A therapist might frame it just slightly to the left of that, and say that this is a kind of psychological identification. When you identify with something so strongly that you can’t separate your true self from the “ideology” — and it makes your choices for you.
Timely and fun read, because I have been gradually disengaging from ideological attachment for some time, and I kinda like the word ideology. I think people can understand that word a little better than identification.
Also, what do you mean by "ideology"? It's usually used as a pejorative designation of political thinking we don't agree with, based on the unstated assumption that our own political views are true.
As I evolved away from a belief in the supernatural, it triggered a chain reaction of loss in identity. It was very upsetting and truly my world view seemed to collapse. I longed for connection which I felt as a member of a family and faith community with shared beliefs and commitments to the well-being of each other, and humankind. Being a good corporate citizen and being paid a lot of money, was not nearly enough. I definitely felt the urge to find other human groups to be a part of. As we become more secular (the world over) I think this will be a primary source of disruption and dysfunctional behavior- such as what is currently happening in the US and other western democracies. There is no "true self" but the constantly evolving self which evolves over our lifetime, by interacting with others. Alone, we are nobody, because we interact with no one- except whatever "others" we carry in our mind.
Regarding your question "What is intimacy to me," it's more than physical. It's feeling seen and understood, it's feeling you can share your thoughts and feelings without filter, knowing the other loves, likes, and supports you.
On July 9, 2025 Prof. Jonny Thomson in his article "The 4 psychological markers of ideological extremism", wrote:
"as Zmigrod puts it, “the brain differs in function and structure depending on whether you believe a fundamentalist ideology or a more moderate one.”
I think this citation contents the wrong chain of cause and effect. Correct causation chain looks like that:
"The differences in brain structure predispose someone to believe a fundamental ideology or a more moderate one." The internal factors only predispose. The brain structure is " necessary but not sufficient condition", as they put it in math.
It is obviously to everyone that human brain does not change it's structure because of the changes in it's owner's thoughts.The structural peculiarities of one's brain are given to the person due to genetics and could not be changed voluntary, just by free will, or by the power of thought. Accordingly, the saucepan does not change it's shape if you'll decide to stop be vegan, and, instead of vegetables, will boil beef or poultry in it.
There is no doubt, you can make changes in someone's brain structure by surgery. You can deform the saucepan using different tools. But these measures are not look like voluntary. They are extreme and forced.
By the structure of our brains we are only predisposed to be extroverts or introverts, right, left or centrist thinkers,followers of this or that ideology. What ideology each of us really develops or accepts depends greatly on the great variety of external factors: social environment, grade of wealth, educational level,age, level of social healthcare around, personal health,climate in region we were born and are living in now, pandemia factors, national customs,habits and traditions etc.
Because I grew up in a cultural that believes life for humans (I choose to include animals) does not end with physical death, I embrace the conviction that life here is but one part of being. I cannot provide scientific verification but in almost everything else I embrace scientific conclusions. I get vaccinations, am careful with nutrition, cultivate friendships, exercise and actually work toward awareness of self in the service of improving sleep, attitudes, chipping away at mistaken beliefs like it is wrong to get pregnant in certain situations. PLEASE. I had a lot of maturing to do. At 82 I am getting there but it is slow going.
I grew up in a Christian household where my dad believed that the Bible was the literal & perfect word of God- and would keep a log of people who wronged him, and the bad things that happened to them "because God punishes those who hurt his children" and had beliefs like, women who got breast cancer all had abortions (and it was their punishment for it). I barely want to speak with him anymore, because the Bible is always in the way of real discussions.
My now-ex partner was a Bernie-bro with me before the 2020 election, but after Covid went far-right. It became hard introducing him to people because after I'd ask "so what do you think of so-and-so?" and he'd respond that they're nice but brainwashed normies.
With both, I feel like they'll hear me out but "they're always right" and not open to moving their beliefs, only moving others. Sigh.
Now I'm happily single and also almost no-contact with my dad and my mental health is much better!
In the first place, who decides what an "extremist" is? One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. From the viewpoint of the British government in the late 1770s, American colonists fighting for independence were (what we would now call) extremist terrorists. An "extremist" is someone with a view far removed from my own that I regard as unacceptable, but the same also applies the other way round. Extremists don't consider their views to be extreme - in fact, they think of them as entirely reasonable, not to mention true.
