Society As The "Self Cloud"

The idea of a 'cloud' in today's technological jargon refers to a virtual 'place' that holds the information we store on the internet. Although it is true that the information we store is held on an individual hardware somewhere, the concept of the 'cloud' holds true because each of us can gain access to it at any moment that we wish.

Something similar exists with society.

When I say the "self cloud", I mean more than is meant by the internet metaphor; because although the 'cloud' of the internet contains information, there is no fundamental relation between an individual user and the cloud. The cloud is merely a place where the information of the internet is stored, nothing more.

But in the case of the "self cloud", the "self cloud" constitutes the totality of the individual self's currently living on the planet earth. The self cloud is not any sort of repository of information, but a virtual representation of the logical and structural connections that exist in human relationships.

The Self is Tribal

In our libertarian, individualistic, hyper-narcissistic day and age, people have ignored the anthropological truism that human beings evolved in social groups called a tribe. The anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, in her book "Mothers and Others" tries to explain how the infant-mother relationship 'stamped' every human being with 'attachment' needs; but we can go further than this. Francisco Varela in his various writings put forth the ecological idea of organism and environment making up a unit; in every organism that has survived and reproduced itself, the organism has adapted itself 'cognitively' (and biochemically) to the conditions of it's environment.

With this in mind, human beings (and all mammals which live in social groups) have evolved psychological traits that are adapted to the experience of 'being' with other minds. This is because the 'experience of being with other minds' is made possible by a neuronal organization in the nervous system.

Whats important in understanding this idea is this: biological symmetry implies psychological symmetry. That is, since we possess identical body plans (and if we don't, were genetically abnormal) we necessarily also possess identical phenomenological states.

To avoid confusion, we all have the same body plans, but different bodies. In the same sense, we have identical psychological needs, but experience the world in slightly different ways. These distinctions are the product of epigenetic-genetic history, of both our own lives and the lives of our ancestors. Height, for instance, changes with nutrition. So to, a caring and supportive mother will produce a different mind from an angry mother. In line with basic evolutionary ideas, the former child will have energy 'free' to roam and explore the world; whereas the latter child, because it has been traumatized, will devote all its energy towards psychic defense.

A Psychological Immune System

Although all selves find themselves 'structured' by the social context they develop within, each self assumes a different position that is made logical by its relations. The principle is simple, and in a way resembles the immune system of the body: keep out what is destructive to the individual, and take in what is useful.

This is the realm of 'identifications'. A growing mind necessarily experiences, vicariously, through cells called 'mirror-neurons', the intentional states - and even the experiential qualia - of the selves they interact with. In doing this, a child will identify with, what we casually refer to as 'role models', and adopt a pattern in their way of being with other people. Likewise, experiences that generate negative affects (feelings in the body) will be feared and 'dissociated' by unconscious processes. Unfortunately, the meanings behind these dissociations are, alas, dissociated.

A quick example will probably clarify what I mean: at 3 years old you were beaten by your mother; during the experience your brain recorded the preverbal elements that came with the experience: the visual facts of the way her face looked; the way her body moved; her tone of voice; and also, the effect it had on you - in your body; as well as the look that came upon your face when you experienced the fear and shame of being treated this way.

Later on in life, at 6 years old, you are in grade 1, and a kid in your class comes in with a look on his face that strikes a chord in you; this feeling, the closest that you can describe, is irritation. Without an explanation for the feeling, the instinct you have is to project and hold this kid responsible for it.

Such is the etiology of interpersonal abuse. Dissociation keeps the meanings behind the feelings we have hidden. The identifications currently present in our minds (what is sometimes referred to as 'object-relations') clash with the images we observe - which hold unconscious meaning - in our visual awareness; the unconscious mind, as in the case of the biological immune system, sends out 'antibodies' in the form of aggression or rudeness against the "child invader". The child which holds in his procedural way of being, how he carries himself and how looks, parts of our self which "threaten" our individuality, is held responsible.

