Are Men and Women really that different?

feh

I think too much is made of differences. I think most of it is taught the kids -- subtle hints included, like discouraging a toddler boy from playing with a doll. Little boys have it worse than little girls in this respect. I don't like it when guys are pressured into being super-"manly" by their dads, peers, etc. People should be able to express whatever emotions they want, dress as they wish, etc. with more freedom to gender-bend if they so wish. And guys should be free to be nurturing with little kids without fear they will be thought of as a child molester if they hug a little kid, take them into their laps, etc. I think it's cool when I see dads taking care of their babies more now.

Yes, thank God. I love men for their design.

God designed us to complement one another. If man and woman respected each other, were selfless, it would always be beautiful. Womens Liberation was/is a curse to a family, to a woman. Hugh Hefner and his stupid immorality corrupted men. The object of all this corruption was meant to destroy God's ideal family unit.

Externally, there are the socially acceptable differences that make up our gender stereotypes. Society rules and straying from the accepted behavior is a challenge for all of us..even in this day and age.. But internally, I believe that we all feel the same emotions but how we express those emotions can be a bit different between men and women. And what causes us to feel those emotions can be different as well...and that is the reason men and women fundamentally communicate differently. There are hundreds of examples of this; to many to get into. My point is... we are all the same, though, we process emotions and information (not all) separately and this, then, dictates our behavior. Our behavior originates from our emotions. We spend a lifetime exploring these differences, trying to come to some resolution and mutual understanding. Some understand better than others, though I think that it is an individual process, with no right or wrong, good or bad.

(gets on soapbox) There is all sorts of stereotypes that fall to each sex. As a woman there is that whole deal of the glass ceiling and in the engineering/programming field the prejudicial belief that men are better is something I deal with every day. Also there is the belief that woman are soft, sentimental, delicate (do I ever feel like knocking heads together when I hear that crap). But on the other hand if a man shows his emotions or puts for a feminine (ohh see stereotypical) side he is called gay, wimp, girly man (another one I hate)and a myriad of other things. Society believes a man should be strong, tough, don't show emotions. (Step off soapbox) Sorry if this was a bit digressed from the question just hit a nerve.

What the heck are you even talking about? Aside from pee straight ahead or lift oil drums, I don't see much that women can't do.

"...But internally, I believe that we all feel the same emotions..." Personal life experience taught me otherwise. There were a lot of things like coy and delight I might not have gotten around to if I had remained a guy.

I was meditating one night on body awareness and came across a discovery that almost bebased and somewhat despiritualized emotions for me. I found that there is an emotion wrapped up into every body part, if not several depending on the behaviour of that part, for instance rolling the eyes. Try it some time. Pick a part, any part, and key into what it's used for, like standing at attention, slinking, putting up one's guard, cringing, etc. - Consider the possibility that our emotions (at least originally) arise from our behaviour as well.

You might have enjoyed halloween costume. Working backwards, imagine a guy going as a gal, a crossdresser. Now imagine one doing a poor job of such, with falsies sticking out, tape showing, sloppy makeup, and tacky frilly attire. Now imagine a woman dressing up as a guy by tying up her hair, painting on bushy brows, 5 o'clock shadow and body hair with mascara, and strapping on a dildo (to be blatantly taped up under frilly panties). Now imagine me doing all this. It felt very victorious playing the part of crossdresser. I have my doubts people on the street (I was in Hollywood with 400,000 others, going as a male street prostitute) saw though too many layers. I figure some only saw me as a most pathetic crossdresser in the first place. The only comment I heard was 'She's got my shoes'.

When I first arrived in LA 12 years ago I was stopped by a woman officer offering fashion advice (the literal fashion police) who confided she had been a man. I had a hard time wrapping my head around that one. It seemed to me she was missing out on all the fringe benefits that made the change worthwhile in the first place. On the other hand there are many who can't understand why I'd want to be a lesbian either.

Intellectually, I think there's very little difference. Though hormones do affect the mind. Men are likely more aggressive (because of higher testosterone levels, for example). That can clearly be a plus or a minus, though. Physically, there are some more obvious differences. But, again these can be plusses or minuses. For example, men tend to have larger muscles and are thus stronger. But, in some situations this is not helpful. Women are very good at rock climbing, I hear. I think because of their weight/strength ratio.

Well, anyway, I think the best thing for us to do is not impose any societal limits on either sex. I don't think women should have to be secretive about what they want to do. I think we should encourage women to challenge gender roles (and, men too) if they want. Gender roles are bullcrap. As a society we limit ourselves by imposing limits like that on people. The same applies to racial or cultural stereotypes. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa was an illegal immigrant from Mexico, now he's the Harvard-educated Director of the Brain Tumor Stem Cell Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.

I don't care for most women engineers (or at least not the young ones), but not because I'm biased, but rather because they are the products of the contions you bring up. Either they play the passive wallflower role, which is nearly useless, or overcompensate with a sharp commanding approach. All I want to deal with is people who enthusiastically charge ahead with engineering, such that gender doesn't occur to me. Of course I don't like some guy engineers for similar reasons, that of putting on excess professional airs when none are required to get the job done.

In a similar way, regardless of gender, I don't care for scientific snobs who disregard wise relevant intelligent thought on a matter because it doesn't come with the right language flavor of formality and degree. I'm not exactly an IQ snob, as I can appreciate there may be times an observant five year old might catch something I've missed, but I do have a bit of pride and frustration on the matter, the latter either that others can't understand me, or in Cassandra style, tune me out anyhow. There is a ton of pride to cut through in the engineering field for anyone.

The glass ceiling is a bit of a catch-22. The pay of a lead engineer isn't just about being an expert engineer, it's about getting other engineers to do what needs done, and if a bunch of guy engineers won't take a woman lead engineer seriously, there's not much lead engineering to be paid for. I only have one real hero woman engineer in my experience, and her answer, not getting the respectful consideration her brilliant solutions deserved, was to start her own company. Now that I think of it, she's directly responsible for starting me off as an independent contractor and eventual business owner.

Huh?

Men and women have a about a 3% genetic differential. When compared to chimpanzees of the same sex the difference between humans and chimps is only about 2.5%. You have more in common genetically with a chimpanzee of the same sex than you do with a member of the opposite sex of your own species. So my answer is yes. Men and women are different. Get over it.

Well, Men being the dominant sex, I think......... *cough* "crap , did I say that out loud?"

