What are people missing if....

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by andy1033, Apr 21, 2003.

  1. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    what are people missing out on if they don't have the following stimulas in the brain.
    i know this may sound a strange one, but say if a person never lets the images of real people into his brain. like he may watch a few tv programmes, but i am guessing that seeing people in real life stimulates other things in the brain.
    so if a person like lives in the country and only sees the same 4 or 5 people all the time and never lets images of other humans into his brain, what is it that he is missing.
    like i am guessing that most of you may have jobs or go to work. with this type of life you will probably see and process in the brain let's say a conservative number of a few hundred people a day.
    but what i am getting to is what does the first persons brain miss out on, and what does the second groups brain gain by seeing all those people everyday.

    i know it may be a strange question, and i may not be eloquent enough to explain my question properly. any theories welcome, and i would prefer an answer in scientific terms please. thx
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Halo Full Time Nerd-Bomber Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    587
    My unscientific opinion is that the first person is missing out on nothing because he is unaware that he is missing anything. Think of it like a computer. It has cells where memory can be stored. Until an action takes place for memory to be input into the cell, the cell is empty. It's void, unaware that anything should at all be in there. So the first person is missing out on nothing, whereas the second person, the one who interacts with a hundred people everyday, uses up more of his "memory cells" and gains the information in those cells. That information being that there exists a hundred other people in this world.

    Sorry it's a little unscientific. But these are my thoughts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    thx, i understand where you are going. so the first person has sort of a noise reduction compared to the second group.
    i understand that but what i am getting at, does the stimulas of the second group make for example life more enjoyable.

    like does seeing people in real life stimulate the brain, in more important ways than the person who never sees any one new.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    Humans are extremely adaptable, whatever their current situation is they tend to adjust. If you live out in the woods alone, that's your world. If you are a business man working 80 hours a week communicating with other people, that's your world.

    However I'd disagree with Halo to a point. I'd say that the hermit is using just as much resources as the businessman (I'm applying generic terms for ease of use). The hermit's memories will be more rich and detailed (read Walden). The hermit's relationships would be more rich and deep. The businessman could recall a lot of different events but with more shallow detail. His relationships would be more shallow than the hermits. "Pretty bad weather, huh?" "What do you do for a living?" It's a matter of quality and quanity.

    In either case the brain doesn't miss out on anything, it just adapts to whatever situation. That's what makes the brain fascinating. If you want a little something to read, I'd read "Man's Search For Meaning" by Vicktor Frankl. It's a short read, about his experiences in a concentration camp, and how the human mind adapts to such situations. He's a pretty well known psychologist.
     
  8. rexagan Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    the general description of the two types of social interaction that you've described can be categorized as 'closed' and 'open' societies. There are a number of differences in the the two main camps, however, I'm convinced that both have there merits and demerits.

    In a closed society, there are fewer people in the group that interacts on a daily basis -- tribes, cheifdoms, small groups, etc. The benefit that is obvious here is that these people can assume much more of their fellow members, since they share common archetypes from stories, etc. which makes communicating ideas to one another much easier. The drawback is there is a less diverse pool of knowledge and culture to appreciate.

    In the open system, or aggregate society (metropoles), we cannot assume so much, since peoples' experiences and backgrounds are very different. As Xenu mentioned, expressions like "pretty bad weather, huh?" seem to pervade the conscious/subconscious mind. However, the richness of ideas and diversity predominates in the open society.
     
  9. New Life Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    371
    In my opinion as an actor, I think that the more real-life people and situations you see the more you can understand about the world.

    Say for example, one person watched a woman go through a pregnancy, and the other person had never been around a pregnant woman for the nine months.....the first person (who saw it) would better understand what emotions and physical changes happen, and would be better able to relate/empathize/sympathize with a whole group of people, while the second person (who has not seen it) would not understand this group very well at all.

    SO, as an actor, I find it useful to see as many situations as possible so that I can then relate to a variaty of different characters and can be more versatil in my roles....I think that the 'hermit' would be missing out on a lot of understanding (philisophically) about the world.
     
  10. lokoalien Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    the second person would become desensitized to people to the point that the person would never get to know them, or maybe that person would only speak less than a few words to them at most.
    While the first person would spend more time getting to know a person, and when they ask "How are you?" they really want to know, it is not just a formality, or a curtisy, it is real conversation that takes place.

    Basicially what I am saying is the brain places less importance on individual instances of conversation if there is more stimulii. At the same time the brain developes better to respond to a variety of stimulii (social situations), however those responses are still mostly reactionary responses,(no real depth to them)

    Here is where it gets F#$%ed up. You take person from country with few people and shove him into a place with lots of people. The person is no less able to hold his own, only certain things seem very foreign. for example the whole "how ya doin?" thing. From where I grew up that was a conversation starter, and you really wanted to know how the other person was doing. Go to a place with more people and it is a formality. Much like on brave new world: "hi, how are you doing, i'm fine, thank you very much".

    This is what I would classify as developing a speech reflex, responding in a socially dictated way rather than with true information.

    hope I helped

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. xsw33tn3ssx Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    there missing alot. you have to have a section in your brain for boys,tv,music,knowledge, other details

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ! so there missing ALOT
     
  12. Lorcalon Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I think one of the main problems with not being around alot of people would be the ability to interact. It also depends on the number of people the "hermit" has to interact with. If he/she were by themselves they might revert to a complete lack of social skills. They wouldn't have to consult anyone else's feelings or wishes before doing anything; they could become completely unaccustomed to having to deal with other people's reactions or needs.

    Even if there were only with only one or two other people around, they could specialize their social development for those specific people. Like children who have been home-schooled because they live in rural areas and are isolated from their peer groups. Even as adults I would think someone who had lived alone might have a hard time readjusting to life around a large group of people.

    So, I think that being around a group of people helps to stimulate the social development of individuals and the parts of the brain responsible for it, as well as a whole range of other mental processes.
    (Has this helped at all or am I just babbling incoherently?)
     
  13. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    heyya andy1033

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    you are asking for a scientific explanation for something that you have yet to identify in a way that can be defined

    there are many stages of development that all contribute to varrying issues or personality traits or character types or flaws

    you need to define a certain type of person at a certain age with certain relative experience

    if you see what i mean

    that is why it is impossible to give a scientific answer to your question

    maybe you could re consider ytour question and perameters of it

    groove on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Abnak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    Social interaction affects the dopamine system .
     

Share This Page