The logic of these relations are paradoxical because they uphold two contradictory facts: each person is an individual built by evolution to protect his "self"; yet the self he protects is an unjustified product of social forces that lie beyond his awareness.

Any individual self is but a fractal of a larger self.

The Self Cloud and Mutuality

When individual selves remain ignorant of the fact of their arbitrary - socially defined - position, they throw one another into rigid identifcations: I'm the strong one, your the weak one. Whats dissociated is the role OTHER PEOPLE played in making one strong; and likewise, ad infinitum. The very fact of being determined by our context places us squarely, and ontologically, within the Self-Cloud.

The way out of this mire is to examine ones own experiences and realize, that just like me, others experience life with the same sort of temptations; towards power, lust, greed. As well as experience the same fears, of death, shame, anxiety and Fear itself.

When the similarity of our position is made clear, we can establish mutuality in our relations. And in mutuality, one pays attention both to ones own needs as well as the needs of others.

The “noosphere” theory comes to mind in response, as does Winnicot’s “good enough mothering”.

I too was abused as a child, and had a depressed mother, and have spent countless hours contemplating the effects of that, as self analyzation of my behaviors and reactions to the world repeatedly lead back to patterns established in my relationship with my mother.

But once in a while I have my self challenging questions arise- how sure can we really be in our theories about early child-parent interplays when contemplating the kinds we did not have? Winnicot too, was obsessed with determining what kind of interactions at that age would have made a more effective social base for the individual- though he himself had a depressed mother, who was abusive.

I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t simply another case of imagining “the grass is greener on the other side.” If I’d gotten something different, I’d be better (happier, more socially apt, more successful, etc.). This might not be as valid as I’d like. Having raised three children now, and been the kind of mother I wished mine had been, I find some of what I expected was correct- but also, from their point of view, they emerged with other qualities they consider not desireable, and products of my kind of mothering.

Now one of my kids has a child, another is about to have one, and they’ll see, even the ideal turns out not to be, for reasons we could not see, for lack of having experienced it ourself.

One theme in what you’ve written, I find to be a common thread-thought for people who had depressed mothers- the idea that our perception of our self is highly dependant upon those around us, and a certain frustration that that is not often enough acknowledged.

-That you feel superior right now, because I gave you that contrast, filling the role through behaviour as inferior. That you feel you are smart right now, because I acted stupid, that you feel cheerful, because I acted morose. The objectionable part being the failure of the other to recognize our ‘gift’ and acknowledge- “say, thanks for acting inferior, and enabling me to feel superior!”
Lack of appreciation for their “faire-valoir” (the term in French for the person, friend or family member which provides the contrast to make possible ones sense of value in a certain area. Like the fat girl chosen as a friend so that she can feel skinny).

We get used to adjusting our behaviour for the depressed parent to effect their mood and self- confidence. We learn about catharsis and the way we can influence each others minds and emotions. This becomes a habit in social relations later. I still do it.

At this stage of life, I no longer get frustrated because it is not recognized- because people simply believe that I am as I acted for them- if I played stupid or clumsy to make them feel smart or skilled, well, that is what I am for them, and that is my responsibility.
It’s not their fault I did a self sacrifice to lift their mood or confidence. I didn’t have to. And I didn’t do it only for them, I did it because those around me feeling happy has a impact on my experience. I just need to weigh the consequences- is it worth it (here now in this context) to have this person feel better, even if they will be treating me as less?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

I don’t know if everyone does this to the extent I do (for I am an other to them, I only see what they show me too). But I know that not everyone is as highly aware of these non-verbal, and often subconscious interplays going on.

And why am I so sensitive and aware of these?

Because I had a depressed and abusive mother. So this particular skill would not have been possible if I had had a different one. Which, for me, tears apart the concept of an ideal mothering.

