I don't accept the conventional moralizing perspective that everybody must keep up awareness about everything that is going on around them, or else they are a narcissist who thinks only of themselves. We are all selective perceivers, but we get the impression that we are universalists when those around us are thinking the same as us. In fact, there are many differentials in upbringing and historical conditions, which may make some people more aware of specific aspects of their environments than others would be.
Indeed, neurologists hold that brain nerve cells create pathways or die off in the first few years of life in response to the environment. Note that this neurological model goes way beyond psychoanalysis, in that human adaptation is seen not just as a response to parenting, but to the components of the larger environment. That is, adaptation is not just brought about due to familial relations, or even in response to social forces. Adaptation would necessarily be inclusive of the geographical, political and economic terrain that a child grows up within.
It seems likely that even in the very early stages of life, the child forms cognitive pathways that recognize and affirm many of the specific local features. To learn to recognize certain environmental features as salient and important for one's well being is to learn to de-emphasize others or let their significance fade into the background.
This explains why people who have spent the most significant, formative years of their life in a particular type of environment may not pick up cues pertinent to another sort of environment. It has nothing to do with the direction in which one focuses one's attention, but has to do with what they are conditioned to see within the environment. What one person sees as significant features may not be evident to another person, who has been brought up in quite different circumstances.
There may be no point in making a song and dance about others not seeing what you see. If the neurological pathways are there from an early age, they will see those things, but otherwise their understanding will differ from yours.
It may be that there are certain forms of cultural logic that are so self-evident to someone brought up within a particular culture that they can't imagine every having to explain them. These seem to be common sense. At the same time, there will still be people who cannot see clearly what to others is simply obvious and automatically comprehensible.
The idea that people may be willfully not seeing what you see, or that there's something necessarily wrong with those who see many things differently, is dogmatic and self-limiting.
It is better to be open to learn from someone else than to gain an temporary buzz of enjoyment by pointing out that someone else perceives aspects of experience wrongly.
Indeed, neurologists hold that brain nerve cells create pathways or die off in the first few years of life in response to the environment. Note that this neurological model goes way beyond psychoanalysis, in that human adaptation is seen not just as a response to parenting, but to the components of the larger environment. That is, adaptation is not just brought about due to familial relations, or even in response to social forces. Adaptation would necessarily be inclusive of the geographical, political and economic terrain that a child grows up within.
It seems likely that even in the very early stages of life, the child forms cognitive pathways that recognize and affirm many of the specific local features. To learn to recognize certain environmental features as salient and important for one's well being is to learn to de-emphasize others or let their significance fade into the background.
This explains why people who have spent the most significant, formative years of their life in a particular type of environment may not pick up cues pertinent to another sort of environment. It has nothing to do with the direction in which one focuses one's attention, but has to do with what they are conditioned to see within the environment. What one person sees as significant features may not be evident to another person, who has been brought up in quite different circumstances.
There may be no point in making a song and dance about others not seeing what you see. If the neurological pathways are there from an early age, they will see those things, but otherwise their understanding will differ from yours.
It may be that there are certain forms of cultural logic that are so self-evident to someone brought up within a particular culture that they can't imagine every having to explain them. These seem to be common sense. At the same time, there will still be people who cannot see clearly what to others is simply obvious and automatically comprehensible.
The idea that people may be willfully not seeing what you see, or that there's something necessarily wrong with those who see many things differently, is dogmatic and self-limiting.
It is better to be open to learn from someone else than to gain an temporary buzz of enjoyment by pointing out that someone else perceives aspects of experience wrongly.
No comments:
Post a Comment