Sunday, December 4, 2016

What is generation "I"? (page 1)

                                             What is my discussion on Generation "I" about?

   (part 1) Have you ever found online articles that showed that narcissism is on the rise? Have you found out about articles that tell loneliness was on the rise? Do you know about generation Y? Assuming that the reader has already read google news articles that explain the nature of loneliness or narcissism, perhaps even at different parts of the world, I wanted to reveal that I believed that I had developed a much more broad view of our culture (ours in particular) when I found out about a small article online that told about some of the influence of the principle of individualism. I will discuss more of that concept later.

   Generation "I" is synonymous to "Generation me". It can be found in articles using key words on google news using key words such as in: "generation me", "millennials narcissistic", "generation Y narcissism", "The me me me generation". So the question arises, and also you should know that I will reveal how it is answered: why does generation "I" appeal to the reader? Generation "I" relates to narcissism but, also in my writing, I also show how the negative influence of narcissism, in combination with other things, can contribute to the phenomenon of this pervasive loneliness in our culture. If you didn't know already, loneliness overlaps with the cases of being diagnosed with Depression. (The effects of depression is not the investigation here since this subject in this writing is on a much more grand scale.). With this in mind, when I wrote this material, it was assuming that the reader already read about this millennial generation. Perhaps also it would get the reader curious to find out more on this subject if they didn't already know since it was based on what you can find out through using key words on some online search engine, anyways.

   Of course, based on that knowledge, it is now known that I did not develop the ideas on my own for my discussion of generation "I". However, what is important about this discussion that I made here, though, is that I believe it was more significant than going about things that is not much of an intellectual grasp as in to simply collect some articles, skim read it, and then think I am done. I, personally, just like to skim read stuff unless that I intuit some discussion about it. For me, grasping this subject seemed to appeal to me on a practical level.

   If you start to wonder about either the impact of this generation from here on or the impact of technology and economics on the public further in time (etc.), you may find this subject to be a much more moral or political issue for you then in contrast to, perhaps, (something like) it could be just within a more remote area of your mind as in just being "understanding something". If you do not care much for this subject because you are always convinced that you deal with your life in the "here and now" and that you even have a different perspective than this cynical one than that's fine as well. However, in contrast to that, I know how I am affected by this (ideological) phenomenon. I know how it can affect other people. I cannot deny that this discussion is a step to something that bears fruit within a much more practical level. I know it does since I know that it overlaps with the development of beliefs and values which is a kind of conversation that is seriously lacking in our culture today.

   Forming harmonious connections with people may start with sharing (or demonstrating) our beliefs and values (as long as they are in agreement with another). For an example, I have observed,first-hand, of the American ideas about intimacy: how its advertised and how it is done. There is an individualistic way that it can be done which is interconnected to the ideas involved with individualism: (speed dating or monogamy to fill in the void). In contrast to that, there is more of the platonic way that I believe can be accomplished. That's what I have been in favor for up to this point (and perhaps I will keep that sentiment). So what are meaningful connections in the platonic sense? Personally, I have not read any of the philosophy written by Plato who had wrote that discussion. However, I do believe that I understand that, on a fundamental level, it contrasts with the kind that appeals the most to human emotions (This would be romantic emotions) - as a conclusion, since everyone is human and then (keep in mind that that this applies to nearly everyone) human qualities are quintessential with the quality of emotionality and sexuality, perhaps its easy to apprehend why romance is so popular to people. (If you know how to research this stuff effectively, you will find out about the tragic effects of advertising excessive grandeur when it manifests itself in (one of the most tempting things) that seems to be normal to most people: sexuality)

   I'll try to make this generalized statement concise enough: In summary, sometimes our cultures obsessions are fueled by the individualistic pursuits that are interconnected with narcissism and narcissistic tendencies. The reality of our cultures obsessions with the idealized notions of, for example, sexuality and workaholism(also within the educational domain of higher education etc) has lead to: (1.) In regard to workaholism, its the tragic deep-seated foundations to the reliance on study pills (also called "cognitive enhancers" which I wouldn't apply to name these kinds of drugs) in either colleges or application in certain careers. Stimulant drugs such as Adderall and Provigil are now widespread artificial tools of success-motivators because of many factors that I have not mentioned; However, it can be found through the internet that some people realize the senselessness of their use. (2.) In regard to sexuality, in general, there is widespread corruption causing rise in prostitution because of online postings and online escort agencies. There is also a rise in chemsex; I suppose, in peoples attempt to live in this world of individualistic self-interest and narcissism, they end up doing things that seem normal just because that other people are doing it; Even if they do not feel satisfied enough with it, sometimes they keep doing it anyways. (Perhaps this phenomenon can be called either "sexual extremism" or "sexual grandeur".)