Yesterday my husband was irritated because of a work related event, and then tried to provoke me to "take that on" for him. Showing his emotions in body language (knowing I am highly sensitive to that and my mirror neurons will fall in line quickly) then making a few comments on subjects he knew would provoke a similar anger-melancholy. I had a moment of weighing it- if act out his negative mood, I know he will feel better, and can move into a cheerful mode, trying to cheer me up, or calm me down, as 'the negative one". This is how he stabilizes his vision of himself as the positive minded man.

But I analyzed that in this situation, it won't especially help him with his next steps, and it might be do me more damage than I can easily crawl out of at the moment, so I refused. He had to digest his own emotions in other ways. But the only reason I had the choice there, was because of my past experience and childhood. So I can complain about how rough it was, but ultimately, it might not have had purely negative effects!

Ah! Such insightful ones! We are Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos. And as fate would have it, in this life we have to fulfill all of those roles in one person, in one lifetime. Would that I could be Atropos in mind with Clotho in body and Lachesis in temperament....with some level of consistency. It doesn't really work that way though. We have all inside of us and what dictates who will rule the day?

It is a refreshing topic. Thank you.

At some point in my time here at ATS, I should learn how to star and flag.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I like it. Paraphasing Pink Floyd "obscured by self-cloud". Realtity is obscured by this self-cloud you describe. Excellent.

a reply to: Astrocyte

An interesting read. I am a Humanist, so pursuit of this kind of knowledge gives me some strength against the blunt tools stacked to the roof.

When I say strength, I mean true strength, not a bigger blunt tool.

a reply to: Astrocyte

My 'mother' was aggressive, extremely selfish, uncaring and sometimes violent, it wasn't a result of depression but a result of vanity and egotism and was possibly a psychopath (in her mind she was 'prettier and better than' everyone else therefore should have had a better husband /life/ prettier daughter). Watching me suffer was a joy to her, she often lied about me to my friends and family, as a means of making them despise me as she was jealous of my friendships. She always seen me (and all females) as competition and as such harming me was something she revelled in, my tears were to her a perverted confirmation of her perceived superiority.

my brother was very violent towards me as a child, it was how he was conditioned. My dad was emotionally detached and died when I was 10, when he died, she became physically absent and entirely emotionally detached, I was then brought up by myself and occasionally some input from relatives. My great gran was always there for me as a reminder of having family and being cared for, the rest of my so called family weren't.

Whilst I have a certain level of defensiveness and there are things that can trigger memories of their behaviour, I am aware of them and I adjust my life accordingly.

Though I disagree about spending all my energy in defensiveness. I am the most intelligent (on all levels) person I know, I am well educated and my analytical skills are beyond any that I have seen in others, perhaps due to having psychic ability and having endured the despicable aspects of humans. That might sound like boasting but it isn't, I know plenty of intelligent people, some are experts in their field but all are limited in their scope of intelligence, often lacking intuition, emotional and creative intelligence, and certainly lacking truth, hence when I referred to my intelligence being on ''all levels''.

My ''energy'' as you refer to it is used constructively. I moved away from negative influences, I have built my career, education, personal life constructively, whilst maintaining defenses, which everyone does, I could and probably will build my defenses more as I have been hurt by lacking them before.

The way I see it is that 80% of the humans I have encountered really are egocentric dirtbags, not worthy of space on this earth, they are so deluded and filled by greed and hate that their motives are entirely self centred and their morals a joke, whilst they are outwardly pretending themselves as part of a group and altruistic, it is in fact the opposite that is their motive and anyone with any integrity and analytical skills is able to see the truth of the matter.

I am a mother and I am the most loving, nurturing, caring mother a child could ever wish for. I see the flaws in my own childhood and the flaws in the personalities of others and as such I strive for ethical parenting, instilling knowledge in my child about such things and giving the ability to rationalise the behaviour of others whilst constructively building his own personality, education and skills.