I think there are definitely men who could create a survey that makes as little sense as this one does.

Women and men are as different as night and day.

Not clear, but it sounds like your explanation is referring to having sex and talking about it without being considered a slut. Single women who have casual sex ARE sluts. Get over it. Most women want relationships and hand out sex thinking they'll get love from the guy. Guys on the other hand pretend to love the woman in order to get sex.

Yes

Yes, they are. Both have their good and bad points, but vastly different.

Yes and no. I think there's more variation among a group of women, or among a group of men, than there is in general between men and women as a whole.

Everyone should be given equal chance to prove themselves. If they do, good for them. If they don't, disregardless of their sex (religion, race, sexuality, etc) if their own problem.

> "...But internally, I believe that we all feel the same emotions..."
> Personal life experience taught me otherwise. There were a lot of
> things like coy and delight I might not have gotten around to if I
> had remained a guy.
|
KR, not to be critical...but you are an exception in this instance, as you have been through surgery, hormone replacement therapy and many other biological factors that have may have influenced some of your moods/ behavior. That you have the ability to vacillate between male/female gender identities, may put you (and other transgendered) into a category all by itself. This is a positive, more than a negative, factor...as you may be a bit more evolved, but still....having all of these qualities immersed within your psychological profile may dilute some of the strong, more obvious differences. Just to remark on your comment, coy and delight are a variation of being shy and joyful...which are certainly attributes felt by both men and women. And remember, I said that processing these emotions may take on different behaviors, ultimately. Being psychological, biological and societal in nature, our differences arise from our similarities.


> Consider the possibility that our
> emotions (at least originally) arise from our behaviour as well.

The true CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy) model reflects that thoughts cause our emotions, thus, influencing our behaviors but after time, it is also possible for behaviors to ignite emotions, resulting in new thought patterns...learned behavior will often influence emotions but the impetus of new behaviors are usually generated by our thoughts and emotions. This is all part of the 'learning process'...how we learn to behave.

Biologically, and chemically in particular, the evidence suggests that we are quite different. Not as different as a human and a muskrat, though, I suppose.

Yes!!! Our biological make up and the way we are socialized really is totally different. For instance, men are more likely to cheat than women (even though it's not much more because our society looks down upon that kind of thing). It's not because they're heartless. It's because they're constantly making sperm and women only have a certain amount of eggs and therefore have to conserve their egg for the right one. Men are more likely to be "Bad asses" because they have a leader of the pack complex. These are only a couple of ways in which men and women are different. Men and women even have different definitions to what cheating is. Men tend to call it cheating only if there is sex. Women call it cheating if it's an emotional relationship (i.e. If a man so much as has a fake internet relationship with another woman in which all they have to share are words, it's over). And there's much much more. Men and women really are very different.

Yes, men and women are very different.

Men and women are very different.

Wait.... after reading your comments, it sounds like you might be ashamed about your many sexual conquests.

Sticks and stones, girl - screw who you want, when you want. Lose the shame. Life is short. Everything will start sagging soon enough and you will only transition to a whole different kind of shame.

> Yes, men and women are very
> different.

Jinx!

I would say, for many different reasons men and women are very different. First genetically, our physical make-up is drastically different in our reproductive areas. Also physically men are generally built differently than females. Men shoulders are usually broader and the male make-up is as an agressor or alpha position. That is not to say that women have not taken a domineering role ever in history, because they have, however decisions and the basis for morality was established on emotionalism and could be cretice as unsuccessful. Queen Elisabeth 1 would have been the most successful of women leaders, however she also had many male advisors in her circle of making decisions regarding war and society. Women have the capability to do the things men do, yet you will most likely never see a women in the NFL, NBA, or competing against men in the Olympics, for the simple fact it wouldn't be far and men and women are very different. We were created to be different to compliment each other and edify one anothers strengths and weaknesses. Men are generally more rational than woman ,and women are generally more emotional on the basis and area of nurture toward children. Men need women and women need men. So I would say yes we are very different ,yet need each other, which make neither one more or less important.

I'm just saying different genders have different emotions, unless you are one of those who imagines there are only seven basic emotions. It would probably be fairer to say thot everyone has different emotions. I know this one not through gender changing experience, but though spiritual downloading (like the cloning equivalent of possession). Also though just plain deep conversations. I spent my first 25 years thinking that deep down inside every one was pretty much the same. After finding out how much I could change in internal ways I never expected could have existed, this gave me cause to probe others deeper, to find out what they were really like inside, now knowing better that just about anything could be going on inside. I'd say I probably have triple the awareness of emotional perspective I had 20 year ago. Acting classes inspired my search too. I collect perceptions like people collect photos. Spiritual ones too. For years I was in every diverse spiritual group I could find, serving as a metaphysical translator between faiths, but also grabbing anything they had unique, as they often did, like ancestor posession or a flavor of meditation. Now that is stuff I can't in any way relate to body parts. At the closest, I could relate it to hindu halo paintings, but to really convey it, you need a kind of 3D movie of forces which almost relate to sounds, colors, magnetism, and such. They also come with subconsiously felt cosmologys, stellar, ancestral, multi-dimenisional, holographic, whatever. That was my high for years, but eventually I started running dry of things to discover, and a bit of afraid of progressing on the ones I was deepest in already. It took some years (as in just around now, perhaps) to become unjaded after coming down from that line of adventure.

I'm familiar with standard and popular psychological models and knew you to be familiar with them too, and said what I said to you in that context. If the model were simply as you said, it wouldn't conveniently explain that one can find subtle emotions associated with any body part, unless you want to redefine the thinking and the mind not as apart from the body, but rather that the body is an integral extensive part of the mind itself. That's not really a new theory.

Physiologically there's cause to support that model. I've found there's some (observable) truth to the physiological existence of meridians (used in chiropracy and acupuncture). I have points on my body (mostly from bike accidents) that when scratched send pain elsewhere in the body. Also there are places reported in the body where signals get crossed, for instance gum aches and having to pee. From a hardware design the explanation is clear. A computer keyboard reduces an array to combinations of rows and columns. In the same way we could have nerves saying where on our hand, amongst our organs, or in in our mouth some pain is, all sharing the same nerves, and just a few more to provide area context. That's a simplification, but it works out well hand in hand with the brains fuzzy logic algorithm by which tendencies of relative color cone illumination determines light spectrum color (on the sidelines here, I'm delighted by violet, the color which is really only a color chord, and thus exists as a single color only in our minds.) The point I'm getting to (if my background is even related) is that's it's reasonable to imagine each of these nerves as bidirectional conduits as either input, output, or storage (like LED buttons reflected in pixel memory). More to the point yet, I'm saying that there may not be a point in discerning between thought and behavior when it comes to physical things.

