but they are very different, indeed.
Aged 59, I am impatient and lacking in compassion; thank you for this piece, you have reordered my thinking.
Henceforth when I meet a person inhabiting an unfamiliar reality, I will be better prepared and alert to my propensity for being an asshole. Worse, sometimes I enjoy being an asshole, not always (infrequently), but the allure would be next to impossible to resist should a person declare themselves a trans-reptile to me. No more, thanks to you.
OK, that was very funny. I must say, however that I completely empathize with you. Most often, I have to lead with my biology rather than my gut instinct. Thanks for the comment!
I’m being honest, I will not forget the lesson learned. I now see it in entirely different light. Compassion and patience will be easier to find.
I knew you were being sincere. But, your comment did make me chuckle. I've often thought of writing an essay about how learning neurobiology made me much more compassionate..... It's interesting how our perspectives change, if we're open to change.
I still think it’s lunacy, but I’m not going to mock them.
I get it.
Reality is subjective, but there are some absolute Truths that I feel compelled to stand by. Such as a mammal can never actually "be" a reptile, no matter how many surgeries or special medicines such mammal may take, no matter how much the mammal wishes it were so, no matter how many other "lizards" affirm the mammal's reptilian-ness.
I agree 100% that as long as a mammal who believes oneself to be a reptile is respectful of others' opinions on the topic, said mammal has every right to pretend and enjoy an imaginary life of reptile-hood. Just don't try to make this mammal participate in your fantasy.
LERM: I love it!
Fascinating.
I now understand indoctrination far better and why 'deprogramming' the brainwashed is so hard.
There's a lot to learn from this for everyday life as well, we all trot out phrases about 'changing your mind' so glibly.
I can directly apply all of this to so much about myself, how I react to new ideas etc. Super stuff!
See Michael Pollan’s Changing Your Mind.
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Thanks so much! I'm glad you found it interesting. Our brains are strange organs, aren't they? We understand so very little about them, yet they create who we are. Thanks again for your comment.
The only upside of gender ideology and 'trans' is that it's making me exercise my brain a lot more than I have for years!
Reading your essay made me remember that, in my adolescent despair and angst phase, I used to compare human beings to amoebae who'd got over ambitious notions about themselves. Now that I'm older and wiser(?), I'm actually starting to think I wasn't so wrong.
We ought to be teaching kids at school about the basics of thinkings about neuroscience, it might help them build the resilience and coping mechanisms they need to avoid the seemingly endemic plague of 'mental illness' we're seeing amongst the young.
Well, I agree with you about the amoeba issue. It would be good if we taught students more about biology, specially neuroscience. Learning neuroscience made me more accepting, generous of spirit, and thoughtful than I would otherwise be. This plague of "mental illness" to which you refer is very concerning. There is so much beauty, opportunity, and joy to be had — not to diminish the challenges that many people face — and much of it is simply ignored. Thank you so much for your comment. You're making me exercise my brain, too.
I think the biggest lesson I have learned (about myself - though I think it is probably universal?) is that the 'pursuit of happiness' is a futile and unhealthy exercise and that contentment is a better goal. I see happiness as discrete 'events', not a state of being and searching for it blinds one to all the beauty and joy in both the marvelous and the ordinary. Contentment allows one to sit and watch and listen and feel all the joy and the beauty - even to experience the little 'happies' that are so easily missed or dismissed as insignificant.
Thank you for having this conversation.
I agree with you completely. Your thinking is consistent with the principles of classical Eastern thought, I think. It took me quite a while to come to the realization that you've articulated here. I'm much more content and peaceful for it. And, thank you, Frederick
It took me till life had overwhelmed me (for a while) in my 50s. I had to do some serious thinking about what really mattered in life and how to make that my focus. It made me strip away (as much as is ever possible) the layers of expectation, value judgements, etc that we all acquire and transpose onto our thinking. Wishing you peace and contentment.
There was that limerick I grew up with in Golden Treasury:
There was a an old doctor of Deal
Who said although pain isnt real
If I sit on a pin
And I puncture my skin
I dislike what I fancy I feel.
...funny... but true.
yup 'that dear old Doctor from Deal'
Well...OK. Does this mean that if I flap my arms REAL HARD & jump out of a 10-story window, I process the result as a catastrophic occurrence, or is that splat on the ground really an Olympic-level athlete?