"self cloud"...i like that. good term for it. but how long will the self cloud and technology remain separate? how long before virtual reality, the media industry, and artificial intelligence meet for a fateful sunday brunch before conquering mankind on monday? it might sound melodramatic but the world is full of things that at one point were thought to be impossible. and given our passion for both media and media devices i see the "self cloud" as an innate soft spot for total immersion, you know? like giving a dog poisoned meat, hooking us with the same tricks they use in casinos, working us like violins. and you know what? thats exactly what facebook and twitter and all these social sites are for. like a giant magnifying glass squared on the self cloud. gauging our every emotion and thought through trends, tweets, blogs and likes. people like their privacy, but they also like attention.

Having read your comment again, and having posted about my child experiences of negative parenting not making me all that defensive, I would like to offer some further insight into the general meaning of your observation.

The 'self cloud' of today, as the previous poster mentioned is for most the persona created and gratified by the likes of social media but it has always been around in various forms. The 'wife', 'husband', 'mother', 'father', 'child' 'provider', 'cad', 'debutante' etc roles have always been defined by parameters of acceptable behaviour and projected to others as 'identity'.

In the past, before social media, it was to these identity roles that people associated themselves and were judged by others. These identities are just being lensed by social media and in turn is increasing the narcissistic aspect of personality and identity. Attention seeking has rendered some to grotesque caricatures of themselves, vulgar displays of body parts and wealth does nothing for the cohesiveness of society, in fact it is doing an injustice, making people more competitive than is constructive, more vain than is sensible and more introspective and self aware than is healthy.

It is capitalism gone awry, the sum of humanities worst traits being played out in full view. It will either collapse upon itself or humanity will learn that it is destructive and act accordingly to correct it. Hopefully the latter. Superficiality is like castles built on sand, and superficial cultures will never last. I can see that some of the people in my day to day life that don't like me are because I represent reality rather than perpetuating their superficial sense of identity. They see themselves as leaders, I see them as stupid and vain, led by ulterior motives of egocentricity.

No doubt true! That is all

a reply to: TzarChasm


Awesome cartoon - and so very true.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The discussion is about the 'collective self-cloud', not the personal 'self-cloud'.''

Another posted mentioned the 'noosphere' (thank you), other's call it a 'group conscious', 'the sum-total of human thought', there are any number of ways to say it. But it has to do will 'collective experience'.

Now you may be contributing a wonderfully positive 'vibe' to the sphere as are others; but they can be over weighted my those who project fear, aggression and the like.

It is important who we are, but I think you are missing the point.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It appears that you are misunderstanding both mine and the threads first comment.

I disagree to some of the points being made, as I said and demonstrated this as my own experience.

The thread's first comment refers mostly to the self rather than society as a cloud and it is to that I referred in my second comment.

There is allusion to known psychology but it is muddled and there are aspects that aren't true so therefore one cannot but analyse it and comment truthfully.

There is truth to the fact that people are affected by their environment and psychological influences though there is also ego and that has to be accounted for.

I cannot and will not excuse some of the behaviour of others when I know they are not just acting as a product of their environment but exercising CONSCIOUSNESS in deliberate acts of harming others and egocentric behaviour.

There are psychological conditions such as psychopathy that aren't just environmental or developmental but deliberate conscious acts and there are those that are undiagnosed as having such conditions that nevertheless displayed such characteristics, such as those seen often in certain positions such as CEO etc status.

It is imperative to see the bigger picture instead of a snippet of childhood psychology masquerading as the entire facet of human interaction.

To avoid confusion, we all have the same body plans, but different bodies. In the same sense, we have identical psychological needs, but experience the world in slightly different ways. These distinctions are the product of epigenetic-genetic history, of both our own lives and the lives of our ancestors. Height, for instance, changes with nutrition. So to, a caring and supportive mother will produce a different mind from an angry mother. In line with basic evolutionary ideas, the former child will have energy 'free' to roam and explore the world; whereas the latter child, because it has been traumatized, will devote all its energy towards psychic defense.

