performing
jimmy
morning on the radio. The guy said that in either case most everyone
listening/watching totally gets it & are cheering for you. That
should help put you at ease. It's not you against them; it's you
against you.
Don't know if that's entirely true but if it works for you then why
not use it?
tony
David Raleigh Arnold
Use everything.
What remains the main point in overcoming performance anxieties
it to keep at it until those pesky ductless glands can't keep
up. They eventually get tired. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Music theory should be clues you can use,
not blues you can't lose.
Charmed Snark
I've had some experience in this, and there are similarities.
The one big difference though, is having confidence in your
playing. If you continue to stumble, I find that confidence
erodes rather quickly.
OTOH, you can make a mistake or two speaking, but this doesn't
shake you, since you can recover easily. Speaking is like
riding a bike. You don't hardly think about it.
So you need to get your g. chops to a similar level in
performing contexts, me thinks.
Snark.
Master Betty
"Charmed Snark" <sn...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE47958D7B7CS...@85.214.113.135...
> jimmy expounded in news:n3lki59ki9gmfpolp...@4ax.com:
>
>> I heard a great anaolgy of public speaking & musical performance this
>> morning on the radio. The guy said that in either case most everyone
>> listening/watching totally gets it & are cheering for you. That
>> should help put you at ease. It's not you against them; it's you
>> against you.
>>
>> Don't know if that's entirely true but if it works for you then why
>> not use it?
>>
>> tony
>
> I've had some experience in this, and there are similarities.
>
> The one big difference though, is having confidence in your
> playing. If you continue to stumble, I find that confidence
> erodes rather quickly.
>
> OTOH, you can make a mistake or two speaking, but this doesn't
> shake you, since you can recover easily. Speaking is like
Well...for some maybe:
David Letterman ~ Great Moments in Presidential Speeches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KogebxJkHig&feature=channel
Great editing!
Jim
Lumpy
> What remains the main point in overcoming performance anxieties
> it to keep at it until those pesky ductless glands can't keep
> up. They eventually get tired.
I disagree.
Don't "overcome" the fear factor.
Embrace the fear factor.
Fear (fight or flight) increases your strength,
ability to see and hear, vocal volume, blood
flow to the extremities. All good things to
have happen when you're playing guitar.
Use the adrenaline to your benefit instead of
trying to supress it.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>
>> What remains the main point in overcoming performance anxieties it to
>> keep at it until those pesky ductless glands can't keep up. They
>> eventually get tired.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Don't "overcome" the fear factor.
> Embrace the fear factor.
>
> Fear (fight or flight) increases your strength, ability to see and hear,
> vocal volume, blood flow to the extremities. All good things to have
> happen when you're playing guitar.
>
> Use the adrenaline to your benefit instead of trying to supress it.
I agree, except there never was, never is, and never will be
a fight/flight reaction. The concept is ridiculed in psych 101
today, unless the teacher is really bad and out of touch.
Every monkey who met the panther died, so how could a
fight/flight reaction evolve? It couldn't. Ever.
Of course the adrenaline is a benefit, but it usually must decrease
with experience playing to become a benefit. Then it can actually
decrease to the point where it is no longer present to be a benefit.
You've probably been there too, once or twice. ;-) Regards, daveA
Lumpy
> Every monkey who met the panther died...
Some just got spanked.
Sean
> I agree, except there never was, never is, and never will be
> a fight/flight reaction. The concept is ridiculed in psych 101
> today, unless the teacher is really bad and out of touch.
>
> Every monkey who met the panther died, so how could a
> fight/flight reaction evolve? It couldn't. Ever.
Huh? That doesn't make sense. The ones that fled, or successfully
fought, survived to pass on their genes.
Could you please explain further? For example, could you explain what is
wrong with this explanation?:
http://tinyurl.com/y8wn5a3
Tim C.
<news:xdxWm.1481$eH1....@newsfe16.iad> :
> Every monkey who met the panther died,
Bollocks.
--
Tim C.
Derek
>I agree, except there never was, never is, and never will be
>a fight/flight reaction. The concept is ridiculed in psych 101
>today, unless the teacher is really bad and out of touch.
Really? I have a Master's Degree in Psych, and though not really a
psych concept, I have never heard or read anything that tried to
refute this concept.
Happy to have my mind changed. Got some evidence to support this?
