If so, isn't it possible that there are wider commonalities that we might share in different types of groups that might be studied? Just curious as to your thoughts.
Hey I told you I'd reply! Yes. Wouldn't it be a shocker, if after seeing humans behaving so similarly for all these centuries (though with unique personalities, and discernable kinds of patterns of behavior) we discovered that many of us behave very differently from what we've ever known? (E.g., perceiving only mechanistically, by the five senses and then immediately applying linguistic logic strings to them, without any other valid aspect of regarding sensory information, or any other valid information than what is sensory.)
Why that sounds like Commander Data doesn't it? Yet many would seem to be telling us that silly computer model is a working model of life. Another expression of man the idol maker.
You find that you can go from one subject to another, sympatico with your husband, because you have grown together, as well as are made similarly, right?
Certainly, the situation you suggest is very common. People who have shared a great many experiences, will first of all have a great many of the same images and similar perceptions from past experiences, that will be reviewed by their minds in determining the simultaneous reactions to which you refer. It is also a likely fact, that many people who marry in the first place, are drawn together, by a tendency to react in similar--or at least compatible ways--to a whole raft of dynamic situations, that arise in the course of everyday living.
If so, isn't it possible that there are wider commonalities that we might share in different types of groups that might be studied? Just curious as to your thoughts.
Sure. Your thoughts are very cogent, and well considered.
However, my point is really not directed to the types of study that you suggest. My only point, here, was the much simpler one, that excessive verbalization stultifies the analytic processes. That while we all must verbalize to explain our conclusions, we analyze better, when we keep the images foremost and the words secondary.
This is absolutely obvious to anyone who really understands the ordinary analytic function that every sentient being--including many of the less sapient beasts as well--continually engage in. That some, here, would deny this, shows how confused by excessive verbalization, many in our society have become. But consider, what happens every single waking hour, of every single day of your life:
What startles you; what you stop to remark upon verbally, is the thing which catches your attention, because it is not completely customary. If the birds wake you in the morning, every morning, you do not comment on the birds waking you every morning. But if one morning there is some sort of unaccustomed noise, you may very well comment upon that. But what incites you to comment on that? Surely it is the unusualness of the sound. Yet that can only be determined by a mental scan of what is usual, what is accustomed.
The brain is constantly scanning all of your data bank of past experiences, to react to every new experience. This involves a scanning of millions of images and perceptions, every second. No body on earth verbalizes at even the tiniest fraction of one percent of that speed. We are not really conscious of this process--only the result, when our brains kick out the message that "here" is something worthy or requiring our conscious notice.
It is very important that Conservatives begin to better understand the importance of images. The Left has been undermining us with image projection, via Hollywood and the TV networks, and the discussion in this thread is important, because the right image is not worth just a thousand words. There are images that you could not adequately describe in words, with all the words that you will ever use in a lifetime.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site