When individual selves remain ignorant of the fact of their arbitrary - socially defined - position, they throw one another into rigid identifcations: I'm the strong one, your the weak one. Whats dissociated is the role OTHER PEOPLE played in making one strong; and likewise, ad infinitum. The very fact of being determined by our context places us squarely, and ontologically, within the Self-Cloud.

a reply to: Bluesma

But once in a while I have my self challenging questions arise- how sure can we really be in our theories about early child-parent interplays when contemplating the kinds we did not have? Winnicot too, was obsessed with determining what kind of interactions at that age would have made a more effective social base for the individual- though he himself had a depressed mother, who was abusive.

You need to take a systems theory view of it.

As the butterfly effect teaches, what happens at the beginning of a 'system's life' can have large effects later on.

This is paralleled in brain growth. As Ed Tronick (developmental psychologist) notes, the brain growth in the 1st year (which doubles in size) and the 2nd year (which adds another 15% volume) is occurring in a context of interpersonal relations. These relations - and the self awareness of the primary caregiver - either perpetuates what Pamela Alexander calls "intergenerational cycles of abuse and violence" or puts an end to them by putting a space between feelings and actions (via 'mindfulness').

Now, of course, there are examples of people who've had horrible primary caregivers yet still grow up into normal people. There are two explanations for this: the first is the influence of other relationships that provide negative feedback to the positive feedback effects established in the attachment relationship. Depending on the degree of disparity, these self's maybe radically dissociated from one another (and this would create whats called dissociative disorders, such as DID or borderline personality disorder) or they may mesh into a clearer self-system so that child, despite a harmful home environment, is sufficiently buttressed by the outside relationship.

Another explanation is the differences in gene regulation. Serotonin, for instance (its a very important neuromodulator involved in mood regulation) comes in a long form and a short form. Although these differences in genetics does not make one invulnerable to interpersonal abuse, it does create differences in stress tolerance threshold.

The irony is, although the long-form serotonin child may be more impervious to trauma, he is also impervious to any sort of environmental influence; he is difficult to inspire, or educate, and is prone to 'do his own thing' insensitive to the caregivers who try to connect with him.

The point is, although differences exist, everyone has their threshold, even the child with a long-form serotonin coding gene. Although in the case of this child, narcissism and rebelliousness/aggression (whats called 'criminal behavior') are a more likely consequence of interpersonal abuse than affective regulation disorders in children with the short form of the serotonin gene.

At the end of the day, attachment should form the backbone of our educational systems. Children with sensitivities (the short form) need care and empathy; conversely, children with the long form seem to be more comfortable with some individual space to explore.

A school culture should ultimately emphasize the emotional underpinnings of self-state formation. And since most of us (most people have the short form) are sensitive to emotional information, were all in one way or another sensitive to one another.

Also, regardless of the form one has, as adults, most human beings are affected by one another. Even those with the long-form need to be taught to understand the influence their biology is having on their personality development. Narcissistic, self-serving behavior that problematizes social relationships is a SOCIAL issue; it is no longer a question of individuality, but truly something that disturbs the dynamics of the "self-cloud" system.

The objectionable part being the failure of the other to recognize our ‘gift’ and acknowledge- “say, thanks for acting inferior, and enabling me to feel superior!”

That's actually somewhat true. You should read Jessica Benjamins "The Bonds of Love", but especially "The Shadow of the Other" for ideas of this sort. Whenever we engage in conversation, for instance, when one person shares information with another, the person on the receiving end SHOULD be conscious of the pleasure that the giver has in sharing his information; likewise, the Giver should be conscious of the delicate nature of the interaction, in that being on the 'receiving' end can feel stultifying if one is in that state for too long.

Many conversations come to an end for just this sort of reason. People don't really like "receiving" - not being the subject and agent of the "good" they feel they possess.

Given the complexities, nevertheless, they are UNDERSTANDABLE complexities. We should not skirt our responsibilities to one another by failing to integrate these insights into our relations.

This becomes a habit in social relations later. I still do it.