As an example of that I gave some contemplation to the sight and flight of flies. My conclusion was that the fly's eye is in fact it's flight computer. Much like an optical mouse, flight patterns can be burnt into the yes with memmory delays (bucket brigade capacitor chains in electronics terminology) in combo with standard graphics filter algorithms for rotating images and such.

The bottom line for fascination in all this for me is consiousness. It's my firm position that both senses and thoughts are something consciousness inhabits, not the nature of consciousness itself at all. We can have consciousness without senses, thoughts, or fantasies at all. 'I am' is not a thought, it is a presence. If processing and responding to the senses were consciousness, 4-function calculators could be fully conscious.

Merely inhabiting an independent domain of senses and thoughts is however not the limit of consciousness. The evidence for this visions and channelling which somehow are recorded in our memory and thoughts. This implies one of three things: A component exits which translates between spiritual communication and the physical realm; the spiritual realm exists within undiscovered channel of physical communication; and my own hindu cosmology position, the whole thing is God's dream and there really is no separate physical realm. I've seen quite enough from different angles than not much other explanation could work.

Do you spend time contemplating this stuff any?

I dont get too Skinner or Darwinian with psychology. If such were the case, a range of behaviours would remain useful but the only call for emotions would be a scale between favorable, unfavorable, and the degree of indeterminancy; ..excepting that emotions themselves may well be part of the cognitive process. We have our visual, kinesthetic, and aural thinkers. I think it's fair to connect all of those to varying relative degrees, and the thoughts themselves, as I suggested, before. This means that the visual of memories of facial expressions, conceptual patterns of personal relationship behavior, and the feeling of being coy could all be one and the same entity in motion, with meter readings taken from different body junctures. To the extent which visuals and configurative conceptions fail to convey a premise, emotions may fill this gap and thus serve cognitive purpose rather than being a subtly complex paradigm solely for the delights of it's self. Ultimately the sublime flavors of spiritual energy serve a similar purpose, within levels of sublime refinement and context which could go on infinitely.

"Being psychological, biological and societal in nature, our differences arise from our similarities. " - I don't follow. Are you just being symantic as to how they could even be defined, or saying something more that I'm missing?

CBT and such aside, what do you believe to be the core of consciousness and the ultimate role of emotion within that context?

Women only have, what, 80,000, 400,000 eggs? Yeah, better save them for special occasions. True, whatever the count is, it's limited, unlike sperm, but either way both genders are sexually functionla most of their lives. More to the biological point is that women are stuck carrying a child while men could wander off. This makes reliable selection more important for women. In small tribal cultures men's promiscuity is actually vital to circulating the gene pool, and when the tribes are as sparse hermit eskimos, spouse trading becomes the order of the day.

> "Being psychological, biological and societal in nature, our differences
> arise from our similarities. " - I don't follow. Are you just being
> symantic as to how they could even be defined, or saying something
> more that I'm missing?

Exactly what I had posted. We have all of the same emotions (happy, sad, angry..etc..) and then variations of these emotions may be indicative to men & women, separately. Through thought, how we process these emotions, and, thus, our behavior... is a core element in the way men & women communicate with each other. Really, this is all the billions of self help books are saying. Each sex understanding the thought process of the opposite sex is usually the goal in enhancing communication skills. KR, I try to keep it simple...in my work and in my life. Why complicate?

> CBT and such aside, what do you believe to be the core of consciousness
> and the ultimate role of emotion within that context?

I was much more metaphysical in the past and the esoteric concepts just confused me. To me, there is no need to think so 'hard'. It doesn't benefit me at work, nor in my life. I am much more grounded in simplicity but I realize that the idea of others pondering the vast multi-dimensions encompassing human existance is exciting and stimulating for them. I haven't regressed with my thought process, I have moved forward toward easier philosophical beliefs.

Men have a penis and women have a vagina. This is my half hearted response.

I was afraid of as much. There are realms to keep things simple, for instance electronics engineering. Consciousness and emotions is not one of these realms. To simplify this realm would be like imagining that a computer program could learn all the rules of scales and timing and produce a touching sensitive song about delightfully relaxing in fields of flowers. Perhaps a scale of complexity isn't the rubik I insist is required, but rather a scale of sublimity. The more fascinating, astonishing, and significant content is to be found in the sublime; otherwise reduction to base emotions is like meeting space aliens and imagining we know the concepts they contemplate because we've learned their alphabet.

Often a base vector reduction of emotional thought might work, for instance reducing an angry response to that of the spiral vector between a cuckoo-clock spring and the hands turning or the bird popping out, but the real content is in the mechanisms of notched programming gears, bidirectional escapement springs and such which define how we actually tick. A black box approach to behavior is devoid of understanding.

Simplification aids in communication, but with all the subtle affectations and routings taking place, the 'correct' simplification needs chosen first. Simplification and specialisation have made the diagnostic capacities of physical health doctors next to worthless these days; none of them trace through multi-domain routings of the big picture anymore. If your nails are brittle because of an enzyme imbalance caused by adrenal stimulation from a psych med, you'll never know; The doc will suggest more calcium in your diet.

Emotions and thoughts can be likened to music and abstract art. Any simplifications require a deep understanding to begin with. Two miscommunicating people may have their own relative darks and lights, and the concept of a tree to communicate between each other, but one may be thinking in a Brazillian earth-tone palette (emphasizing forces of motion), the other in a Dutch gray-scale palette (emphasizing line and form), thus the whole foundation of what makes a tree significant for these people may be different, and the underlying language ingredients to understand each other may not even be present.

It is possible to be an atheist yet innately feel the presence of God holding cosmological-nature together, or to be dogmatically religious yet be missing this sensation. This mechanism ingredient inside the black box makes a world of difference on what is perceived and what can be communicated. It's difficult to simplify anything too sublime and subjective to have have a firm vocabulary for, and yet this is where the significant content of our lives occurs.

