Fay Fransella wrote (among other things):
> Hello Jim, Devi and others,
>
> I have followed this discussion with mounting interest. I have long been
> intrigued by Kelly's notion that it is the nature of living matter that it
> is in action and therefore we don't need a construct of motivation. As many
> of you will know, that was followed by his notion that there might be a
> different fundamental postulate that read: "It is the nature of life to be
> channelized by the ways events are anticipated" He goes on to say: "While I
> am not prepared to defend this assumption with great skill or the weight of
> much evidence, it does intrigue me and I cannot help but wonder where we
> would be led if we ventured to start from such a premise",
Faye Fransella raises an issue that stimulates me to offer an extended
response. In giving this response, I'm going to attempt to provide a set of
propositions concerning sexual functioning. This might give others the
opportunity to elaborate or to rebut what I'm going to say -- if anyone has the
patience to go the full course of the text. (By the way, dashing off this text
is facilitated by the use of Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking software.)
To begin this discussion I'm going to offer a starting proposition.
Proposition 1. Hereditary determines structure.
This is a rather simple-minded first proposition, but by giving it I intend
also to eliminate consideration of other propositions. This prompts me to
state negative that I believe it is implied by the first proposition. That is,
HEREDITARY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE PRESENCE OF ANY SINGLE BEHAVIOR.
To take up next the issue which Fay has raised, I would offer a second
proposition that will be woven in and out of my discourse.
Proposition 2. Humans (and other creatures) do inherit structure that,
somehow, stimulates the body's preparation for action in the presence of
stimulus input which is not readily integrated (cognized) by accessing the
person's existing construct system. (A person's psychological processes are
channelized by the ways in which he/she anticipates -- or fails to anticipate
-- events.)
This proposition must be theoretically deduced. I can't point directly to
the structure that is inherited to allow preparation action to be stimulated by
nonassimilable inputs. If I were to be called on to support this proposition I
would provide a great deal of evidence that, I think, would allow justification
for this proposition.
Having offered these two propositions, I would then point out that I'm not
willing to make the claim that heredity has nothing to do with behavior.
I would now offer two principles which I believe must be taken into account
as one thinks about the connections between inherited structure and behavior
development.
Principal 1. Selected exposure: genetic programming determines that a
particular structure will develop as a part of a person's body. As a result the
person will be exposed to inputs to which a person without those
characteristics would not be exposed. Very broadly, for example, some people,
through genetic determination, develop the body structure that we characterized
as "female." As a result, for example, the female's parents will explain her
display of preparation for action in the face of invalidation as "sadness;"
whereas her brother's display of preparation fraction will be explained as
"anger."
Principal 2. Differential susceptibility: genetic programming determines
that particular structure will develop as a part of the person's body. As a
result, a person with a particular structure will be differentially exposed to
stimuli, particular socially provided stimulation. Continuing with example of
gender associated body structure, boys will develop more body mass, and as a
result (compared to girls) they will be differentially susceptible to being
roughly shoved aside (compared to girls).
Through the interplay of selective exposure and differential susceptibility
boys and girls will develop very different behaviors. It would be very easy to
develop the assumption that these very different behaviors are "inherited."
Certainly, the gender associated behaviors are associated with genetic
factors, but the behaviors themselves are not inherited. (It is tempting of
this point to go into a discussion of how heretibility indices actually factor
in differential susceptibility and selective exposure. Since these indices are
based on correlations, factoring in the results of the functioning of these two
principles inflates the "strength" of these heretibility indices, thus giving
the proponents of arguments for inherited behavior inflated indices of the
effects of genetic involvement.)
Let me venture into talking about sex related behavior, referencing these
propositions and principles.
Observers can easily conclude that " every 'normal' person does it." (Let it
be clear that this conclusion is highly questionable.)
How does one explain the "attractiveness" of sexual contact?
Starting with the newborn infant, who is constantly inundated with stimulation
that cannot be readily integrated by its very primitive personal construct
system: the newborn infant is constantly exposed to stimulation that sets up
preparation for effort. For example, the infant hears a loud noise and is
aroused into effort which facilitates developing constructions useful for
integrating that input. An observer would classify the infant's overt signs of
preparation for efforts by construing it as startle reaction or fear reaction
Most parents are aware that providing the infant with readily integrated
inputs will reduce preparation for effort by diverting the infant's sensory
activity to other sources of input. Close body contact, which provides all
kinds of input that the infant can integrate -- the infant having been exposed
to those inputs for a long time, including during its prenatal period. (Since
the parents' behavior is aimed at providing comfort to the infant, their
behavior can be construed using the social construction love. Thus, we should
see, sexual interaction can com to be construed as a subordinate construction
of love.)
Thus, close body contact becomes a means of diverting a person from
non-integratable stimuli. We can say that such body contact becomes "cover
stimulation."