I think it'd be pretty catastrophic. I think our realities overlap on that issue.
Why? Because something's going on outside of "our realities"?
I see that these comments are almost a month old; nevertheless I feel that I am in the company of clear thinkers. Thank you, Fredrick.
I don’t understand your question. Can you clarify for me?
OK, bluntly: I don't buy the notion that everything is subjective, that reality is how our brains interpret what is happening "out there."
I can see what you're getting at with respect to color and various sensory experiences (such as pain), but I am not experiencing the sensation of falling when I jump out of a 6th story window, or rather, I am not merely experiencing the sensation of falling.
I really AM falling, whether I believe it or not, or feel it or not. I don't have to understand the laws of gravity. I AM falling, and I will die if I do it.
Does that explain my objection?
Sure, I understand your point. By "subjective" I certainly don't mean that everything is arbitrary. There is a reality out there. You certainly don't have to understand the laws of physics to recognize you are falling. However, that particular experience is shaped by you or brain. You do not have any direct or unmediated experience of the world. If you understand the example of color and pain, then you understand my point. There is no other way to understand what your world is like. It is constructed by your brain. Our realities would overlap on the falling issue. You can take the extreme example and think of a schizophrenic jumping off a building and thinking that he's flying. That would be different than your experience correct? The point is that "subjective" does not mean "arbitrary". Some people enjoy roller coasters. Some people, like me, find them horrible. That doesn't mean that the laws of physics don't apply to us both. You see, for the schizophrenic, his subjective reality is just as real to him as yours is to you. Or, when you're dreaming, that is your reality at the moment. You simply can't get away from your brain. Happily, most of our brains create experiences similar enough that we can operate together in the world. However, I will never understand the world from the point of view of a woman, or a turtle, or my son Ben. The mistake that people make is thinking that with just enough convincing, we will all come to the same set of subjective experiences... That is, finally recognize the "true reality" out there. That has never worked in the entire history of human existence. There's a biological reason for that.
What do you think?
"What do you think?"
I think this is true: "You do not have any direct or unmediated experience of the world."
But I also think that the stuff "out there" really does exist outside of our unmediated experience.
Dogs (so the NY Times tells me) live in a world of scent. Evolution has equipped them with senses to detect things that I cannot*. There are things outside of my experience which set off their olfactory apparatus - things that are "out there." Does that mean they don't exist, because I can't smell them?
Yes, I recognize that if I only depended on my direct experience of the world, they would "not exist." But when I go hunting with a bloodhound (which I've never done, just giving an example) I know they exist even if I can't smell them.
Does a smell in the forest exist, even if there's no one (i.e. human) around to smell it? I think it does. I think the smell exists even if a bloodhound can't smell it.
This is fun.
*thankfully, as I live in NYC.
Excellent meandering post. It really is beyond me that someone thinks they are a star fish (or, far more commonly in these communities, a dog or fox). As bizarre as liking lima beans. I wonder if ideas from evolutionary psychology can explain why we see so much variation in how people identify (ranging from human to centipede). There are the competing/complementary views that our theory of mind was developed for hunting vs social processing. Both are important for survival of hunter-gatherers, however there is a gendered comparative advantage for women and social processing. This extends to this day; facial recognition is easier for women. There is another, possibly related fact: that far more natal males identify as furries. Perhaps this is some of the hunting brain adaptation coming through and shaping their world.
Thank you very much for the comment. I think that our ability to come up with a "theory of mind" is simply a byproduct of the size of our brain, like trigonometry or taxidermy. Rudimentary forms of this ability appear in some primates like vervets. The ability has both a positive and negative aspect as all characteristics do. Thanks again, Frederick
Andrew: "As bizarre as liking lima beans."
Indeed -- rank insanity ... 😉
But incredibly bizarre phenomenon in so many ways. But fascinating in other ones -- I've often argued or suggested that part and parcel of the issue is imprinting, a fairly durable psychological concept:
"Lorenz demonstrated how incubator-hatched geese would imprint on the first suitable moving stimulus they saw within what he called a "critical period" between 13 and 16 hours shortly after hatching. For example, the goslings would imprint on Lorenz himself (to be more specific, on his wading boots), and he is often depicted being followed by a gaggle of geese who had imprinted on him."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)
You might also be interested in Woody Allen's movie Zelig - "The Chameleon Man" - as an amusing illustration of how people pickup and "ape" the behaviours of those around them. A very human thing to do but has some serious pathological manifestations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUW8JsLDsNo
That's an interesting take on imprinting. Who the heck likes lima beans anyway?