I know I for one would like to see a movement towards wholistic psychology/psychiatry, where instead of messing with a battery of anti-depressants, a doctor realizes that a range of genuinely problematic focus behaviors like ADD and OCD would take care of themselves with a change in one's connection to life as a result of taking nature walks and having a romance. Skinner is my ultimate nightmare in physical black-box reductionism. One of my favorite tales of psychiatry research is when Pavlov had dogs discerning ovals and circles, and they snapped and attacked him - opened that paradigm a bit.

I don't know what sort of practice you have, or if it's too late to teach an old dog new tricks (at least as pertains to active practice), but possibly it would be worth getting some feedback from your clients, ask them if there are angles they wish you would examine more deeply. I don't particularly suggest leaving the territory you are most confident working with, but it can't hurt holding a 'what if?' shift in the back of your mind, that your specialized domain of angles of approach may not always be the appropriately comprehensive tool for the job.

Unfortunately doctors get the least feedback of all professions. 98% of patients will take their doctors with a grain of salt or switch doctors before ever directly questioning them.

I'm not saying in all this that you haven't been vastly helpful, and I gather that you are getting closer to retirement. What I am saying though is that it would be responsible of you to set aside your worthy-self-confidence and use your career experience to tackle the investigation of the limitations of your practice such that you can inspire the next generation of practioneers appropriately.

I don't doubt that a slim majority of self help books amongst many breeds have the concern you mention, and that you are speaking colorfully, but the line comes off as confidently choosing to be ignorant about the wealth of contributions authors have made.

Simplicity in the face of actual complexity is not necessarily a virtue, however its close cousin 'clarity' is. Curiously though, ignorant simplicity can be a virtue, as it actually works for people. When people reduce a complex universe to an over-simplified understanding, they can make simplified decisions with confidence, and generally these easily derived under-informed decisions are a more effective course than being mired in an open-ended lack of clarity. Any responsible practitioner though should pull in the comprehensive fringes of what they can begin to comprehend within client psyches and reflect it back as the threads of clarity found within it. Zereoing in on simplified templates of pattern-matching to begin with is as bad as not using double-blind drug testing. The details found within people are as diverse as the universe, and one could conceivably dig up details to support any notion.

Advancing towards a simpler philosophy is a useful choice, and may be worth promoting as well, but it's not an explanation of where people are currently at.

In my own life I'm increasingly valuing simplicity and clarity, but I am finding that these qualities are the result of conscious will, and not the result of thorough evaluation. We choose to create simplicity from a field of infinitely open-ended complex potential. It's not a truth the essence of which can be extracted any more than forms found in clouds. About the only genuine simple truth I've extracted is that mind and matter are reflective facets of the same entity, and that only halves the complexity of the infinite universe. (and half of infinity is still infinity).

Contemplating, or quietly directly experiencing infinite complexity can be stimulating. But even being one with the universe, the other route is quiet wholesome simplicity (though they do both kind of merge full-circle). I can suggest that the former is more mind-chakra based, the latter more heart-based. The felt distinction though is significant. In a fractalling mental state one is nothing though everything across the universe. In a heart-rooted state being one with the universe is a settling home foundation without the disassociated drifting. The mental is conducive to intrigue, power, and lusts, while the heart is conducive to serene joyous fulfillment. One looks outward, the other inward, though both are the same. (I'm sure there are many self-help books on this topic as well).

A variety of deep esoteric concepts can be experienced (directly perceived) without thought at all. Pondering is a synonym for lost. Sometimes though, one needs to get lost first to reenter through another door in the hall. Seeing all the doors is stimulating too. That's what the deeper truth of the tao and the i-ching comes down to, navigating the creation of universes via fractalling polarities; Every derived universe implies it's opposite as an evolutionary parent.

Hopefully I've either stimulated you or clarified comprehension of your choices.

Ok. Men have outties, and women have innies.

>The more fascinating,
> astonishing, and significant content is to be found in the sublime;
> otherwise reduction to base emotions is like meeting space aliens
> and imagining we know the concepts they contemplate because we've
> learned their alphabet.

The alphabet is merely a universal tool, not a concept..needed in order to communicate and translate. More complex emotions are variations of base emotions and, in dealing with clinical psychology, there must be a point of initiation. It usually manifests itself with the question, "How are you feeling?". I cannot begin to discuss complex and conjectural theories originating from the Jupiter moon, ' Adrastea' with someone who has never been out of the state of Iowa. There is neither time, nor necessity. These conversations are more appropriate on some mountain peak, glazing at the stars, pontificating the meaning of conscious existance. Once more, I am not against this. I think that there may be great value in embarking on the journey...but, to me, it is a journey that I have already traveled and have comfortably found my way home.

> Emotions and thoughts can be likened to music and abstract art. Any
> simplifications require a deep understanding to begin with. Two miscommunicating
> people may have their own relative darks and lights, and the concept
> of a tree to communicate between each other, but one may be thinking
> in a Brazillian earth-tone palette (emphasizing forces of motion),
> the other in a Dutch gray-scale palette (emphasizing line and form),
> thus the whole foundation of what makes a tree significant for these
> people may be different, and the underlying language ingredients to
> understand each other may not even be present.

.Though each of those miscommunicating souls first must visualize the basic concept of a 'tree' before applying their differences. Thoughts and emotions pretty much work the same way.


> I know I for one would like to see a movement towards wholistic psychology/psychiatry,
> where instead of messing with a battery of anti-depressants, a doctor
> realizes that a range of genuinely problematic focus behaviors like
> ADD and OCD would take care of themselves with a change in one's connection
> to life as a result of taking nature walks and having a romance.

There are endless types of these practices, none of which a clinician can submit with an insurance claim and except a reimbursement fee. We are bound by codes, dx's, treatment models and other tangible type of psychological criteria. This (probably unfortunately)is how our mental health system works. Detailed progress dictates the type and the length of treatment.


> I don't know what sort of practice you have, or if it's too late to
> teach an old dog new tricks (at least as pertains to active practice),
> but possibly it would be worth getting some feedback from your clients,
> ask them if there are angles they wish you would examine more deeply.
> I don't particularly suggest leaving the territory you are most confident
> working with, but it can't hurt holding a 'what if?' shift in the
> back of your mind, that your specialized domain of angles of approach
> may not always be the appropriately comprehensive tool for the job.

The old dogs are well aware of the new tricks and question if they are necessary. The client comes to you for the 'angles' and expects services rendered. You would never want a client to feel as though you are just throwing random thoughts and beliefs out at them. Underneath everything that you do and say (actively or passively), you have to know why you are doing it and the results that you wish to get. Casually discussing a myriad of philosophical beliefs may be fine dinner conversation...but not in the office of a clinician.


