4 ms·
Someone took the article personally.
by hodwik 11y ago
Someone took the article personally.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- arpa 11y agoI like my personal space, and, well, since the article violated my perceived personal belief space, of course, flight-or-fight response was triggered; you can see the outcome pretty clear I suppose. It was not "fear".
- shockzzz 11y agoThe article only talks about physical space
- arpa 11y agoRight you are! But think about it - we have personal space in our minds as well. It's where beliefs are stored. Now we don't want them to get hurt, so we protect them. This is not that different from physical personal space.
- shockzzz 11y agoI mean. If you can't substantiate that claim with anything more than "think about it," I'm not sure how to answer. I get that "space spaces" and "personal space" both have the word "space" in it. But if we're discussing scientific studies, it's not constructive to compare the two. Unless you have something really substantial (and accurate) that adds to the conversation, I think it's time better spent to discuss the article at hand. I personally think it's a fascinating insight into how humans interpret physical space and the implications in social situations.
- arpa 11y agoWell okay, you got me and my unscientific reasoning. I mean, it's not like the perception of personal space is in the head or something; it's clearly physical. Okay, we got off the wrong foot here. I am an angry and unpleasant person. Please, let's not antagonize eatch other.
- gdy 11y agoWhat is wrong with that?
- jerf 11y agoThe article happens to pattern match a current politically-charged argument in which opposition to some particular position is labeled as coming from fear, which is labeled a -phobia, which is therefore labeled as being irrational and whoever has it is mentally ill. Unsurprisingly, people rarely respond to this by saying "Oh, yes, you are correct, you have cogently shown me I am mentally ill, thank you so much for pointing this out!" and instead develop a rather hostile response to anything that even smells like the argument. I actually somewhat carefully read the article to see if it ever suggested that fear in response to personal space violation was bad, and I don't think it did. I do think that it poorly supported its case, as a couple of other people are arguing, because just because certain activations look the same doesn't mean they are the same, but it never claimed this was a bad response. Personally, based on how it feels from the inside, I can well believe that personal space is related to fear, and may activate some of the same circuits as fear, but that it "is" a fear is going beyond the evidence. Especially given the overloading of the word "fear". I am "afraid" of touching a hot oven, but I'm not running around in constant fear. It's a perfectly rational, controlled, situational "fear", not "a fear". Personal space violations strike me as rather more like the rational, controlled, situational case even if we are going to call that a "fear" response, which is perfectly fine scientifically, but serializes into conventional English poorly.
- Jtsummers 11y agoFor me, I was reading "fear response" as physiological. A ball comes flying towards my face, my body releases adrenaline, my heart rate spikes, I tense or flinch. In that case I also experience the emotion of fear. But sometimes the emotion is absent, see generalized anxiety disorder. I wasn't afraid, but if you observed my heart rate, breathing, blood pressure two summers ago you would've thought I was having a constant panic attack. I wasn't experiencing any fear (emotion), if anything it was confusion (I'd not experienced anxiety on that level in years so I wasn't prepared for it again).
- arpa 11y agoA well-written, thought out response. Thanks!
- mcguire 11y agoThis seems to be a spectacular Rorschach test.
- arpa 11y agoIsn't almost anything that is open to interpretation a Rorschach test then?
- DominikR 11y agoActually it looks to me as if you are the one that took the parents response personally. The parent gave a few arguments why he/she dislikes the article (if they are valid or not is another question), that's something you did not do. Neither did you engage in any follow up comments to yours.
- hodwik 11y agoParent used language highly associated with taking something very personally: -"Wait, how exactly is [...]?" as if indignant. - Scare quotes, as in "personal space" -The "First, [...]. Secondly, [...]." dialectical pattern, suggesting someone feeling attacked on multiple fronts. - "drop the pretense", suggesting said author was ostentatiously holding up a lie. - "fear is bad, mkay", characterizing the author as a South Park hick. - "[...] work just fine, thank you.", subtextually suggesting the person had crossed a boundary of decorum. - "Oh, and, edit, just because", which is a common semantic pattern of emotional self-defense, e.g. "And another thing!" - "Please, age of phrenology is over.", a red herring, attempting to undermine a theory by associating it with a formally disproved theory. - "God. Damn. It.", resorting to frustrated cursing post-rant, suggesting the person has more feelings they'd like to elate. Generally, when someone responds with language of that sort it suggests the idea struck a chord. My interest in the parent's comment was purely jocose.
- tbrownaw 11y agoI disagree with many of your characterizations here. ...are you sure you're not reading way too much into it because you feel attacked? :)