Secondly, doesn't this kind of view enshrine our comfortable middle-of-the-road views as the norm against which all other views are to be judged? Is that a justifiable position?
Lastly, and most seriously (although this relates more to your other article about Zmigrod's views), I think it's extremely dangerous to start characterising views from parts of the political spectrum that we don't agree with as due to some kind of brain malformation or malfunction. It's a short road from that to considering (as the Soviets did) dissenting political views as defective or aberrant, and those who express them as ill and in need of some kind of "cure".
I suspect that Leor Zmigrod would refer to both freedom fighters and terrorists as extremists because they are at the far end of a political spectrum and were willing to hurt themselves or others based on their ideologies.
It does seem to enshrine middle of the road views as less extreme, but when I read the other article and one of her research papers it strikes me that what she is talking about might best be described as people who take a whole set of beliefs (a complete ideology) and substitute belief in that ideology for actually thinking critically about each belief in isolation. That goes along with the rigidity of thinking, black and white thought process, alleviation of fear of the unknown, etc.
Thus differentiating the person who blindly believes everything their church for example says vs. someone who claims the same religion but doesn't agree with certain aspects of it and analyzes each new claim for themselves.
It was not possible to show up dissending political views in USSR. If you alive, you were communist. If you are not,then you were not defective or aberrant, then you
were dead. It happens so because Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was diagnosed with severe paranoia . He shot three professors who dare to show him their reports on his state of health. He shot his wife who dare to criticize him.He claimed them the liars and the people's enemies. He consider himself to be healthy. He refused any cure.Later, as his disease progressed,he developed the suspiciousness of high degree(mania of being threatened). It seemed to him everybody is against him ,and many people,devoted communists and gifted persons, were killed in jails and concentration camps during the period he was in power. Surprisingly, he made no physical harm to Elena Dmitrievna Stasova when she dare to criticize his terror. Together with V.I. Lenin and N.K. Krupskaya, Elena was in the core of bolshevik's party, and the first love of Lenin. In his young age Lenin proposed her but she refused to become his wife. She was the friend of female bolsheviks Alexandra Collontai and Maria Essen. She lived long life (93 years) ,was engaged in international politics and cultural activities in USSR and abroad. She died in 1966.
We should study the brain to develop effective methods to cure mental illness .
There is the difference between the reasons for extreme thinking and the reasons for extreme behavior.
To clarify the statement ,let us commit seven thought experiments.
* Imagine Albert Einstein in the coal mine unable to rise the hammer. Watch him called
"worth for nothing" worker and being kicked by the master and laught at by other workers.
*Imagine the schoolteacher reading the life story of Philo Taylor Farnsworth, "The father of television", in the kid's magazine "Young Farmer".
*Imagine the schoolgirl who wants to charge her i-phone. She put her i-phone on the floor in the high school corridor during the break, just because the only in service outlet is low on the wall.
*Imagine Mr X who spits on his roommate boot, not in the napkin.
*Imagine Mr Y put the used napkin in his girlfriend pocket, not in the dustbin.
*Imagine the killer who forgot his revolver on the kid's playground,and returned back just to take his item back. What will he see there?
* Imagine: the manager approved the sadist Mr.Z for dentist position in his clinic. They shook hands. "See you tomorrow!" Will they shake hands tomorrow?
Now imagine possible consequences. Write them in your notebook.
After imaginary session will be over, you will get the list of stories about people showing the extreme harmful behavior.But there was no their fault.They behaved so not because THEY were predisposed for extreme thinking.They were simply FORCED to behave in such a way.
They behaved in extreme way because SOMEBODY , predisposed for extreme thinking, deliberately or occasionally, put things/people on the wrong places.
The reasons for extreme thinking may be classified as 1) occasional: ignorance, the lack of responsibility, disability, and 2) deliberate: provocative goals,anxiety,envy,anger,enmity and other bad emotions;sadism.
“The first is how extreme views can often lead to extreme and harmful behaviors. As Zmigrod told me, “one of the hallmarks of thinking ideologically is when you start to see someone as the other. And that's a terrible recipe to dehumanize each other and ultimately then to commit acts of violence against each other and even against yourself.”
This paragraph is so juvenile and one-sided only because they think that extremism hurts others.
