February 26, 2013
-
psychology versus itself
Somethings in psychology , as a science which is what anthropology deals with and not to be confused with clinical psychology which is really a form of applied anthropology, deals with are quite under the surface. There are many questions that remain precariously intuitive when considered towards understanding the human race as a species on earth. things like how do we think of the environment or perceive the world versus how do we actually interact with it remain almost like a rhetorical volleyball match between structuralists and individualists debates. for the record, i am more into behaviorism as a guideline, i guess i appreciate the idea of how it blends into the animal and by my opinion , nature of life as a whole. lets just say that behaviorism is probably the greatest (as proven by media manipulation) mover in all animal interaction. the fact that behaviorism and the exploitation of it’s application remains the ongoing battle between an unsuspecting audience and the media that comes armed with it’s science.from skinner and his cats and Watson and his revenge, which lives on as legacy we can only deduce that the validity of psychology being a true science that is severely underrated by the distracted hypnotized public , is both real and purely effective.
There is however, the real aspect of psychology that keeps me interested [ not as a conciouis rebel or as concious as i can be of the ploys that i encounter daily, but at least the recognition of the manipulation of instinct as a inescapable urge and the fact that since i know this, i have at least some form of defense against the majority of the onslaught.] things like body language , as it were and the natural meaning versus the social implementation of what the intellectually agreed and enforced meaning from peer groups of the display would mean.smiles are probably one of the most intriguing one of all. in nature to smile is to pretty much bare your teeth. a display that is not happily recognized even by our nearest existing counterparts, pan paniscus or the chimpanzee. even they don’t see the ‘smile’ as a happy well feeling intent. we do, we all do, even as a very young child when witnessed on an adult , we see it as a happy feeling. this means, that the smile is not a learned aspect. we are not taught what a smile is, the meaning is built in us and we automatically identify it as a good feeling. this remains quite ironic and vastly contrastive to pretty much the entire animal kingdom. this, is where psychology gets real fun. trying to understand why this is and why only humans have this unique perception. the confusion is pretty obvious, when you consider that the only other true tribal entities on earth being wolves and lions, both pretty complete as a tribal type of social group as far as their behaviors are concerned do not mean happy times when they show their teeth. so what is going on here? plus, why do we understand that when humans do this it means the complete opposite to the dogs ,wolves and any other animal that is pretty much doing as close to the same action that we are .
one of the things i have been trying to explain to people for a long time is that humans as far as our ancestry, all the way back to possibly homo habilis, were not predominantly violent animals. when we coexisted with our predecessors and contemporary branches , i don’t really believe that we as a whole, inclusive were given to violent confrontation. the major clue comes from the migration of the larynx down our throats. the fact that we want, as humans to talk. to communicate was that important that we actually evolved to better suit this need. it is a human trait, therefore you can pretty much expect this of Neanderthal and erectus and everything backwards to habilis. it is one of the things that separated us from the bipedal apes. the need to communicate reinforced our ability to create and strengthen culture.which is also another very strong trait in the human species. all homo species were therefore in some way instinctively prone to this. Neanderthal burying their dead, the fact that erectus made the exact same stone axe, therefore demonstrating a tradition that must have been taught are among the indicators of a strong culture and need to communicate which was effectively facilitated. it pretty much spells the fact that we sapiens were not the only one.
yet, the theory we see in the mainframe about what the smile means is questionable. according to modern perception, the smile is a way of showing dominance.the most common form of comedy that is found to be humorous in the world is slapstick humor. which is basically the action of the performer appearing to be incompetent or in some way lesser and bumbling thereby making the viewer feel superior and more dominant then the character. we unconsciously show our teeth as a way of showing dominance.that is the basic gist of what we are told anyways in the mainstream. which may be true, but i myself have a hard time accepting this. for some reason, i don’t see the connection.
The idea of someone smiling and the recipient, being shown to be inferior according to that theory also returning the smile and both participants feeling good about it doesn’t make sense. remember, we instinctively feel good. the statement, i feel good see my teeth? and the response i also feel good here are my teeth and then the two individuals sharing the good sensation encouraged by showing each other their teeth doesn’t really seem to make sense. so what is it? well, to be honest, we really don’t know. just theories, just ideas that individually are supportive towards a rational answer but as you can see combined don’t make any sense. really , in my opinion i think it is a totally different thing.
one thing that needs to be understood is that even know we homo all have the instinct to communicate built in. our voices were entirely different when compared to different species. in some cases there is no way we would be able to effectively transmit our intention of thought. for instance, the Neanderthal had a slightly different type of shape for the vocal passage. the result is somewhat strange, here we have the most brawniest of human species. that would use its body to hunt , for instance, by ramming themselves full force into the prey animal. as is depicted by the fossil limbs showing healed fractures and broken bones. it had a high pitch voice. big , tough males, with voices that were like a high chirp. it would be next to impossible it seems for us to understand them. but we most certainly did interact with them and erectus. the only other method of communication was by physical display.
we and them had self recognition in each other. in fact we must have seen, that they were humans, only different of course, but nonetheless understood them to be humans. we obviously , like them , had a desire to communicate. so it seems that when mutual feeling of good intention was meant to be imparted. we probably smiled. seeing as how we are not naturually violent and that culture and interaction was a instinctual providence in us. the smile somehow was recognized by all of us as a good and happy display of acceptance and means of belonging. in otherwords, a smile shared between two homo species, meant they agreed and were non agressive. because it meant they belonged in a group. the frown or sneer of course, both highly identifable and radically different as far as facial expression, have pretty much instinctual meaning.both do not nescessarily require showing of the teeth. the complete opposite of the animal world.it is in this aspect the science of psychology is both intriguing and fascinating. if you smile, you can make other people smile, they want to belong to that group. it remains probably one of the most effective ways to socially bond that doesn’t require vocal or grooming. it remains both highly recognized and highly powerful in it’s use.