> I'm not saying in all this that you haven't been vastly helpful, and
> I gather that you are getting closer to retirement. What I am saying
> though is that it would be responsible of you to set aside your worthy-self-confidence
> and use your career experience to tackle the investigation of the
> limitations of your practice such that you can inspire the next generation
> of practioneers appropriately.

This, again, is better done independent of therapy with like minded individuals who embrace these ethereal and highly complicated belief systems. There are endless groups and such devoted to exploring higher consciousness, The Secret, Laws of Attraction, etc...and I firmly believe that they have their proper place. My clients do not come to me to seek this information, nor ethically can I explore these principles in any depth.


> I don't doubt that a slim majority of self help books amongst many
> breeds have the concern you mention, and that you are speaking colorfully,
> but the line comes off as confidently choosing to be ignorant about
> the wealth of contributions authors have made.
|
I am referring books that are based on western psychological/ mental health material & practices, excluding metaphysical and other mystical methods of self help. Some are quite interesting, though!


> Simplicity in the face of actual complexity is not necessarily a virtue,
> however its close cousin 'clarity' is. Curiously though, ignorant
> simplicity can be a virtue, as it actually works for people. When
> people reduce a complex universe to an over-simplified understanding,
> they can make simplified decisions with confidence, and generally
> these easily derived under-informed decisions are a more effective
> course than being mired in an open-ended lack of clarity. Any responsible
> practitioner though should pull in the comprehensive fringes of what
> they can begin to comprehend within client psyches and reflect it
> back as the threads of clarity found within it. Zereoing in on simplified
> templates of pattern-matching to begin with is as bad as not using
> double-blind drug testing. "The details found within people are as
> diverse as the universe, and one could conceivably dig up details
> to support any notion."

That is just it: "digging up details to support any notion". This is not necessarily confidence building when those are seeking a valuable service from you, and expect results.


> Advancing towards a simpler philosophy is a useful choice, and may
> be worth promoting as well, but it's not an explanation of where people
> are currently at.

I would never discard the personal beliefs of anyone, however concrete or abstract...but in formulating a treatment plan, one must depend on reliable material that has stood the test of time. If I am making THIS appear simple, and business as usually...it is not. People seek therapy wanting answers. They all have the answers within them. Our job is that of assisting in self-discovery...not necessarily bringing my beliefs into the mix.



> In my own life I'm increasingly valuing simplicity and clarity, but
> I am finding that these qualities are the result of conscious will,
> and not the result of thorough evaluation. We choose to create simplicity
> from a field of infinitely open-ended complex potential. It's not
> a truth the essence of which can be extracted any more than forms
> found in clouds. About the only genuine simple truth I've extracted
> is that mind and matter are reflective facets of the same entity,
> and that only halves the complexity of the infinite universe. (and
> half of infinity is still infinity).

This would be impossible to put into a theraputic modality.



> Contemplating, or quietly directly experiencing infinite complexity
> can be stimulating. But even being one with the universe, the other
> route is quiet wholesome simplicity (though they do both kind of merge
> full-circle). I can suggest that the former is more mind-chakra based,
> the latter more heart-based. The felt distinction though is significant.
> In a fractalling mental state one is nothing though everything across
> the universe. In a heart-rooted state being one with the universe
> is a settling home foundation without the disassociated drifting.
> The mental is conducive to intrigue, power, and lusts, while the heart
> is conducive to serene joyous fulfillment. One looks outward, the
> other inward, though both are the same. (I'm sure there are many self-help
> books on this topic as well).

These self help books would probably not be endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association/American Psychological Association

> Hopefully I've either stimulated you or clarified comprehension of
> your choices.

And, yes KR....your vast knowledge of other more complex metaphysical applications is impressive (and familiar), but my goal (with you) is to paint a realistic picture of how we practice American psychiatry and psychology in the clinical setting.

"These conversations are more appropriate on some mountain peak" - true, but the most useful counseling likewise comes from these talks. At the last visit to a neighbor I came to realize that I played the ivory tower commander rather than committing to any stream of action because to do so was to move from unlimited potential to only a single experience. Somehow that sort of revelation never comes up with the psychiatrists/psychologists I've met, yet has a profound influence on my behavior.

".Though each of those miscommunicating souls first must visualize the basic concept of a 'tree' before applying their differences. Thoughts and emotions pretty much work the same way." - But the tree may not be their significant point. Two people could be discussing a traffic accident (a tree), but their actual concerns may be 7 generation societal behavior principles or a fear of the unknown of death, rubriks totally absent in each others working outlook vocabulary.

"miscommunicating souls first must visualize the basic concept of a 'tree' before applying their differences" - 'Differences' implies a foundational standard people deviate from. Whethar genetic or conditioned, I'm suggesting that people come from different places to begin with. A person may not come to grok 'operating out of principle' or 'omnipresent fear of the unknown' until later in life, if at all.

They have found a link recently between hoarding and perfectionism, which I take to mean that they have found a black-box statistical correlation. Jesus, all they had to do was ask a perfectionist hoarder what was up. It's unwise to toss anything you will need. Perfectionists don't wish to risk making mistakes. Unfortunately the information required as to whethar something may be required or not will never materialize; even when it is needed, it may be needed again.

I'm airing my complaints with you both because I believe you can understand them, and because your simplification sounds like it leans towards the BT side of CBT or NLP, the black-box causality rubrik which isn't so much concerned wih discerning or comprehending 'why?'.

Part of what offends me about Skinner derived psychology is the philosophy that the material world is more important than things like the perceptual ideological worlds. For me, the tree is just a prop for mutual discussion, and not the significant content which gives life value. It seems some doctors wouldn't see a problem with a patient losing the faculty for romantic fantasy if it resulted in regular teeth brushing.

"There are endless types of these practices, none of which a clinician can submit with an insurance claim and except a reimbursement fee. We are bound by codes, dx's, treatment models and other tangible type of psychological criteria. This (probably unfortunately)is how our mental health system works. Detailed progress dictates the type and the length of treatment. "
- Yeah, huge problem there, and not one going away any time soon while the vast drug industry perpetuates the myth that their is a causal material/procedural cure for everything. I once wrote code for a medical insurance software company, and was sort of glad to be fired after hearing the company's matriarch say in our post-hire interview that any doctor who thinks medicine in this age is an art is a quack; that there is one and only one most cost efficient procedure for any circumstance, and that it was the job of our software to enforce this.

