Connect with Uncommon Knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
polymath
Preferred Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 649
Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:20 pm
|
| Science of impulse control |
 |
After googling the seven deadly sins I noticed they all have to do with our lower, impulsive, self-centered, animal side. I'm coming to the conclusion (right or wrong?) that we all share this side of our dual nature and the more well-adjusted have a more developed higher nature that gains more pleasure from the legitimately good things in life (exercise, healthy eating, service to others, moderation, classical music, politeness, meaningful and productive work, spell-checking, etc).
This leads me to the notion that since there is no gene for this and we are creatures of habit, that the higher nature can be developed. I believe that aside from obvious mental illnesses like autism and cerebral palsy, the behavioral issues that have been labeled disorders by the psychological establishment (to sell therapy and drugs?) are simply behavioral habits we picked up at an early age to survive, physically and emotionally. The older we get the harder it is, but can still be accomplished.
After 3 days of eating well and in moderation, running on our treadmill, turning off the TV and staying off the angry music, I feel better than I have in weeks. at 37, it takes a herculean effort in the morning but really makes the day much more positive. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.
I did watch a good segment on Dr. Oz about the effects of sugar on our bodies. There is a lot of talk of brain chemistry nowadays. Couldn't it be that those of us with negative childhoods begin, in adolescence, to sooth that pain through substances like sugar, alcohol, fat, nicotine, hard drugs etc. And these substances do a number on the brain that we are just now beginning to understand. I would argue that removing these substances, exercising, and flushing the system with good ol' H2O would do vastly much more good than wasting time and money on therapy and drugs.
I also believe that impulse control is at the root of all our troubles. It is the split second choice between what is available now (usually self-centered) and waiting a little for the better thing. I read a study that quite accurately predicted an adult's success and happiness based on their impulse-control at age 3. If the FOO dynamic is off, the children can be negatively affected by parents not being able to handle a child's emotional outbursts.
All that leads me to the question. Is there anything out there, other than 'just do it" that can help with impulse control. My guess is not. Its that hard road that those of us not fortunate to have been lead down early MUST travel on our own as adults or suffer the consequences. |
Triarius
Senior Member
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 4805
Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:44 pm
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but it is entirely possible that impulsivity is linked to genetics: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/01/nos1-impulsivity-gene.html
That said I completely agree with everything you've mentioned.
I have developed my impulse control over the past couple of years and I feel like a different person.
I did develop an exercise which can help build impulse control.
It's really simple.
Just sit.
Don't fidget.
Don't do anything.
Don't think. Stare at the wall. Stare out the window.
Do as little as possible.
For ten minutes. |
polymath
Preferred Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 649
Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:28 pm
|
Thanks seta. I'll try the exercise for a few days and report back 
Regarding the article, personally I would be leery. Its chicken v. egg. Does childhood abuse and neglect cause the brain (and therefore the mind) to respond by producing chemicals that cause these issues, or are they simply behavioral habits learned very, very early in life in response to negative stimulus? And if so, and evolution is assumed to be a mostly correct theory, why didn't one of these traits go by the wayside as not beneficial to our species?
At this point in my understanding, I just don't buy the genetic argument for behavior. I think its too easy to see genetics in physical characteristics that we can all plainly see with our own two eyes and extrapolate that into genetics being the cause for behavioral abnormalities and selfish behavior. |
jargan
Preferred Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Location: Germany
Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:28 pm
|
There is an alternative: redefine the meaning of the choices in advance. That way your impulses change to suit your long-term goals.
This is not necessarily easy (typically the meaning won't permeate through to where the impulses come from simply by formulating it once in your head) but it has worked for me for several things.
I view "impulse control" as just one way of several to change impulses over time. It's very reliable, too, once you get it going, so it's definitely not a bad way to deal with impulses. |
Triarius
Senior Member
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 4805
Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:29 pm
|
If you look up articles about impulsivity - the primary factor is inability or unawareness of the future (and subsequently future consequences)
Highly impulsive people are abnormally absorbed in the present. Therefore, the concept of changing impulses for future benefit is generally out of the question.
Great article about impuslivity:
http://www.ultimate-self.com/impulsive-people/ |
polymath
Preferred Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 649
Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:27 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Poly there have been pretty conclusive studies done on identical twins which conclude that approx 50% of behaviour is down to genes and the other 50% down to environment. Twins separated at birth can meet years later and find that in many areas they have exactly the same tastes and habits & behaviour patterns. So psychological reactions to early environment will also be partly down to genes. One person suffering a trauma in early life may suffer from mental illness later and another may not.
Regarding the twins studies, you really have to dig deep into them. The instances of twins being separated at birth is very rare. The adoption process takes time and the average age of separation from the FOO is 18 months, plenty of time for some behavioral issues to take hold. Additionally, its very rare for the twins to be totally separated from the extended family, which often shares many of the same stressors.
Again, if genetics were a contributing factor then those traits would've been selectively removed from the gene pool, if evolution is held to be as probable a theory as is supposed.