Master Betty
"Derek" <de...@ycoaoffice.com> wrote in message
news:2bfd0f63-5644-497c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Why isn't it a psych concept? Sounds like behavioral science which is
psychology. Isn't it? I thought that's what Pavlov and Skinner did?
I minored in psych. Fascinating subject. Too bad you have to have a
Doctorate to make a decent living.
Where did you go to school? I graduated 93 UNM. Not exactly Harvard. <g>
Jim
jimmy
wrote:
I took psych 101 at Carleton U. years ago. Actually it was psych 201
but that was the entry level. I just needed a credit so I took the
proverbial bird course. WRONG!! It was one of the most demanding
courses I've ever taken. I ended up with a 50 something.
tgif,
tony
Derek
>Why isn't it a psych concept? Sounds like behavioral science which is
>psychology. Isn't it? I thought that's what Pavlov and Skinner did?
Imo, it is more about biological instict based on thousands of years
of survival, rather than behavioral psych, but that is probably just
splitting hairs.
>I minored in psych. Fascinating subject. Too bad you have to have a
>Doctorate to make a decent living.
Yes, though I didn't do too bad with just the Master's and a couple of
licenses in counseling. I applied for doctoral programs, but they had
enough white boys, and wanted more women and minorities at the time.
>Where did you go to school? I graduated 93 UNM. Not exactly Harvard. <g>
Grad degree at Okla City U, post grad studies for licensure at Okla U,
and when I moved to KC, took some classes for licensure here at UMKC.
Charmed Snark
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> Every monkey who met the panther died...
>
> Some just got spanked.
> Lumpy
Those opposable thumbs are just
too sexy for that chimp!
Snark.
Lumpy
> > I minored in psych. Fascinating subject. Too bad you have to have a
> > Doctorate to make a decent living.
>
> Yes, though I didn't do too bad with just the Master's and a couple of
> licenses in counseling. I applied for doctoral programs, but they had
> enough white boys, and wanted more women and minorities at the time.
Medical positions are being filled a lot by sub doctoral
degreed people (Physician Assistants etc.). Are psych
careers doing the same thing?
I had a student with an MS in psych who was
a "School Psychologist" at one of the local
public districts.
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> I agree, except there never was, never is, and never will be a
>> fight/flight reaction. The concept is ridiculed in psych 101 today,
>> unless the teacher is really bad and out of touch.
>>
>> Every monkey who met the panther died, so how could a fight/flight
>> reaction evolve? It couldn't. Ever.
>
> Huh? That doesn't make sense. The ones that fled, or successfully
> fought, survived to pass on their genes.
No, they all died. 100 pct.
>
> Could you please explain further? For example, could you explain what is
> wrong with this explanation?:
The monkeys that survived knew where the panther would be and
took care not to be there. The only decision was "Shall I go
get killed today?". People, like other creatures, are not
very good at decisions. The idea that "psychological conflict"
arises from a decision making process is ludicrous.
Homo sapiens does not mean "wise man" or anything like it. It means
/knowing/ man. It is our knowledge and the capacity to process it which
drove our evolution, not our decisions. Fight/flight reaction is
decision based, and therefore all wrong, reflecting the egotism of the
psychologist, Freud, rather than anything in reality.
Charmed Snark
> Medical positions are being filled a lot by sub doctoral
> degreed people (Physician Assistants etc.). ...
>
> Lumpy
It's those Phrygians again!
Snark.
Derek
>Medical positions are being filled a lot by sub doctoral
>degreed people (Physician Assistants etc.). Are psych
>careers doing the same thing?
Not that I am aware of, no.
>I had a student with an MS in psych who was
>a "School Psychologist" at one of the local
>public districts.
Like Neurosurgeon, School Psychologist is a legal term, and has
specific educational reqs, and other criteria that go along with it.
Master's degree is typical for School Pych.
Here in MO, Psychologist changed about 20 years ago, to be limited to
those with doctoral level educations.
I have a buddy who was able to keep his title of Psychologist with
only a Master's in Clinical Psych, as he was already licensed when the
new requirements came out.
He enjoys the same reimbursement/recognition as someone with a Ph.D.
Lumpy
>
> > Medical positions are being filled a lot by sub doctoral
> > degreed people (Physician Assistants etc.). Are psych
> > careers doing the same thing?