The Europeans are so ahead of North America in this department. I'm just finishing up on a book published by Karnac Press "Early Parenting and Prevention of Disorder: psychoanalytic research at interdisciplinary frontiers" and I am truly jealous of how self-aware the Europeans are relative to Americans. It's a patent fact that society determines self. And its an unfortunate reality that traumatized/affect disordered parents bequeath stress-regulation difficulties to their children by not paying attention to the infants mental state - or the fact of their status of being an external subject (being a different person).

France has a program for immigrant mothers that provides psychological support during pregnancy and guidance for parenting. A remarkably efficient method is a therapy which uses video-feedback to show mothers how during moments of stress, they mis-attribute the infants intent as "anger", "disobedient", when whats really happening is fearfulness and an eagerness to explore self-experience.

As fully formed adults, they fail to truly appreciate the naivety of the infants mind.

Because I had a depressed and abusive mother. So this particular skill would not have been possible if I had had a different one. Which, for me, tears apart the concept of an ideal mothering.

You and I are in the same camp, sister.

My mom was depressive which increases the odds of depression/anxiety in infants. Most people with high-levels of self-awareness either had secure-relationships of earned secure relationships following difficulties with depression/anxiety (that is, picked up the mothers stress-regulation difficulties like a disease).

People who don't seem to develop normally are people in the avoidant attachment group. Because they've discovered skills that manage to keep them unaware of their emotions, they can go throughout life with an almost autistic ignorance of how other people experience the world.

The idea of a 'cloud' in today's technological jargon refers to a virtual 'place' that holds the information we store on the internet. Although it is true that the information we store is held on an individual hardware somewhere, the concept of the 'cloud' holds true because each of us can gain access to it at any moment that we wish.

Something similar exists with society.

When I say the "self cloud", I mean more than is meant by the internet metaphor; because although the 'cloud' of the internet contains information, there is no fundamental relation between an individual user and the cloud. The cloud is merely a place where the information of the internet is stored, nothing more.

But in the case of the "self cloud", the "self cloud" constitutes the totality of the individual self's currently living on the planet earth. The self cloud is not any sort of repository of information, but a virtual representation of the logical and structural connections that exist in human relationships.

In the interests of understanding what is being said and what is not, I went back to the beginning of the opening post.

I do see now that the author is talking about the inidividual self and not an overarching 'collective' self (or collective unconscious as Jung would put it). I think the two are intimately related.

I do believe we are affected by other 'selfs' as they are effected by our 'self', hesitate to tell people what they should do or be for my benefit and prefer to be responsible for my 'self-clouds' actions on others regardless of past other self's action on me because - I can only change my self at this given moment which is where healing lies.

Bon Chance....

a reply to: FyreByrd

No, I do not quite mean Jungs far more mythological notion.

Think of mine as a logical idea not in the same epistemological category of Jungs collective unconscious.

The idea of a collective unconscious, to Jung, is a very real, ontologically existent thing. For me, the 'self-cloud' is a useful metaphor to explain the logical relations that exist between selves in a social system. Because we each have the same physiology, or phenotype, we assumedly also share the same mental conditions.

This has proven to be true. One of the amazing findings of modern day functional magnetic imaging research is the association between mental states and brain areas. This has been particularly enlightening in the study of trauma, both neurological and psychological.

People who have suffered psychological traumas have radically different MRI brainscans from people who haven't; their dorsolateral (making sense of body/self in context) is off; the medial frontal lobes are off (emotional regulation), and the right amygdular region is off the charts (fear/anxiety.

This basically shows us that brains, and the people who experience through them, are built in fundamentally identical ways.

When you scale this fact up from the body, to the relational level, in the psychoanalysis of interpersonal behavior, it is fundamentally clear that minds communicate with one another in symmetrical ways; but in not knowing that, usually, differences emerge and some people are pushed into the submissive positions (such as women; weak males) and other people take on the dominant position (strong males).

In this sort of structure, essentially, we have one group of people destablizing the the temporal dynamics of relationships. Little traumas form and accumulate; people take on assume, quite naturally, and sycophantically, the passive submissive position; while, of course, the abusers responsible for the damage become narcissistically self-obsessed (dominant).