You must be careful in to consider the source when reading or listening to things. Always follow the money. Many genetic studies are sponsored by drug companies and psychological organizations that have skin in the game. Just like global warming, if you hear the same lie enough times, you'll begin to believe it. |
Annie7788
MVP
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 3122
Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:40 pm
|
By the way just wanted to mention that environmental toxins are just as likely to change brain chemistry in the womb as they are likely to lead to physical health problems. At the same time exposure of the mother to stress during gestation is also likely to impact the psychological health of the foetus. Now these are environmental factors starting before birth. The question is do these environmental factors damage genes at all? (I don't know enough about genetic development during gestation to answer that).
On a separate issue, a friend of mine was born via caesarian section and she feels maybe she was affected by it. She feels not having to fight her way out of her mother's body may have made her less of a fighter in life. They say that babies born via caesarian are impacted by it & traumatised.
I think we are all traumatised by the birth process. |
thefool
Senior Member
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 3645
Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:38 am
|
|
|
Self discipline is an art, devotion a way of life...
I used to have none... no self discipline, no dedication to anything. All I really had going for me was a stubborn streak, the inability to 'give up' on anything that I felt was worthwhile, and the constant guilt of not keeping myself in check.
It's really about control. Control over yourself, and when you have control over yourself, controlling things around you becomes a lot easier.
That being said, sometimes square chinned obstinacy isn't the best approach to controlling your impulses, nor to improving the quality of your life. Sometimes you have to 'go with the flow'. If you absolutely must have an ice cream in the morning, then perhaps you should just get one... after all, the process of forcing yourself to eat something healthy instead and just 'learning to like it', may be more trouble than it's worth and perhaps altogether futile in the end.
Moderation is important in self discipline as it is in all things... unfortunately, it's usually the case that you can only afford moderation after you've learned to distinguish between moderation and self-deception. Self discipline is like a battle against an opponent that's just as good at everything as you are. If you're a skilled liar, a persuasive speaker, a good manipulator... then prepare to fight dirty to gain control over yourself. I find that bad habits have all the characteristics of an addiction. Notoriously hard to get rid, and you're constantly vulnerable to buying into your own BS while you're trying to change them, not to mention you might just subconsciously give in to them out of pure routine.
The good thing is that self control becomes 'easier' over time. That's why people who have their bases covered in terms of self discipline, seem to lead disciplined lives with ease... As opposed to requiring a herculean effort on a daily basis. |
polymath
Preferred Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 649
Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:35 am
|
|
|
Annie,
Thanks for your reasoned response. I mostly agree with you. Its just that genetics is used as an excuse for bad behavior so much nowadays that I believe there is a sort of backlash going on. My mother loves to toss around the 'alcohol gene' of my late father to absolve herself of any responsibility.
A 'personality trait' is so subjective, unlike concrete physical traits. I mean, what is personality? I think because we all look different, its easy to say we all have different personalities, when actually we're all just on a continuum from selfless to selfish (think Mother Teresa to Hitler, with most of us in the middle). I firmly believe most of where we land on this scale is provided by the modeling of the adults in our young lives and not provided to us through our genes.
Fool,
Well stated. The happiest people I know are the most disciplined. Its such an ugly word nowadays. I'm also becoming of a fan of "If I feel uncomfortable letting my children eat, watch or listen to it, why should I?" |
Ruby88
Senior Member
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 1444
Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:32 am
|
[quote="polymath"]My mother loves to toss around the 'alcohol gene' of my late father to absolve herself of any responsibility.[/quote]
Aha. I believe we've just seen the real cause of your consistent refusal to accept genetics and evolutionary theory - your mum has made you allergic to the words. |
polymath
Preferred Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 649
Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:25 am
|
Very perceptive Ruby. Whenever someone brings up the genetic excuse for bade behavior I have to strangle my fight impulse. I actually have no problem with evolutionary theory other than the agenda-backed efforts to explain human consciousness and remove discussion about the possibility of a universal creator. Evolution could most probably be the method a creator used to build our universe, its just that the unquestioned and unproven idea that we are descendant from lower animals leaves a bad taste.
But back to genetics, I don't have a problem with the theory that they play a part, its just not anywhere close to 50/50. |
Annie7788
MVP
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 3122
Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:45 am
|
quote:
Originally posted by polymath
Evolution could most probably be the method a creator used to build our universe, its just that the unquestioned and unproven idea that we are descendant from lower animals leaves a bad taste.
.
But Poly surely then you'd have a problem with the concept that man was created from dust? I guess as orwell said, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. Only people think they are supreme. I don't see the low animals worshipping us. |
Triarius
Senior Member
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 4805
Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:20 pm
|
its just that the unquestioned and unproven idea that we are descendant from lower animals leaves a bad taste.
Well, there's no humans in the fossil record older than 4 million years... therefore we came from somewhere!
Either
1) The aliens dropped us off
2) Early humans were hiding somewhere (like underwater)
or 3) We evolved from "lower species" as you bluntly put it.
Considering that the majority of differences between us and chimps is down to bone proportions and thickness of body hair - to say they are "lower" implies something very derogatory about us as well... |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