"We are bound by codes, dx's, treatment models and other tangible type of psychological criteria." - People are so incredibly complex and diverse that it's absurd to imagine that one treatment fits all persons of a given profile, and yet improving upon that profile may easily mean more to their overall quality of life than having a second arm, something insurance will pay for.

"The client comes to you for the 'angles' and expects services rendered." - Yeah, but they'll shop around for the particular angles they identify with too, or at least those meeting their idealized expectations.

"You would never want a client to feel as though you are just throwing random thoughts and beliefs out at them." - No, but being a wise open-minded listener with suggestions coming from practiced experinece doesn't hurt. I'd rather hear a doctor say 'perhaps' on a long-shot than not get to try on a template which had reasonable though uncertain potential.

"Casually discussing a myriad of philosophical beliefs may be fine dinner conversation...but not in the office of a clinician." - Well I'm not sure how else one finds out this sort of thing. I expect that the majority of dysfunctional behavior has philosophy as it's underlying cause. Some crazy notion like having to repent for natural born sins could wreak havoc on a person's life and affect every detail down to how they go about washing the dishes. Everyone has something like this going on in one form or another, some being generally quite useful but nearly all coming with a hidden dysfunction cost somewhere.

"> I'm not saying in all this that you haven't been vastly helpful, and
> I gather that you are getting closer to retirement. What I am saying
> though is that it would be responsible of you to set aside your worthy-self-confidence
> and use your career experience to tackle the investigation of the
> limitations of your practice such that you can inspire the next generation
> of practioneers appropriately.

This, again, is better done independent of therapy with like minded individuals who embrace these ethereal and highly complicated belief systems. There are endless groups and such devoted to exploring higher consciousness, The Secret, Laws of Attraction, etc...and I firmly believe that they have their proper place. My clients do not come to me to seek this information, nor ethically can I explore these principles in any depth."

You totally missed me there. For one, I said "such that you can inspire the next generation of practioneers appropriately." - Nothing about present or future therapist sessions implied (or at least not yours). I meant to review your own practice with the benefit of hindsight such that you can pass on wisdom to the interns. It's something people in all careers should be doing. For two, you're bringing into the suggestion ongoing baggage from your familiarity with me that was not intended in this context. I was implying consideration for more internally perceptual/philosophical frameworks than the CBT route of seeking to identify simple linear causality in what is really a closed-loop eco-system of philosphically driven emotion and cognition. Such things may overlap with (as in The Secret), but aren't of themselves in the domain of the supernatural, but are directly in the realm of behavior.
btw, I knew the co-author of The Secret; Carolyn Myss (and some other rabbi/buddhist lecturers) does a much better job of elucidating the subject with an ethical foundation and minus the hype that Beckwith and Oprah present. I'm as irritated as Myss about the book (or the summary I hear of it rather). It's irresponsibly self-interested and glosses over any understanding of the more important spiritual infrastructure.

"..nor ethically can I explore these principles in any depth." - That's tragic too. Do you not believe there is value in such approaches?

"That is just it: "digging up details to support any notion". This is not necessarily confidence building when those are seeking a valuable service from you, and expect results."
- You have reversed the intended context of this line. I am saying that you can find material in any person to support any DSM-IV diagnoses if that is what you are looking for, and that only by surveying the entire field of a person's psyche, then letting a diagnosis congeal from that breadth of material, will you stand a chance at accurate diagnosis which wasn't merely the result of statistical luck and educated guesses upon vulgar hints (although sure, even the shotgun spectrum rubrik-identification approach still ultimately comes down to that). The more templates one has on tap to identify within a survey, the better, but better yet is to have an engineering understanding of the sub-components from which such templates are built (for instance the components of perfectionism, their allies, and their associated philosphical contexts), and best of all would be able to actually learn from a patient an unfamiliar behavior set and discern it's underlying mechanisms, devoid of any any matching template at all. Every person is a different system, and only by learning how that system works can one identify the roles of behaviors or lines of thoughts within that system. We all do chores, identical necessary behavioral output, but we have a myriad of outlooks which go into performing these chores - duty, desperation, pride, wariness, glee, loathing, etc etc. If someone has a dysfunction which affects their doing chores and leads instead to depression, anxiety, or distraction, you're rarely going to find it's source within physical cognitive disabilities, or even within a flaw in their practical conscious cognitive reasoning. It seems to me though that the majority of western scientific psychology imagines one can. It's understandable that this has come to be the case. Systems tend to reflect themselves, thus it's natural that by utilizing the methodology of scientific inquiry, one molds an understanding of the subject matter to this rubrik as well. Psychology would be an entirely different practice with different understandings, methods, and results, if it were an offshoot of musicianship. ..and there's no telling if that entirely different approach would ultimately be more beneficial to patients or not.

"They all have the answers within them. Our job is that of assisting in self-discovery..." - Wisest thing I've ever heard from you. It sounds good (guess I'm on a devil's advocate track tonight) but I'm not entirely sure it's true. There have often been times in my life in which the quality of my life improved not because I latched on to some unconscious brewing understanding, but because I learned a whole new way of looking at things from someone else. I used to front-face groceries and otherwise be as helpful to employees as I could at any opportunity (coming from ancient hardship as a fast-food employee, I think), but then a girlfriend pointed out that if everyone did this those employees would lose their jobs, so really I was just tossing away time within my own gifted specialities to save money at what would evolve to become self-service businesses.

Speaking of changes from within though, I just spent two arduous weeks of cleaning my apartment for an inspection. Imagine several careers in sculpting, robotics, instrument making, vehicle prototyping, etc., complete with bench tools, building materials, electronics parts inventory, etc., going on in a studio apartment and you see what I was dealing with. Anyhow, yesterday, for the first time in a dozen years it finally clicked, "What the hell do I need four boxes of diverse organized jars for?". I'm not qute sure what made the difference. Perhaps it's that I value the open space I recently achieved. Perhaps it's that I now have a pretty good picture of what projects are lined up for the next few years, and something that may require several jars is no longer on the list. Anyhow, I'm thankful for the clarity.