Derek:
> Not that I am aware of, no.
I'll hazard a guess as to why...
In medicine, the degrees go up and the physical
work gets delegated down. Nurses don't make beds
and take vitals and hand out meds any more. There
are nurses aides and nurse assistants that do that.
A few decades ago, RN's delegated to LPN/LVNs. Then
those aide/asst positions were invented and the LPN/LVNs
delegated down to them.
MDs do the same. They do the cerebral work and delegate
PAs, RNs etc to do the physical hands on work with the Pts.
You can go to medical clinics today and they won't have
a nurse or physician on the premises. The MD license is
delegated down from some corporate physician advisor.
Veterinarians are similar but they don't have quite so
many sub-ordinate positions. You're either a vet or
a vet tech or a lay person.
But Psychologists are all about cerebral work. There
isn't really a "hands on" aspect to psychology like
there is to psychiatry or medicine/osteopathy. So the
psych's don't have to hand off the "bed pan, changing
sheets" jobs to anyone. They probably have an administrative
staff but there's really no need/use for any kind of "nurse".
It does seem that all the Marriage/Family Planning practitioners
I hear of are Masters level. Maybe that's not even psych, but
sociology.
RichL
> Lumparama wrote:
>
>> Medical positions are being filled a lot by sub doctoral
>> degreed people (Physician Assistants etc.). Are psych
>> careers doing the same thing?
>
> Not that I am aware of, no.
Here in my neck of the woods, there are an awful lot of people with
bachelors degrees in Social Work practicing as psychologists. A given
office might have *one* psych Ph. D. but the rest of the people you can
make appointments with are social workers. So I see the same thing that
Lumpy sees in medicine.
Rufus
Same here - Masters level social workers, or below - former gang-bangers
as medical technicians and assistants. Biggest diff being whom is
allowed to prescribe drugs and who isn't...
...I've taken a lot of psyche myself, mainly in the vein of learning and
behavior modification, but not aimed to getting a degree - just as
social science. Fascinating stuff, and I'm not sure I'd buy into
refuting fight or flight, myself...or thigmotaxis...
The hardest one for me was a brain/mind/neuro-anatomy/neuro-chemistry
one that I eventually ended up dropping...found out later that if I'd
completed that one, one other, and two labs, I could have been licensed
to administer drugs on psych wards in Illinois.
--
- Rufus
Lumpy
> Same here - Masters level social workers, or below - former
> gang-bangers as medical technicians and assistants. Biggest diff
> being whom is allowed to prescribe drugs and who isn't...
Took my girlfriend to a local walk in med clinic
a couple weeks ago. No nurses, no physicians.
A PA wrote a prescription for Tylenol w/codeine.
Interesting thing was we got into a discussion about
Ny-Quil. She said it contained Benadrine. I said,
"No, Ny-Quil doesn't contain benadrine". She argued
that "Yes it does, it's called Diphamine or somthing
like that". I offered a correction..;-) "The generic
name is diphenhidramine and it's not in Ny-Quil".
She went on insisting that it was, even though she
didn't know the name for one of the most common
drugs in existance.
Call me a geezer but she looked like a college
sophomore.
Rufus
...I've always thought it contained J�germeister...
--
- Rufus
Arlowe
You know that Listerine is just cheap scotch
tafg
>
> Don't know if that's entirely true but if it works for you then why
> not use it?
>
If you're not sure it's entirely true, then you have doubts. If that
doubt is confirmed by just one audience member appearing not to be
pulling for you, the whole thing falls apart, at which point it will
stop working for you.
Being secure in the knowledge that you have the preparation, talent
and right to be where you are, on that stage, speaking, singing,
acting, - whatever, knowing that you belong there; THAT is what will
keep self doubt and stomach butterflies at bay.
Little Charlie
"tafg" <tagmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b33a9bd-c207-49f2...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Bryan
"Tim C." <spam...@tele2.at> wrote in message
news:14pkv2ilurlyr.b38jzs7t1j06$.dlg@40tude.net...
Yeah,it sure smells of excrement to me.....no predator has a 100% kill rate.
Paul L
"Bryan" <bcon...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6xJXm.63757$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Time does.
Paul
Tim C.
<news:hgo3s9$df7$1...@news.eternal-september.org> :
Yep, death and income tax are the only certainties in the world.