Jains are so extreme in their ideology of JeevDaya that they literally walk naked looking down & mouth covered so as not to hurt an ant or a microbe. In their quest to follow Jainism extremely they don't hurt anyone but themselves.
Extremism is not bad the idea for which you adopt the extreme attitude is bad like communism, Islam, wokism, and liberalism.
Western civilization and its ideas are practical only they are not good at philosophy also they operate in a period/region that's starts from Greeks and west they do not go back further or recognize the contribution of the East.
Elena, You say "It is obviously to everyone that human brain does not change it's structure because of the changes in it's owner's thoughts." But that isn't quite accurate. Our brains do adapt to our thought patterns. Pathways we use frequently get built up and become easier to activate. Obviously there are large scale structures that are consistent but the brain function does change some with experience and particular uses. Practicing something can definitely lead to more neural pathways and activity in a certain part of the brain over time. So I think it depends on exactly what 'differences in brain function' are being described by the author.
I suspect extremist ideology is in some ways similar to being skilled at math. Some people are predisposed so when they are exposed to math ideas they quickly develop skill for it. But almost everyone can develop a fairly high level of skill with enough practice/exposure. And equally someone predisposed to be good at math can never get good at math, if they don't study it at all and instead focus on other things.
So the predisposition toward extremism might not be a strictly necessary condition depending upon environment. Nor does a predisposition definitely mean you will develop extremist ideology depending upon environment. But it does increase the chances of someone developing extremist ideology given similar environments.
I am speaking about structure of the brain ,not the functions.
Brain is material object with definite structure,the part of human body.
Thought is ideal. It may be imposed to the person from outside as well as developed himself.
But we can not develop the new tooth ourselves to replace the extracted one just with the power of the thought. We can not develop the third leg or the third ear, the second heart or liver. We have two kidneys in our body. If somebody would start thinking about kidneys he cannot develop the third one. Because the ideal thought cannot change the structure(composition) of material body(human organism).
I am not sure about functions. May be. But not necessarily.
Once I witnessed how Mr.X with bachelor's degree in molecular biology, could not understand the difference between 1/4 and 3/4. Being asked to pour the 3/4 glass of water,he confused it with 1/4 and put the tiny quantity of liquid on the bottom.His brain could not operate fractional numbers. If only he would be told not to pour the glass up to the rim, he would fulfill the task without any confuse. He could not be trained in math because he was not predisposed to abstract thinking,but he was good in biology.
I would completely agree that we cannot just do some mental exercises and grow an extra gram of brain in a particular region or anything like that. Sorry for my misunderstanding of your post.
Well you referenced just thinking about growing an organ. So thinking about growing some more brian. I was referring to an exercise like doing a bunch of math, doesn't grow more grey matter in the math region of the brain.
No I referenced not about growing an organ but about the possibility to change the structure of human organism or its composition by growing extra but not useful parts with the power of thought.
Organism consists of organs. Wall consists of bricks. Substance consists of atoms and molecules,and its particular disposition
forms the structure lattice or structural chains of the substance,both inorganic and organic. Under the term STRUCTURE I understood the particular quantity and disposition of different elements (parts,organs) of the whole.There are such pair of categories in philosophy: the parts and the whole. Parts compose the whole. But the whole is not just the sum of the parts.When parts composes the whole,the new quality appears.
Organs are the parts of organism and their disposition composes its structure. Only if we will change the structure of the whole(that is if we will change the quantity or quality of it's parts), we will get new quality of the whole. Exercises could help to produce new neurons. But it is also possible to change the structure of the brain by surgery. Such method is extreme.
Why are you so hard in terms?
Listen to the story:
Nobody can refer the Tully the Monster of Illinois to this or that biological group since 1966. In 2023 paleontologists investigated the structure of his eye and made the conclusion it is vertebral creature. For the first glance,it seems such conclusion demonstrate extreme way of thinking, but don't be in a hurry. You should be the specialist in the area to make sharp conclusions or criticize the statements in branches of science you are strange to.
Nice to have a talk with such highly educated person as you.
When you say .......we chose who we want to be ...... that's a whole new arena, how free are we to able to chose who we want to be? we are so conditioned , surrounded by other people 's perspective, their own views , upbringing, how we were treated, our geographical location, climate, etc so much influence, do we really freely choose who we want to be ?
I think this phrase is loaded, maybe you could address this one week, if you haven't. already done so?