   So far, in contrast to society putting emphasis on the individualistic pursuit of monogamy or sexual gratification, my stance is to put emphasis on being inspired by the principle of platonic love. (I hope that this is what this writing seems to accomplish in some way (if anything significant)).

   So, perhaps, in regard to the meaning to this discussion, in order to take some steps to solve this problem, seems to relate to finding a way to give these ideas in this writing, which is more comprehensive view of many particular problems, away as an accessible writing of a different worldview. Perhaps it can on its own right because many people know about it regardless but I'm sure it will in regard to the next fundamental realm of civilization other than politics and money: Spirituality. With spirituality in mind, I could continue on with my plans to find out about the abstract principles of religions (not just through my monthly 60page Christian booklets!) and use them for moralism on a social level which is what libertarian ideas are all about. However, if my ideas to do so are inconsistent with my skills and ability to make certain discussions and ideas about things accessible, then I will be discouraged - I wouldn't want to even care anymore about the greater good etc.

   Ultimately, on the optimistic side, there are some pretty good sources of information coming from google news that relate to this subject. I also found out about the sci-fi future forecast television series which relates to our world and its called "black mirror". This program can be found on a Netflix internet television (operated by a digital DVD and blue-ray player). As for in regard to my situation, I will try to find other aspects to life which relates to the complexity of overlapping trends. I suppose that if I focus on the cynical view all the time then the world will simply be too small with its overgeneralized prospects. This would not result in anything worthwhile.

                                                                                     ----- -----
                                                             What to hope for (The generation "I" report)

(part 2) At this point I will be going back to the topic of individualism real briefly. I had found an article online through google news that tells about the role that neurotransmitters appear to play within a sample size of population genetics. Its about the ideologies of society and how it interconnects with genetic polymorphisms. Perhaps, in some way, this sounds racist. However, to challenge this particular theory, one must prove how behavior can be manifest even if these genetic differences are shown to be manifest within a certain test. A link between certain genes and behavior is only a link anyways (so its not too offensive). On the other hand, it would seem too biased to me if the report had specified particular genes to be in a connection with certain mental inclinations such as aggression.

   Individualistic tendencies and collective tendencies within a society are shown to be dependent on certain neurotransmitter transporter genes: The (s) 5-HTTLPR allele (also called "5-HTTLPR-S") etc. Its also measured by certain hormones. Perhaps key words to help with one to research this on their own would be something like: "Race and stress". Its an established link since peoples inclinations are learned by certain kinds of situations, influenced by neurotransmitters, and linked to other factors. Personally, I'd say that cortisol levels measured after a certain cognitive task may make an interesting study since cortisol is shown to be directly connected to stress. Serotonin receptors and monoamine oxidase, for an example, are only casual links to certain situations that are stressful (such as social ones). They are hypothetical links since that it is if you have not learned that they are tested under empirical derived results. It should also be common sense if one thinks that certain genes and tendencies are widespread not because of "race" but because of how scientists found a link between biological things which is not proved 100% to be widespread through the culture anyways. However, these are neurochemicals that can be used for key words if one wants to know more through an online search engine.

   Studies such as these may perhaps give one a more objective perspective into how things happen in nature. How someone thinks something should happen the way they envision it within their own individual style of thinking is a biased idealism. Because of this study this is an example of what kinds of questions it could vaguely answer: in regard to peoples reactions towards either a certain political system or leader, with regard to ones inquisition into their behavior, we may find out how peoples decision making becomes biased within particular condition that many people are being exposed to. This contrasts with that political scientists and radical social reformists (those whom have always been either persuasive or simply just demanding for more depth in ones forethought of how they predict things within social institutions): Vaguely I know of Thorstien Veblan or Carl Marx whom were social reformists. As a basic conclusion, in this 21st century, perhaps there is now more of yardstick to go by in certain subjects because of the advances in neurosciences. Ultimately, relating to cultural phenomenon, (as a kind of just argument I made about something) we know what something is (as in some political ideology), but, on the other hand, why it is what it is, among in combination with certain people whom speculate what it is, should also be open to speculation among people that inquire into the complexities of the brain.

    The next topic relates to the salience of certain studies. Take heed of the fact that, in my writing for this "generation I" discussion, I have been throwing out the ideas of salience of certain subjects as well as certain ideas which relate to the broad range of societal phenomenon in order to try to give a justification for certain psychological ideals. This also relates to the broad area of giving advice tied to the intricacies of the insight into society. However, there is a hierarchy of vocabulary one can use to discuss something. Salience relates to the practicality of certain ideas. If society had grasped practicality in neuroscience, it would be called a "neuro-revolution". We could, as a consequence, even call our society a "neuro-society". What exactly that would mean, not even I know for sure.