But it isn't so simple, because every human being has experienced - and thus, their brain "knows" - the experience of infantile and childhood powerlessness. We know need; its in our genes. Thus, even the dominant members of the 'self-cloud' are dissociating the memories of their own traumas; their own vulnerabilities. Some, in fact, may be so removed from the possibility of vulnerability that they genuinely consider themselves immune from it. Immune, at least, from the 'womanly task' of thinking about their fundamental dependence on others in shaping their personality.

In my mind, the 'self-cloud' can be considered the state of society. When people know and understand how their minds work, people are kinder, gentler, because they understand what life is like from their perspective; what their needs are; what their fears are; what their temptations are. When every mind possesses this type of cognitive complexity - to be able to see itself clearly in relation with other minds just like it, the world becomes more interesting, relations and actions, fundamentally more meaningful, as everything we do is inherently consequential.

So to restate, my idea of the 'self-cloud' is just a conceptual metaphor for the logical (and system like) relations between people in their relationships with one another.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Children with sensitivities (the short form) need care and empathy; conversely, children with the long form seem to be more comfortable with some individual space to explore.
And since most of us (most people have the short form) are sensitive to emotional information, were all in one way or another sensitive to one another.

Though I respectfully acknowledge your point there, there is some I disagree with.
Though studies vary somewhat in their findings, none can be found which indicate a higher incidence of the double short allele except in Japan. Caucasions of european descent repeatedly show to have roughly one half of the population with a combination (1short/1long) and a smaller ration of 2 small to 2 long. (the two short allele are the rarest form of the three).

We find the s/s (two short allele) are more highly reactive to the enviornment and others (possibly associated or the same as the Highly Sensitive Person profile), more prone to depression, neuroticism, anxiety.
But also

Among suicide victims — not those who tried, but those who tried and actually died — the long/longallele pair was twice as common as the short/short pattern.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">study

The “two shorts” monkeys leave “home” more than a year earlier than the “two longs”. There is some function to this difference in gene length, and it has something to do with social relationships.

in one of the most recent articles from Dr. Lesch’ group, they show that people with “two shorts” have a bigger electrical event go off in their brain, in an emotion-related processing center of the frontal cortex, when they make an error.Fallgatter They found that people with “two shorts” had a more powerful electrical signal of this type after they made an error in a computer game.
The implication seemed to be that people with “two shorts” might be more negative in their evaluations of events, or perhaps more importantly, their own personal role in events For now, we can say that the Serotonin Transporter gene, and its length differences, appear to be involved in some sort of social event analysis or evaluation.

psycheducation.org... e/" target="_blank" class="postlink">source

So while they may be more sensitive to the environment and others, that also give them certain abilities to "bounce back" or be flexible in the long run. If you are accustomed to depression, you also develop more resistance to it; if you are accustomed to being deeply impacted by others and the environment, apparently you are better armed to set out on your own in facing it. It is possible as well as that this sensitivity and highly reactional physiology gives you learning tools for perceiving, understanding, and manipulating your own role and influence within your environment.

The argument that those sensitive ones need more protection, falls short with me then, because they are genetically more apt to handle it in the long run. They may have memories of a lot of suffering, but that is why I propose considering the benefits those painful experiences might have had!
Maybe one needs a mix (a short allele and a long allele) to cut short that negative condemnation and consider the positive as well??

Those with the two longer allele do come out to have less sensitivity to others and the environment, and as you suggest, to narcissism or egotistic behavior. To give them more space, and lessen the force of impact others have upon them as children would not do anything but re-enforce those tendencies! Such intense and difficult childhoods (which force the individual to become conscious of the other out of self preservation, might be just what the less sensitive personality needs, to balance out their self regulating biological system.

The "cloud" you are focusing on (which I am seeing as a collective consciousness, please correct me if that feels horribly off base) might not be as disturbed as you suggest. What if things ARE just as they should be? What if you are just as you should be ? (and all the events that went into forming you) What if there is a proper place in the whole machine for all types?