In addition, humans develop, through genetic transmission, zones of sensory
endings that are responsive to and bolt kinds of inputs -- temperature changes,
tactile contract, sensors responsive to fluids, etc. in that stimulation of
these zones is regularly associated with close body contact, stimulation of
those zones also becomes "cover stimulation."
Not every human is provided with the kind of close body contact that becomes
"cover stimulation" in the presence of the kinds of novel stimulation that
creates preparation for action. Thus, not every human finds that stimulation
of the highly sensitive "erogenous zones" provides the "comforts" of "cover
stimuli."
The larger portion of the human population, however, does learn that
stimulation of the "erogenous zones" can provide "cover stimulation."
Thus, it is easy to conclude that there is direct hereditary control of
specific sexual behaviors. This is particularly so in that structure limits
the kinds of stimulation to which males and females are selectively exposed and
to which males are differentially susceptible (and conversely). For example,
females, because of structure, are differentially susceptible to stimulation
that associated with penetration, whereas males are selectively exposed to the
stimulation that is provided by penetrating. (Note that the social construction
impotence is applied to "failure" to succeed at penetrating. Body functioning
is given the "credit" for this "sexual dysfunction" [Thus, a chemical solution
-- Viagra.] A woman's "failure" to take sexual stimulation as pleasurable
"cover stimulation" evokes the social construction frigidity -- a psychological
process [Thus, "psychotherapeutic" solutions -- including "behavior
modification"].)
. In the end, through this interplay of body contact as "cover stimulation"
that brings about a reduction of exposure to novel stimulation and the
concommitant preparation for effort in the presence of other non-integratible
stimuli, in conjunction with the presence of genetically determined body
structure that is particularly sensitive to body contract, most people develop
a propensity to construe sexual activity as pleasurable.
And, thereupon, the proponents of increasing world populations [bigger
markets] and the people who want to sell hair coloring, hair growing chemicals,
hair deodorizers, scented vaginal flushes, etc., can easily say that they are
appealing to people's "natural" inclinations to find sex pleasurable. Then,
matters become particularly relevant to self role validations when one attempts
to build self role narratives (anticipatory constructions) involving the
superordinate construct weak-powerful as a superordinate to sexually
repugnant-sexually attractive.
All this happens on account of the ways in which we are motivated to develop
an interesting set of socially valid constructions about the stimulations we
need to process!!!!!!
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------0E3CFBBD13F5E1176C8D77D6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Fay Fransella wrote (among other things):
Hello Jim, Devi and others,
I have followed this discussion with mounting interest. I have long
been
intrigued by Kelly's notion that it is the nature of living matter
that it
is in action and therefore we don't need a construct of motivation.
As many
of you will know, that was followed by his notion that there might
be a
different fundamental postulate that read: "It is the nature of life
to be
channelized by the ways events are anticipated" He goes on to say:
"While I
am not prepared to defend this assumption with great skill or the weight
of
much evidence, it does intrigue me and I cannot help but wonder where
we
would be led if we ventured to start from such a premise",
Faye Fransella raises an issue that stimulates me to offer an extended
response. In giving this response, I'm going to attempt to provide
a set of propositions concerning sexual functioning. This might give
others the opportunity to elaborate or to rebut what I'm going to say --
if anyone has the patience to go the full course of the text. (By the way,
dashing off this text is facilitated by the use of Dragon Software's Naturally
Speaking software.)
To begin this discussion I'm going to offer a starting proposition.
Proposition 1. Hereditary determines structure.
This is a rather simple-minded first proposition, but by giving
it I intend also to eliminate consideration of other propositions.
This prompts me to state negative that I believe it is implied by the first
proposition. That is, HEREDITARY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE PRESENCE
OF ANY SINGLE BEHAVIOR.
To take up next the issue which Fay has raised, I would
offer a second proposition that will be woven in and out of my discourse.
Proposition 2. Humans (and other creatures) do inherit
structure that, somehow, stimulates the body's preparation for action in
the presence of stimulus input which is not readily integrated (cognized)
by accessing the person's existing construct system. (A person's psychological
processes are channelized by the ways in which he/she anticipates -- or
fails to anticipate -- events.)
This proposition must be theoretically deduced. I can't
point directly to the structure that is inherited to allow preparation
action to be stimulated by nonassimilable inputs. If I were to be
called on to support this proposition I would provide a great deal of evidence
that, I think, would allow justification for this proposition.
Having offered these two propositions, I would then point out
that I'm not willing to make the claim that heredity has nothing
to do with behavior.
I would now offer two principles which I believe must be taken
into account as one thinks about the connections between inherited structure
and behavior development.
Principal 1. Selected exposure: genetic programming
determines that a particular structure will develop as a part of a person's
body. As a result the person will be exposed to inputs to which a person
without those characteristics would not be exposed. Very broadly, for example,
some people, through genetic determination, develop the body structure
that we characterized as "female." As a result, for example, the female's
parents will explain her display of preparation for action in the face
of invalidation as "sadness;" whereas her brother's display of preparation
fraction will be explained as "anger."