  In 2014, this article came out "What Neuro-revolution? The Public Find Brain Science Irrelevant and Anxiety-Provoking". The important piece of writing is copied here - "Cliodhna O’Connor and Helene Joffe at UCL in London have just published in-depth interviews with 48 members of the British public". These studies would prove that, because of that people have never used brain studies to solve any problem etc, neuroscience serves no psychosocial functions for them. I admit that I found that neuroscience in the news has been mostly about medicine or mental illness.

   Another topic is linked to this one. Commonly, youth are exposed to certain mind altering chemicals such as tabacco and alcohol. Sometimes , on the walls of coffee shops etc, youth are deterred from the usage of marijuana (which is also on the rise). Also, there's currently a heroin epidemic going on throughout the nation. Can neuroscience help us know how to escape our ordinary life and problems? On the one hand, neuroscience can frighten people because of the kinds of studies done - As an example, who wants to know the link between the gene variation of a brain protein called "BDNF" in some people and the negative impact it has on forming short term memory, how it influences ADHD, depression, and obesity? On the other hand, the studies done showing variations in how the brain can function under certain conditions, how certain hormones effect the way we feel, psychological studies, and also on how certain activities influence us (our brains connections in particular are being influenced) such as playing certain video games, listening to music, learning a new language, parenting techniques, and taking certain vitamins and supplements may give some good advice. 

   Relevant to our culture and also to the topic that I just explained earlier, I want to reveal another study: certain mouse studies have shown that intense audio-visual stimulation during the first phases of a mousses' life gave out some data (in the study) that suggest that its impact is similar to what goes on when human youth are exposed to a television, as in that, in parallel, may desensitize the brain of a young human when its brain is developing as well as it did to the young mice. This applies to very young children between certain ages: under the age of two.

   Its clear to me that when people find applications for studies that relate to the impact of the environment, it meets the standard for a particular ideal. One such study is one of the epigenetic studies by which woman whom were exposed to some kind of trauma had given birth to babies that paralleled the low levels of cortisol found by it by being measured in those mothers by application of a saliva test. This trauma applies to child abuse, poverty, being in the situation of the terror attacks on the twin towers, and Jewish holocaust survivors. Fetuses need normal levels of cortisol in their blood serum since cortisol is essential for normal brain development. Perhaps an application that can come from studies such as these can lead to a kind of neuro-revolution?

   Ultimately, whether its ensuring the proper motor development of a babies brain (which, among other things, is dependent on cortisol levels) or limiting video games that have the potential to overstimulate the reward centers of a youngster between the ages of 8 to 12, neuroscience can help limit some of the effects of some of the hostilities of the environment. So, on the one hand, designer babies whom live their lives as though its simulated on a computer appears to be artificial or even "race magnification" because of that its mentally deranged, on the other hand, practical applications of neuroscience can improve the scope of medicine to things that help promote happiness rather than threatening to associate bad outcomes with "bad people" since if one is in favor for unfounded human enhancements.

   During these past few years, there has been a significant spike in the production and commercial activity involved in designer drugs. When I had looked up certain articles on google news that tells about people of many different age groups buying dangerous stimulant designer drugs online, usually the ones made from methamphetamine, and then reading of the effects of these drugs making them suffer from the psychosis that they can elicit, I wondered why people were not engaged in the proper goal setting with education, social life, family life, and leisure activity. Perhaps neuroscience needs to be radically redefined if a neuro-revolution is to occur, though. We cannot treat the brain and the person the same as it would be in some bias made up by education standards, religion, or penal punishment systems.

   I found that a study had shown that white people between the ages of 25 and 34 are five times more likely to die from a drug overdose than they were in 1999. Death rates from heart disease in the U.S. have declined nearly 70% since 1969, however, death rates from this health condition have increased significantly over these past few years. Heroin usage in particular has been on the rise as well but, other than this obesity stuff, take heed of that heroin is also a causative agent in one developing heart disease (among other things).

   With all this in mind, what we want to accomplish, learn, and how we want to change depends on how our brains' influence us to make certain decisions. Perhaps it is a psychological study in order to determine how people react towards different things in the environment. However, in contrast to that, it also seems like a neurochemical factor that contributes to our understanding of the world by which most of the study of psychology has never provided any answers anyways.

   Ultimately, in order to balance the debate of nature and nurture in our mental inclinations, in order to actually prevent severity of mental illness or a certain amount of neurological decline, and in order to find useful data to stimulate our quest to ask the relevant questions (as in since if we did have that data then (or anyone inquisitive about it) we might have found the data that leads to a certain foundation to our inquisitions), the path to a neuro-society should, favorably, have the salience since such a broad range of phenomenon has a neurological underpinning.