Wishingbox
Professional hand
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Posts
- 1,259
@Wishingbox, The main reason why you and I don’t agree more, I see in our fundamental difference in handling complex problems. My focus lies on solutions. Hence I must achieve a reduction of complexity for this. You on the other hand focus on discovering ever more complexity in this particular problem you are facing. You said so again in your post#227
Our difference is exemplified by two different authors, with a first name Esther. In post #211 you had confused “my” author I mentioned, Esther Vilar, with “your” author Esther Perel (your author wrote the book you mentioned, not mine).
While MY Esther reduces the complexity of relationships between women and men to its few essential components, YOUR Esther writes a book with hundreds of pages, without ever concluding anything of practical value. So is my assessment from the excerpts of her book that I read. But she tries to convince her readers of the enormous complexity of the problem.
Permit me to explain my view of why complexity reduction makes more sense than the opposite: When Mother Nature designed the human species (i.e. through evolution), her primary goal was procreation as much and as efficiently as possible. And that would have never worked with too much complexity. So evolution tends to result in “minimalistic” solutions, most of the time. And it worked indeed.
But then a fellow appeared on the scene, in Vienna, a doctor Sigmund Freud, and he began throwing monkey wrenches into the works, by inventing psychoanalysis. None of Dr. Freud’s supposed discoveries were meant to help patients, far from it, but they sure helped the profession of “shrinks” and therapists to take in lots and lots of money in fees. Because patients have to forever come back for more therapy.
B.F. Skinner, on the other hand, the founder of behavioral psychology, did not receive nearly as much fame as Sigmund Freud, because “all he did” was focus on solutions. And of course complexity reduction became necessary. As it always does, when workable solutions are required.
THAT I see as the principal difference between your and my approach. And I wonder now: can you agree with me?
Ah yes I see the mixup in authors. My bad for not reading it more clearly or being able to spell well so I hadn’t even noticed.
I hear what you’re saying about the evolutionary and biological simplicity. However as illustrated in “come as you are” one experiment run with mice showed that putting little coats on the mice before they had sex for the first time imprinted on them an association of sex with little jackets. It even prevented them from being able to have sex without them because of the biological and psychological connection.
The big issue contributing to complexity which your model leaves out is the human mind. We are sentient beings far more creative than any animal.
Simply thinking about the societal changes that are happening in response to the human mind are so rapid and exponential in complexity that the body cannot evolve well along side of them.
Your model might work if you simply grew humans in bats and introduced them for the first time to another in nature. Our minds and emotions are programmed and defined by our lives in societies.
I agree that at some level the biology may be fixed/defined but our minds are not and get impressed upon. What our minds think directly effect our bodies and vise Versa.
Scroll Twitter or read Lit and our bodies respond to stimulus which trigger biological responses which trigger emotional responses which then result in behavior changes etc.
Some aspects are fixed but their applications due to the human mind are infinite and this complex.