Principal 2. Differential susceptibility: genetic
programming determines that particular structure will develop as a part
of the person's body. As a result, a person with a particular structure
will be differentially exposed to stimuli, particular socially provided
stimulation. Continuing with example of gender associated body structure,
boys will develop more body mass, and as a result (compared to girls) they
will be differentially susceptible to being roughly shoved aside (compared
to girls).
Through the interplay of selective exposure and differential
susceptibility boys and girls will develop very different behaviors.
It would be very easy to develop the assumption that these very different
behaviors are "inherited."
Certainly, the gender associated behaviors are associated with
genetic factors, but the behaviors themselves are not inherited. (It is
tempting of this point to go into a discussion of how heretibility indices
actually factor in differential susceptibility and selective exposure.
Since these indices are based on correlations, factoring in the results
of the functioning of these two principles inflates the "strength" of these
heretibility indices, thus giving the proponents of arguments for inherited
behavior inflated indices of the effects of genetic involvement.)
Let me venture into talking about sex related behavior, referencing
these propositions and principles.
Observers can easily conclude that " every 'normal' person does
it." (Let it be clear that this conclusion is highly questionable.)
How does one explain the "attractiveness" of sexual contact?
Starting with the newborn infant, who is constantly inundated
with stimulation that cannot be readily integrated by its very primitive
personal construct system: the newborn infant is constantly exposed to
stimulation that sets up preparation for effort. For example, the
infant hears a loud noise and is aroused into effort which facilitates
developing constructions useful for integrating that input. An observer
would classify the infant's overt signs of preparation for efforts by construing
it as startle reaction or fear reaction
Most parents are aware that providing the infant with readily
integrated inputs will reduce preparation for effort by diverting the infant's
sensory activity to other sources of input. Close body contact, which provides
all kinds of input that the infant can integrate -- the infant having been
exposed to those inputs for a long time, including during its prenatal
period. (Since the parents' behavior is aimed at providing comfort to the
infant, their behavior can be construed using the social construction love.
Thus, we should see, sexual interaction can com to be construed as a subordinate
construction of love.)
Thus, close body contact becomes a means of diverting a person
from non-integratable stimuli. We can say that such body contact
becomes "cover stimulation."
In addition, humans develop, through genetic transmission, zones
of sensory endings that are responsive to and bolt kinds of inputs -- temperature
changes, tactile contract, sensors responsive to fluids, etc. in that stimulation
of these zones is regularly associated with close body contact, stimulation
of those zones also becomes "cover stimulation."
Not every human is provided with the kind of close body contact
that becomes "cover stimulation" in the presence of the kinds of novel
stimulation that creates preparation for action. Thus, not every
human finds that stimulation of the highly sensitive "erogenous zones"
provides the "comforts" of "cover stimuli."
The larger portion of the human population, however, does learn
that stimulation of the "erogenous zones" can provide "cover stimulation."
Thus, it is easy to conclude that there is direct hereditary
control of specific sexual behaviors. This is particularly so in
that structure limits the kinds of stimulation to which males and females
are selectively exposed and to which males are differentially susceptible
(and conversely). For example, females, because of structure, are differentially
susceptible to stimulation that associated with penetration, whereas males
are selectively exposed to the stimulation that is provided by penetrating.
(Note that the social construction impotence is applied to "failure"
to succeed at penetrating. Body functioning is given the "credit"
for this "sexual dysfunction" [Thus, a chemical solution -- Viagra.] A
woman's "failure" to take sexual stimulation as pleasurable "cover stimulation"
evokes the social construction frigidity -- a psychological process
[Thus, "psychotherapeutic" solutions -- including "behavior modification"].)
. In the end, through this interplay of body contact as "cover
stimulation" that brings about a reduction of exposure to novel stimulation
and the concommitant preparation for effort in the presence of other non-integratible
stimuli, in conjunction with the presence of genetically determined body
structure that is particularly sensitive to body contract, most people
develop a propensity to construe sexual activity as pleasurable.
And, thereupon, the proponents of increasing world populations
[bigger markets] and the people who want to sell hair coloring, hair growing
chemicals, hair deodorizers, scented vaginal flushes, etc., can easily
say that they are appealing to people's "natural" inclinations to find
sex pleasurable. Then, matters become particularly relevant to self role
validations when one attempts to build self role narratives (anticipatory
constructions) involving the superordinate construct weak-powerful
as a superordinate to sexually repugnant-sexually attractive.
All this happens on account of the ways in which we are motivated
to develop an interesting set of socially valid constructions about the
stimulations we need to process!!!!!!
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------0E3CFBBD13F5E1176C8D77D6--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%