I guess I'd like to see evidence that some people who identify as wolves were raised by wolves 😉. I mean, I could go for them being more likely to have a family dog as a child. Completely testable.
But there is also the gender component, which imprinting doesn't explain. As many girls grow up with a family dog as boys. It's the boys that end up believing they are a dog far more often.
🙂 While Frederick didn't talk much about gender dysphoria, I kind of took, maybe erroneously, that to be the major part of the subtext. That being the most common "delusion" these days, thinking one is a member of the other sex.
In that context, I kind of wonder whether transwomen, in particular, aren't a case of a too strong imprinting of the mother on the son. Very easy for a strong personality to overwhelm a weaker one; sometimes think that's what has happened in cases of "trans widows" -- the wife being the stronger personality.
If you get a chance to watch the YouTube clips of Zelig, there are some amusing and illuminating bits there.
That was the subtext, indeed.
Good information. I like reading your posts, your writing always takes me somewhere unexpected.
P.S. I don’t like lima beans either.
Ooh why not? Theyre great in a stew ...
Thanks so much for the comment… And thank you for joining me in the "Never-Lima Beans Club." LOL.
Great post!
Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.
Spot on. My parent coaching is CBT based and I so appreciate your writing this with brilliant analogy. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Lisa. I sincerely appreciate your comment!
My ‘small-r’ reality is created by my rather small brain as it appreciates the sensations available to it. Yet - as you say - there is a Reality that is not a perception, it is what is irrespective of anyone’s perceptions. But the Reality of which you speak does not encompass ideas such as ‘tolerance’ to which your reality pays homage. As a scientistic materialist your reality encompasses only those aspects of Reality that you perceive with your senses. Immaterial moral principles are not Real, they are inventions of brains. So even though Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong about the importance of fantasies like tolerance and liberty and other such immaterial realities, in your world view - your brains reality - an insistence in demanding tolerance and liberty from those whose brains don’t care about such fantasies is difficult to defend - is it not?
This is a very good point. I am, indeed, a materialist… not a dualist. I do believe that the ideas of tolerance or liberty are equally as much a byproduct of our neural networks as anything else. I think the social framework in which we live gives rise to patterns of behavior that we refer to with terms such as tolerance or cooperativeness. In the end, it's the strictures of those who enforce the order that maintain the order. I don't know that we can "defend" good behavior in any abstract sense. Do you? I'd be very interested in your opinion.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for spelling this all out for a lay person/lizard. I wish I could show this to my daughter who is absolutely fascinated by neuroscience, but also believes she's male.
Your essays are fantastic and I find myself looking forward to new entries!
Thank you so very much! I sincerely appreciate your comment. Yesterday, you made my morning! I wish the very best outcome for you and your daughter. If there is ever anything I can write that you could show her — and that might be of some help — please feel free to ask. In the meantime, I hope that she works at being the best person that she can be. Sincerely, Frederick
Your essay on the differences in people’s perceptions, of reality is very interesting. Of course when you come to those who are convinced that they are Reptilians, it becomes a little more difficult to accept their version of reality. However, as long as those Reptilians don’t try to convince us that they are the real humans and we are not, there is no problem. Their “reality “is not one they are trying to force on us , unlike the” reality”of the trans ideology. No laws have been passed that order us to bow down to these delusional people. ;nobody has been canceled when they say “See you later, alligator. “
What I find dangerous is not just the individuals in the trans ideology who believe that as men they can become women or visa versa, but the push they exert on everyone else to believe their delusion, such as the laws against” misgendering “.. a ridiculous notion and made up term.
My concern, and it is a deep concern., is that the trans ideology is being pushed on everybody else in many countries throughout the world. As such, I am extremely worried that this is a takeover of a dangerous authoritarian movement.
My background is in biology and chemistry, both of which I have taught in high school. No educated person can deny the biology of sex, which this movement does. In that regard, they are also denying evolution .In fact, their whole belief system is based on a tissue of lies, which is why they are so defensive .