--
Tim C.
Charmed Snark
> Took my girlfriend to a local walk in med clinic
> a couple weeks ago. No nurses, no physicians.
> A PA wrote a prescription for Tylenol w/codeine.
>
> Interesting thing was we got into a discussion about
> Ny-Quil. She said it contained Benadrine. ...
>
> Call me a geezer but she looked like a college
> sophomore.
> Lumpy
You should have went to the vet.. at least they
give you a free Denta-bone on the way out.
Snark.
jimmy
<sn...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>jimmy expounded in news:n3lki59ki9gmfpolp...@4ax.com:
>
>> I heard a great anaolgy of public speaking & musical performance this
>> morning on the radio. The guy said that in either case most everyone
>> listening/watching totally gets it & are cheering for you. That
>> should help put you at ease. It's not you against them; it's you
>> against you.
>>
>> Don't know if that's entirely true but if it works for you then why
>> not use it?
>>
>> tony
>
>I've had some experience in this, and there are similarities.
>
>The one big difference though, is having confidence in your
>playing. If you continue to stumble, I find that confidence
>erodes rather quickly.
>
>OTOH, you can make a mistake or two speaking, but this doesn't
>shake you, since you can recover easily. Speaking is like
>riding a bike. You don't hardly think about it.
>
>So you need to get your g. chops to a similar level in
>performing contexts, me thinks.
>
>Snark.
Can't disagree with that. We had our annual xmas party Saturday
night. There were a few decent players there but fairly weak vocals
for the most part. The crowd was enthusiastic but didn't really get
any big reward for listening. I saw an opportunity to haul out the
mando and belted out Copperhead Road. I can do it in my sleep.
Nailed it & the crowd loved it. They finally had a chance to show
that they were indeed rooting for the players. So yeah, it is easy if
you really know the material. Now the bass player, that's another
story. 3 chances to get the change to G & 3 times he went early. Oh
well, I'm pretty sure only the musos knew.
tony
Bryan
"Paul L" <pa...@smamlesskbtrans.net> wrote in message
news:hgo3s9$df7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
True...i stand corrected
Lumpy
> ...The crowd was enthusiastic but didn't really get
> any big reward for listening...
Funny how that concept gets lost on some players.
Or it doesn't get lost at all, but they make
up for it by pretending not to care about
if that crowd gets rewarded at all.
Tim C.
<news:YhQXm.63794$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> :
Mind you, I wouldn't call Time a predator, but rather a scavenger.
--
Tim C.
jimmy
Yeah it is. These were pretty good players but what we really needed
was someone, anyone, to step up to the mic & take over. It was a
really good lesson for all of us.
Lumpy
> ... These were pretty good players but what we really needed
> was someone, anyone, to step up to the mic & take over...
There you go.
We (audiences) WANT the entertainer to "take over".
We want to be entertained. We want the performer
to impress us, humor us, wow us.
One of the things I coach my students NEVER to say
is "How's everybody doing tonight?". We paid, or at
least spent the time and effort, to be here and have
YOU entertain us. We are, in effect, the one's asking
YOU the questions.
I recommend not asking ANY questions. Don't say anything
that requires the audience to answer. Audiences like being
in the passive role. If they wanted to "step up and take over"
they'd be on the stage.
Charmed Snark
> I recommend not asking ANY questions. Don't say anything
> that requires the audience to answer. Audiences like being
> in the passive role. If they wanted to "step up and take over"
> they'd be on the stage.
> Lumpy
I like that thinking. It avoids those 'pin drop moments'.
And honestly, unless you're famous with fans, who's
going to answer?
Snark
tafg
>
> I recommend not asking ANY questions. Don't say anything
> that requires the audience to answer.>
Yeah, that's probably good advice. But when you notice a table where
all the guys have beers except one guy who's got a pink drink with an
umbrella in it, questions do come to mind.
Sean
So, you'd ask for his phone number?
Alan Meyer
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:12:18 +0000, Sean wrote:
>
>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>> I agree, except there never was, never is, and never will be
>>> a fight/flight reaction. The concept is ridiculed in psych
>>> 101 today, unless the teacher is really bad and out of touch.
>>>
>>> Every monkey who met the panther died, so how could a
>>> fight/flight reaction evolve? It couldn't. Ever.
