reply to post by introspectionist
I think it is fair to say that every single human being on this planet has had different experiences, upbringing, different lives. Even two people
with the same parents, growing up in the same house, attending the same school, having the same level of aptitude in education, and the same
opportunities, will turn out differently according to a combination of environmental factors and unique neurophysiology.
The same event viewed by two different people, will be seen differently, even if the physical perspective is near identical. In a quarter second of
life, unfolding before two sets of eyes, the two brains behind those eyes will register totally different details about the event. Some will register
an expression on a face, or the colour of an eye. Others will note the cut of a persons suit, or the make of the cap they are wearing. Some will see
things happen in slow motion, others will merely stammer "It..ha-ha-happened so fast".
For reasons that have only to do with physiology, with the way that neural connections have formed in an individual brain, things can seem very
different depending on which headspace someone happens to inhabit, and that is before we even approach the subject of the more emotional elements of
the mind, and delve therefore into the realm of psychology. I have always found it helpful to consider psychology as the study of the environmental
effects on a mind and its development. The reason for this, is that unlike neurophysiology, which concentrates on the actual construction of the human
brain, psychology deals with the non-physical elements of the mind, the concepts, the way that thought is structured in abstract.
Some people have an unwitting, habitual need to feel victimised, or vindicated, or under some kind of threat. Others feel the need to be dominator to
all they see, usually to hide an insecurity of one sort or another. The fact is that there are so many archetypes where psychology is concerned, that
to make snap judgements based on posts on the internet, about any one human being on the planet, is foolish and egotistical of the commentator. One
cannot possibly know the motivations of a person based on such a small and skewed sample of their behavior, as that represented by internet activity
on a site like this. People are very different on the internet than they are in real life, and I am an example of that.
On this site, I try where possible to use the very highest reaches of my intellect and communication ability, to cut through to the heart of the
issues I discuss, share my understanding of the world, the universe, life and everything else with the membership, and absorb theirs in return. I have
been accused of being a writer and so on. However, although I can be a verbose bugger when the mood takes me in day to day life, I am also what can
only be legitimately described as "pretty bloody sweary", often drunk as a lord, occasionally high as a kite, and say the word "dude" an awful
Now, it is true that sometimes a members posts say an awful lot about them in terms of their education level, their intelligence, their linguistic
aptitude, and even their immediate mental state, as in the case of Jared Lee Loughner (who shot Gabby Giffords and others a few years back) who showed
clear signs of a total break down in higher reasoning, sleep deprivation, and so on in posts leading up to that event. But in terms of character
assessments based purely on post history, unless all the members here are wandering around with degrees in psychology, there is no way that they can
make accurate assessments.