My background is also as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Thus, I can see that the trans movement is very similar to the one under which I grew up. The same atmosphere of engendered fear, the change in language, the change in laws , the punishment of those who don’t go along, the use of children … All of those point to a dangerous movement. The whole is larger than its parts. Delusional individuals may not be a problem, but the larger movement presents a danger to society that has not seen its equal since the rise of National Socialism.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this .
Agreed. Thank you for your thoughts… And, I have to say it, "See you later alligator!" I couldn't help myself… it was a very funny line!
That is such a generous offer! I would love to take you up on it someday!
That interest in neuroscience may well be a saving grace; you & she might be interested in my previous comment here about imprinting in geese.
But absolutely astounded -- or fascinated on nonplussed -- by statements like your "also believes she's a male". A fairly typical occurrence in many dysphoric kids; I see that you subscribe to PITT so you've probably seen other parents experiencing the same. ICYMI, my comment over there on the topic:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/how-to-be-a-man-inspired-by-my-trans/comment/10963933
I've kind of addressed this there, but I seriously wonder why parents in that case simply can't say, for example, to their "transman daughters", "You can't be a male because to be a male you need to have testicles which you won't EVER have, regardless of how much you try to LOOK like a male and a man."
See the Oxford definitions and those in the Glossary of the Molecular Human Reproduction article:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
It's not that we DON'T say these things to our captured kids - it's that they can't hear us. It would be like telling an anorexic that she's not fat. Her self perception does not match reality. These kids in the gender craze are suffering from a flawed view of themselves, and unfortunately this view is "supported" by school systems, politicians, etc.
My daughter is brilliant. IQ off the charts and likely on the autism spectrum. Quite possibly the smartest person I have ever known, but she has a blind spot where this issue is concerned. Unfortunately she's not the only one. Another ROGD mom once told me, "it takes a special kind of smart to fall for something this stupid."
I agree with your comment and your analysis. That's the point I was trying to make. How we see the world is a complex interplay between our neurophysiology, our experiences, and the interaction between us and the world. You cannot simply point out to someone that being a Republican or being a Democrat is the "wrong way" to think and expect them to change their vote. You are absolutely right in describing all of us as having "blind spots", metaphorically speaking. Further, these blind spots are self reinforcing and become progressively more entangled with everything we do and say. As we behave in terms of these blind spots, we interpret the reactions of the outside world in terms of them which reinforces our perceptions. This cannot be explained in any simple cause-and-effect way because it is a complex human behavior. Further, I don't think it's accurate to blame parents for failing to say the right things. As much as we try, we are up against overwhelmingly influential social forces.
Your last sentence says it all!” overwhelmingly influential, social forces”. At this point, I would add political forces as well.
Thank you for your comment. Given your professional background, it means a lot to me that a scientist thinks I'm essentially on the right track in my understanding.
My daughter has been sucked into this trap for a while. Longer than I like to admit. In the three conversations we have had about it, I kindly but firmly asked, "How can you believe this when you know it makes no sense?" Her answer "I don't know." The pain in her eyes tells me she is not enjoying this. There is no euphoria. She hates that it makes no sense and she's fallen for it anyway. This is a kid who had to be told about Santa years earlier than I hoped, simply because the magical logistics were stressing her out. All I can do now, really, is hope that the fact that none of this makes any sense eventually becomes too much for her and she comes back to reality.
The trans ideology is doing more harm than any cult I can think of , because it is so pervasive now.
That's a good analogy about anorexia. "gender critical feminist" and Substacker Eliza Mondegreen -- no friend of transgender ideology -- had written how she had suffered from that as a teenager, though I don't have the exact post where talked of the experience but think she echoes your take there about a "flawed view":
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/
But, never having had kids myself, I'm not in a great position to be giving much in the way of advice to parents in general, much less those carrying the extra burden of dysphoria in their kids. However, I remember visiting my sister some 5 decades ago -- 😲 -- and was watching her feed her young son in his highchair, kid hardly more than a baby I guess. And she would spoon some Pablum into the kid's mouth and he would spit most it out onto his cheeks and chin, and then my sister would scrape that off his face and shove it back into the kid's mouth; rinse, repeat. Guess repetition has some benefits ... 🙂