>> Huh? That doesn't make sense. The ones that fled, or
>> successfully fought, survived to pass on their genes.
>
> No, they all died. 100 pct.
That's a remarkable statement! 100 pct.! The certainty of it
blows me away, especially given that we might guess that 99.9+%
of monkey/panther interactions have never been observed by
humans, and no doubt 99.9999% of such interactions were never
observed by the psychologist who made the statement, or were even
reported to him.
One can only assume he knows, _a priori_ by secret intuition or
divine inspiration, that it must be true.
The only problem is that it's so obviously false. Here are
scenarios where the monkey gets away:
1. There are multiple monkeys in the path of the panther. The
ones with the best flight response (presumably fighting is a
losing proposition) get away while the one who is slow on the
uptake is caught and eaten. I'm no expert, but I think cats
don't go around killing extra prey in addition to the ones
they can eat.
1.b. Other prey are around - same scenario. The alert and
motivated monkey gets away while the now extinct animal didn't
get excited enough to get away.
2. The interaction is in a forest. The alert monkey quickly
climbs a tree. If the panther follows, he climbs to a slim
branch that won't hold the panther, or leaps to the next
tree, and pelts the panther with feces while screaming and
waving his arms.
And of course don't forget that there are other predators and
competitors besides panthers for whom fight or flight applies.
Some of the other animals (such as another monkey after the first
monkey's food or mate) might well be faced down by a monkey with
some adrenaline coursing through his veins.
>> Could you please explain further? For example, could you
>> explain what is wrong with this explanation?:
>
> The monkeys that survived knew where the panther would be and
> took care not to be there. The only decision was "Shall I go
> get killed today?". People, like other creatures, are not very
> good at decisions. The idea that "psychological conflict"
> arises from a decision making process is ludicrous.
>
> Homo sapiens does not mean "wise man" or anything like it. It
> means /knowing/ man. It is our knowledge and the capacity to
> process it which drove our evolution, not our decisions.
> Fight/flight reaction is decision based, and therefore all
> wrong, reflecting the egotism of the psychologist, Freud,
> rather than anything in reality. Regards, daveA
Sounds like more divine inspiration to me Dave. If you want
anyone to believe this you're going to need evidence and
arguments, not flat statements about what does and doesn't happen
with no reference to reality.
According to Darwin and most subsequent evolutionary theory, the
greatest competitor for survival for any animal is another animal
of the same species. In any troop of monkeys, I would think that
the ones who are best at fight or flight, as well as the ones who
are smartest, survive. Among the best fight/flight individuals,
the smart ones do best. Among the smart ones, the best
fight/flight ones to best.
Alan
David Raleigh Arnold
The ones who survive are smart enough to not get themselves into a
hopeless situation, and that goes for all creatures.
Among the best fight/flight individuals, the smart ones do
> best. Among the smart ones, the best fight/flight ones to best.
>
> Alan
The monkey and panther is a well known analogy purporting to illustrate
the rather stupid idea of a fight-flight reaction. It's just an
analogy. No proof or research was offered by Dr. Freud. I represented it
fairly. You did not.
The crucial point is that survival is more dependent on knowledge
than decision making. For example, it doesn't matter much whether
you decide to walk to the store or not, but if you don't know that
there are vehicles going up and down the street at a high rate of
speed your chances of survival are greatly reduced.
The fact that Freud conceived such an inanity illuminates
the unbridled egotism of Freud, that's all. daveA
RichL
Sorry, I don't buy it. How does an animal, regardless of intelligence,
know which situations are "hopeless" without prior experience?
David Raleigh Arnold
That is why knowledge is craved so much by all creatures in their
development. A predator does not decide that he needs to range, to
learn his environment, he already knows that. That is not relevant to
the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict" somehow arises in a
decision-making process when meeting danger. Regards, daveA
Lumpy
> ...That is not relevant to
> the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict"
> somehow arises in a
> decision-making process when meeting danger.
Hardly a "psychological conflict".
Even the lowliest of planaria and ameoba
move away from "danger". If they can't,
they fight.
Shampoo a cat some time.
Sean
And how can you be sure you won't run into a panther when you least
expect it. Happens all the time. You run away from that place and maybe
avoid it later, but the first meeting? Flight.