Many conversations come to an end for just this sort of reason. People don't really like "receiving" - not being the subject and agent of the "good" they feel they possess.

Astute observation, and I chuckle as it reminds me of some lecture my dad did on "If everyone wants to get laid, why do we find it offensive to hear "# you"?" All pointing back to the cultural repulsion to being a "receiver" of others efforts, expressions, (or even, body parts.. ) And part of a sexist masculine value.

The Europeans are so ahead of North America in this department. I'm just finishing up on a book published by Karnac Press "Early Parenting and Prevention of Disorder: psychoanalytic research at interdisciplinary frontiers" and I am truly jealous of how self-aware the Europeans are relative to Americans. It's a patent fact that society determines self. And its an unfortunate reality that traumatized/affect disordered parents bequeath stress-regulation difficulties to their children by not paying attention to the infants mental state - or the fact of their status of being an external subject (being a different person).

I don't know if they are "ahead", but it is my observation (and you see american researchers comment on it often, so I know I am not alone) that they consider the individual as intimately tied in with the environment and society; as indissociable, inter-dependent. Whereas our values resting on individualism, we rather prefer to consider the individual as an island, independent and capable of forming self without influence from others. It just repeatedly shows to be false, doesn't it?

Your comment on the repulsion to receiving was thought provoking for me.

In some New Age circles, where concepts such as "lightworkers" abound, there is often a reference to "transmuting negative energy". Which always just sounded to me like a description of the subjective experience of receiving others projections. The person who is projecting messages which (overtly or covertly) determine one to be less valuable in some way then their self, and the way one decides to accept that or refuse it.

If you are young and your mother is depressed, you are more likely to be aware that accepting it might have a positive effect on their emotional state, and therefore, an indirect benefit to yourself. In other words, a negative short term effect and a positive long term effect. Thus, things like altruism can take on a positive charge (even all out martyrism).

So then follows the "transmuting" concept- how to digest effectively that which you have taken in?
To play a role of inferior to someone results in feeling rather low, producing depressing hormones. There's self medication with alcohol and drugs..... or if a child learns early (before such options are available) there's other means - physical exercise, creative effort (drawing, writing, building...). Which takes that emotional energy and spins it into something else, that is produced and projected out into the world- something personal and self -forming. That "positive projection".

In the example I used, of my husbands nasty mood yesterday that I chose not to take on for him, I decided not to because I am currently physically handicapped, unable to do much of the physical efforts I like to use for that "transmuting".

In the context of this larger "self cloud" as a collective, it is relevant to consider that like an individual (and along the lines of holographic universe) that cloud might have parts that serve different functions....including a digestive system. Like the intestines. Or the liver.

These parts of the body might need a rest at times, but they are made for receiving and transforming, and are good at it. A funny parallel - this culture here, which values receiving and being a receptor also tends to eat lots of liver, sausage (made with intestines) and stomach lining. It might be off topic, I am preparing for american guests soon, and remembering what not to offer them, through past experiences - no liver paté or foie gras, no sausage (especially blood sausage), no tripes. It just is associating in my head as part of the larger holographic theory and collective consciousness, in which the various parts reflect the larger form; perhaps even in behavior.

I hadn't read your response to someone else here, in which you said the collective consciousness (as Jung painted it) is not what you refer to. I see I am off base on that.
I also recognized your assertion that individuals who habitually take the "dominant" roles often become unaware of their own neediness, and receptive quality. That is a perception I share. In those cases, it could also be said then, that those who accept the receptive roles habitually are, in a way, co-dependents, who encourage this narcissism. On a larger scale of society, I have no solution for this. I only find that on a micro- scale, in particular relations, if even one individual is highly aware of their receptive-vulnerabilities, as well as their projective- influencial abilities, that can bring about changing of roles regularly in the relationship (and heightened self awareness for both).