More than anything, it's a lack of clarity which has held me down. This gets back to my experience with psychiatrists (yeah, I know, part of the problem is my expecting psychiatrists to be psychologists. ..but that's what the state pays for. (harping back to that insurance issue)). Anyhow, I've gone through a few and have always been dismayed that they never investigate the contents of my mind. How can they expect to clarify what goes on in there if they never even get to know it? - Perhaps an answer like "Ah, I don't need a med, I need a relationship" was within me, but I don't get the idea that any psychiatrist was heading me towards that self-discovery which I could have used a few years back. (I'm over-simplifying my life issues, of course.)

"> In my own life I'm increasingly valuing simplicity and clarity, but
> I am finding that these qualities are the result of conscious will,
> and not the result of thorough evaluation. We choose to create simplicity
> from a field of infinitely open-ended complex potential. It's not
> a truth the essence of which can be extracted any more than forms
> found in clouds. About the only genuine simple truth I've extracted
> is that mind and matter are reflective facets of the same entity,
> and that only halves the complexity of the infinite universe. (and
> half of infinity is still infinity).
This would be impossible to put into a theraputic modality."

I've been trying to put my finger on it, and just fully realized that what concerns me about you is the exact same pattern as SouthernYankee has. It's a life operational outlook that doesn't sit well with me, but I am guessing the only one of reliable use to those such as yourself, as evidenced by yet another example of not identifying shift in context. There are several related contexts going on in this conversation, only loosely supporting each other subjectively: my life, your life, clinical psychology practice, spiritual concepts and experience. Some of what I say to you is as a practioner, and some of it is person to person, attempting to take you on a journey with me. In the last passage I wasn't suggesting anything pertaining to clinical circumstances, excepting to the small degree that the common thread of clarity and simplicity pertains to identifying diagnoses (or rather, half doesn't). What I was having was a personal sharing on the philosophy of simplicity (a common interest), and imparting to you my revelation that simplicity was an act of will, not an intrinsic truth of nature to be sought, such that you might consider the truth of my revelation in your own pursuit of simplicity.
It makes sense that you endorse methods of linear causality if you are not adept at navigating nebulous multi-contextual terrain, or to exxagerate, that you would prefer black and white methodology if you see the world in black and white. What I'm balking at is that I know the world to not be black and white, and am sure that black and white methodology can only result in black and white results, if even that, given the translations to color between the input and output of the black box.

On the other hand, I've put you in the positition of defending black and white methodology, and must bear in mind that people will often defend views they don't even actually believe in if challenged. (It's humorous to watch happen or encourage, really. (Not that I try to do such.)) Anyhow, if I argued the world to be black and white instead, I might find you to be quite the colorful person in your philosophy and practice.

"These self help books would probably not be endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association/American Psychological Association " - Probably not, but that doesn't make it less truthful or helpful insight. No one made the APA God anyhow.


"> Hopefully I've either stimulated you or clarified comprehension of
> your choices.
And, yes KR....your vast knowledge of other more complex metaphysical applications is impressive (and familiar), but my goal (with you) is to paint a realistic picture of how we practice American psychiatry and psychology in the clinical setting."
(the context was actually more personal, but no matter.)
- Well why didn't you say so from the start. I took you to be defending/endorsing the industry practices, not merely portraying them.

Still, that doesn't strike me as your being optimistically empowered to nurture change (which can begin by simply voicing an informed opinion which spreads). Either you seem to agree with those practices, or don't see yourself as having any potential role in changing them. I'm not happy about anyone going around "because that's the way it is." Is there anything you would like to change, or do you have faith that the current system is state of the art? With the recurrent theme of insurance and limitations, I get the idea that you do not feel that the current practices are those of optimum benefit, but merely a semi-pragmatic compromise.

What would the practice of psychology in utopia look like to you? For me it would probably take the form of group meetings in a garden, but now that I think of it a second further, I recall ditching anything close to group therapy (gender groups, mostly)(but even spiritual discussion groups now that I think about it) because I found that the participants seemed to be more interested in clinging-to/identifying-with their dysfunctions and mutually griping about external circumstances than resolving for any release from them. They were generally a downer without educational benefits (aside from quietly observing what not to do). I suppose a good guide could have changed all that. I think the time I spent in conceptual art classes was of vastly more psychological improvement value.

Just to be sure the point wasn't missed, the key in that discourse on mind-based vs heart-based oneness-with-the-universe (presented as a deep truth by exhibiting it's outer limits) is that mental solutions in clinical settings are not enough to foster fulfillment. One of the best things I ever did for my own well being starting a few years back was to surrender self-analysis. It turned out to be a clinging form of self-perpetuating hypochondria, finding problems that weren't there nearly as much if I stopped looking for them and trying to understand them. {Flip side of the law of attraction, I suppose.}

It seems to me that another limitation of current practice ('angles' expected rendered) is that an air of professionality requires some cold detached décorum. I say this in the heart vs. mind context. Granted, I'm not broadly familiar with what happens in psychology offices these days, but presuming this to be the case, it seems to me that this backs up the premise that answers can be sought via rational conceptualization. I realize one wouldn't want to emotionally lead a patient, but the patients aren't going to get in touch with what emotionally matters to them by mirroring clinical décorum either.

I realize now that I'm in part prodding you to teach me something, and so far that isn't happening except via my version of the unidirectional psychiatry couch model I use with everyone, in which I learn by taking in myself what I find myself teaching others. I suppose at least that I benefit from the caliber of who I'm explaining things to, much the same as my guitar virtuosity depends on the caliber of who I'm playing with. It's not like I'm explaining to you the benefits of brushing one's teeth in the morning.

~

I was thinking "..or perhaps we could switch topics to metaphysics". You're right if you've formed the opinion that such esoteric knowledge is mostly unneccessary (I disagree that's it's any more complex than professional fields though). It's very much like engineering knowledge. You'd think it could help immensely, but for the most part those who have it gripe all day over engineering difficulties that others would never have in the first place. Probably psychology is typically similar in that respect as well. It's fun to be human.