I've seen film of baboons aggressively driving off a leopard. Being
smart enough to not go where the leopard is wasn't in the cards. The
leopard, as is its wont, came to them.
Sean
You're the one who's stuck on Freud. Leave that pencil-necked geek out
of the argument. He seems to be a strawman in this argument.
Lumpy
> And how can you be sure you won't run into a panther when you least
I prefer cougars.
Sean
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> ...That is not relevant to
>> the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict"
>> somehow arises in a
>> decision-making process when meeting danger.
>
> Hardly a "psychological conflict".
> Even the lowliest of planaria and ameoba
> move away from "danger". If they can't,
> they fight.
>
> Shampoo a cat some time.
As a sapiens, I would never even consider doing that.
tafg
If that'll get a laugh from the crowd, sure.
Sean
> Sean wrote:
>> And how can you be sure you won't run into a panther when you least
>> expect it. Happens all the time...
>
> I prefer cougars.
Do they still count as cougars when they're younger than you?
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> ...That is not relevant to
>> the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict" somehow arises in a
>> decision-making process when meeting danger.
>
> Hardly a "psychological conflict".
> Even the lowliest of planaria and ameoba move away from "danger". If
> they can't, they fight.
True. But it is much better to avoid danger if you can, and those
who do are the ones who survive. Regards, daveA
Lumpy
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > > ...That is not relevant to
> > > the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict" somehow arises
> > > in a decision-making process when meeting danger.
Lump:
> > Hardly a "psychological conflict".
> > Even the lowliest of planaria and ameoba move away from "danger". If
> > they can't, they fight.
Sigmund DRA
> True. But it is much better to avoid danger if you can, and those
> who do are the ones who survive.
Suggesting that beings make some kind of conscious choice
to avoid danger? That sounds like a psychological conflict.
Poke him in the face with a stick, he runs away.
Poke him in the face while he's in a box, he fights.
Pseudopods to Primates. They all do it. Pure physical.
Perhaps with the exceptions of classical guitarists
and intellectual jazzers. They have to hypothesize
and discuss it first.
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> > > ...That is not relevant to
>> > > the idiotic notion that "psychological conflict" somehow arises in
>> > > a decision-making process when meeting danger.
>
> Lump:
>> > Hardly a "psychological conflict".
>> > Even the lowliest of planaria and ameoba move away from "danger". If
>> > they can't, they fight.
>
> Sigmund DRA
>> True. But it is much better to avoid danger if you can, and those who
>> do are the ones who survive.
>
> Suggesting that beings make some kind of conscious choice to avoid
> danger? That sounds like a psychological conflict. Poke him in the face
> with a stick, he runs away. Poke him in the face while he's in a box, he
> fights. Pseudopods to Primates. They all do it. Pure physical.
IOW decisions are less significant than knowledge. Precisely
my point.
>
> Perhaps with the exceptions of classical guitarists and intellectual
> jazzers. They have to hypothesize and discuss it first.
But that is exactly what Freud said happens. Ridiculous.
johnty
>
> The monkey and panther is a well known analogy purporting to illustrate
> the rather stupid idea of a fight-flight reaction. It's just an
> analogy. No proof or research was offered by Dr. Freud. I represented it
> fairly.
How does claiming a 100 percent outcome (without supporting evidence)
constitute fair representation?
David Raleigh Arnold
It's not *my* analogy. He "claimed" that fight or flight happened.
ridiculous. daveA
johnty
>
> > How does claiming a 100 percent outcome (without supporting evidence)
> > constitute fair representation?
>
> It's not *my* analogy. He "claimed" that fight or flight happened.
> ridiculous. daveA
>
But without the supporting evidence isn't your shout of "ridiculous"
merely a counter-claim, rather than a refutation?
David Raleigh Arnold
Survival, even for the strongest predators, consists in avoiding
fight/flight situations. Therefore, the fight/flight reaction,
based on "psychological conflict" and decision making, never arose, does
not exist, and will never exist. Give it up. daveA
johnty
>
> Survival, even for the strongest predators, consists in avoiding
> fight/flight situations. Therefore, the fight/flight reaction,
> based on "psychological conflict" and decision making, never arose, does
> not exist, and will never exist. Give it up.
Emphatically stating it to be so is your only offer of evidence?
David Raleigh Arnold
No evidence was offered by Freud. There is nothing to refute.