Not to turn this into too much of a novella, I come from a place where I sought enlightenment throughout the 1980's, when I was in my 20's...in the heart of the metaphysical mecca of Los Angeles. As I was so young, grasping on to the evolving theories and such was relatively easy...as I did not have a lot of life issues (yet) to contend with. But those were very important learning years for me and like a sponge, I soaked up every bit of self realization that I could. More or less, this was an emerging movement and so many of us were traveling on the same journey and spoke the same language. We learned from other spiritual guru's and then went about the business of applying these ideals to our daily lives. I say 'we' because I was not alone in this quest for self discovery. But we (students if you will) found motivation within each other and we could soar to dizzying heights in reveling about the next 'new' spark of wisdom. These were socially formative years for me. Due to this exposure, over such a long period of time, I understand all of your most complex explanations relating to higher consciousness, self actualization, the reverberations with others and can communicate on levels beyond the obvious. In fact, like a journey through space, it is a trip into infinity where you are constantly challenging your limits...only to discovery that there are layers upon layers of consciousness and it is pretty safe to say that most of the real world operates within the basic parameters of what is considered the norm. All you have to do is sit through a behavioral psychology class designed for a therapeutic modality to see just how basic our thoughts, as well as vocabulary, really are. Those never exposed to alternative psychology usually become the cookie cutter therapists that are stereotyped in the arts and media...detached and eternally pensive, nose to the grindstone and are forever dependent on the DSM-V for all of their conclusions, all of the answers...all of the explanations. And, though I misunderstood you at the time, you said that (on some level) you can pigeon hole anyone to fit whatever criteria that you wish...and more often than not, it is just that kind of guessing game. If you do not fit the criteria for BPD, then then turn the page and maybe you can be fenced into a schizo-effective dx. There are ruffly twelve core therapeutic models ranging from CBT, BT, DBT, REBT, Empathic approach, confrontation approach, Gestalt therapy, and a host of others. We are free to choose whatever modality works best for us. It stands to reason that the less life experience that you have, the more rigid you are going to be in your approach. So, are you doing your job and guiding your client? Both? Neither??? And it is this mentality that the client walks into, expecting services rendered, expecting an 'expert' assisting them....putting their inner most thoughts into your hands. All I can say is that you better know what you are doing or you are going to have a very dissatisfied customer and there will be very little personal progress. Of course, on paper...there will always the indication that progress is being made. Your treatment plan depends on it. Depending upon your insurance (or lack of), these therapy sessions can go on forever with the simple progress note: 'Stable' attached to an insurance reimbursment form. State medicaid clients make up the bulk of on-going therapy situations. The state (any state) pays so little in billable units, that for any agency to stay afloat....clients are seen in bulk for very long periods of time. There are some agencies that bill only for 'group' sessions, without the client of ever getting individual attention. This too, KR, is how the mental health system operates in America...today. I am not saying that there is no benefit to our present system...because there is, for all of the reasons that I have previously posted or I would not be able to do this job. But one must know where the limits are. Whether I agree or disagree is irrevelant as I still have to work within these parameters. Because of this rigid system, all of these other alternatives to western psychiatry have popped up everywhere. These methods are not alien to me as I lived through them all in the 1980's/1990's...I didn't do into social services until I was 40 years old. So I do not discard them as nonsense, as some of these same principles have shaped my own philosophies of life...too. This is where I am not similar to Southern Yankee. He is a 26 year old boy who has lived in school throughout his entire life and his insight is limited to text books and what he sees on the news/Internet. This black and white concept that you speak of. I look at your beliefs (in this post) and, on ther most part, I agree in theory (some of our core beliefs differ)...but they have no place in our current mental health systems. Because they are complex and elusive, it would be impossible to build a practice on 'free form: I am...you are...we are... therapy', thus, sitting on the mountain top is reserved for a different kind of conversation, not better than, nor worse than....just different. If you tried to encapsulate the essence of your beliefs and present them in a consistent workable manner...they would lose their strength. Your methods are best utilized where one is free to wonder and explore the far reaches of the universe...with philosophical and theological flavors. Maybe, a conversational French class (learning words & phrases without detailed foundation) comes closer to the existential beliefs on the mysteries of our lives, and French One (grammatical rules and sentence formation) is closer to how I see the value of therapy today. In closing, you stated that your aim was to take me on a journey...but it is a journey that I have already been on and have come back from. It is due to what I know from my complex past, that I am able to embrace a simpler form of communication today. This is the reason I fit so well into my current occupation.

I never thought of this (LA) being a metaphysical mecca. I suppose it is. It's also true though that it's home to some of the most superficial cultures on the planet.

Unlike fundamentalism, a fascinating thing about new age teachings is that they are evolved by explorers, who are excited about a newly found or more deeply understood and sysematized principle or phenomena, then come to find a year or two later that it was a dead end and have moved on to something else or pushed the understanding even further and integrated it with existing understandings. - Ah, I should read ahead. You're on top of that aspect.

When I brought up SY as B&W, I wasn't referring to the environmental philosphies. Anyone with that flavor of inclination in those circumstances would have the same. I was referring rather to a particular cognitive style, highly linear and objective, too focused on subject to pick up vibes that the context has changed. Such a mode of perception would naturally go with a philosphical world outlook as well, that the whole world primarily operates in this same nature of linear objective causality. In like style, to use a cheap catch phrase, I think holographically, and therefore see the holographic nature of the world more.

Didn't realize I was revealing any beliefs; cosmology perhaps, and opinions on psychology practice.

I even do engineering 'freeform' (with a ton of systematic structure as well). Works for me. 22 years ago I invented the currently popular form of freeform tarot readings (which I taught to the teacher who published the method). I know way better though than to put myself in any formal environments that I don't have to.

I suppose at this point that someone might miss that I've been there and back again myself. I forget myself at times. There were years that I thought I could never forget what I knew enough to take the mortal plane seriously again. At this point I'm fully engaged in it, though I'm sure my experiences have had a profound on everything from philosophy to attitude and desires.

I've seen simpler forms of communication, where one is in the presence of another and simply knows. Don't make out metaphysics to be complex, where nature is cherry branches by a stream. It's complex when speaking with me because I am a complex engineer. I could make bubble-gum sound too overwhelming complex to ever grasp a comprehensive notion of.

Thanks for the opportunity to know you better.

Okay...

Gender is a spectrum rather than two distinct groups, but still, those who occupy the male end of the spectrum are reasonably different from those who occupy the female end of the spectrum. Of course, there are differences that strongly relate to gender (e.g. anatomy) and differences where I would expect a weak or even no relationship to gender (e.g. a preference for cats over dogs).

People who stay in the home probably prefer cats. More women probably prefer to stay in the home. Whether that is genetic or conditioning we may never figure out. Some tendencies like being care givers are deeply woven through out the psyche and too subjective to test for, so we may never know the answers to these questions. I suspect the military though already has data on certain faculties, things like smell, map reading, and such.