Really we can not choose who we want to be because we are conditioned by physical abilities of our body.For example broken leg prevent us from dancing on the stage.
Highly emotional person cold not drive safely and prefer to hire personal driver.
On the other hand he is good in creative activities(e.g. in poetry) where emotions play the important role. Engineer should be able to concentrate and be accurate with numbers.Emotional person hardly would become good engineer. Medical doctors must be predisposed for compassion.People with great physical power and strong healthy bodies could become sportsmen. Certainly everybody could be trained but without particular success. Person on the wrong place will provide more troubles then benefits for himself and others, and will end in extreme harmful behavior.
We should choose not who we want to be, but who we are able to be in the certain set of conditions.
A therapist might frame it just slightly to the left of that, and say that this is a kind of psychological identification. When you identify with something so strongly that you can’t separate your true self from the “ideology” — and it makes your choices for you.
Timely and fun read, because I have been gradually disengaging from ideological attachment for some time, and I kinda like the word ideology. I think people can understand that word a little better than identification.
What does "your true self" mean?
That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it?
Also, what do you mean by "ideology"? It's usually used as a pejorative designation of political thinking we don't agree with, based on the unstated assumption that our own political views are true.
As I evolved away from a belief in the supernatural, it triggered a chain reaction of loss in identity. It was very upsetting and truly my world view seemed to collapse. I longed for connection which I felt as a member of a family and faith community with shared beliefs and commitments to the well-being of each other, and humankind. Being a good corporate citizen and being paid a lot of money, was not nearly enough. I definitely felt the urge to find other human groups to be a part of. As we become more secular (the world over) I think this will be a primary source of disruption and dysfunctional behavior- such as what is currently happening in the US and other western democracies. There is no "true self" but the constantly evolving self which evolves over our lifetime, by interacting with others. Alone, we are nobody, because we interact with no one- except whatever "others" we carry in our mind.
Agreed, although referring to different or dissenting views as "dysfunctional" is worrying.
Regarding your question "What is intimacy to me," it's more than physical. It's feeling seen and understood, it's feeling you can share your thoughts and feelings without filter, knowing the other loves, likes, and supports you.
On July 9, 2025 Prof. Jonny Thomson in his article "The 4 psychological markers of ideological extremism", wrote:
"as Zmigrod puts it, “the brain differs in function and structure depending on whether you believe a fundamentalist ideology or a more moderate one.”
I think this citation contents the wrong chain of cause and effect. Correct causation chain looks like that:
"The differences in brain structure predispose someone to believe a fundamental ideology or a more moderate one." The internal factors only predispose. The brain structure is " necessary but not sufficient condition", as they put it in math.
It is obviously to everyone that human brain does not change it's structure because of the changes in it's owner's thoughts.The structural peculiarities of one's brain are given to the person due to genetics and could not be changed voluntary, just by free will, or by the power of thought. Accordingly, the saucepan does not change it's shape if you'll decide to stop be vegan, and, instead of vegetables, will boil beef or poultry in it.
There is no doubt, you can make changes in someone's brain structure by surgery. You can deform the saucepan using different tools. But these measures are not look like voluntary. They are extreme and forced.
By the structure of our brains we are only predisposed to be extroverts or introverts, right, left or centrist thinkers,followers of this or that ideology. What ideology each of us really develops or accepts depends greatly on the great variety of external factors: social environment, grade of wealth, educational level,age, level of social healthcare around, personal health,climate in region we were born and are living in now, pandemia factors, national customs,habits and traditions etc.
Human beings are bio-social-cultural creatures.
Because I grew up in a cultural that believes life for humans (I choose to include animals) does not end with physical death, I embrace the conviction that life here is but one part of being. I cannot provide scientific verification but in almost everything else I embrace scientific conclusions. I get vaccinations, am careful with nutrition, cultivate friendships, exercise and actually work toward awareness of self in the service of improving sleep, attitudes, chipping away at mistaken beliefs like it is wrong to get pregnant in certain situations. PLEASE. I had a lot of maturing to do. At 82 I am getting there but it is slow going.
I grew up in a Christian household where my dad believed that the Bible was the literal & perfect word of God- and would keep a log of people who wronged him, and the bad things that happened to them "because God punishes those who hurt his children" and had beliefs like, women who got breast cancer all had abortions (and it was their punishment for it). I barely want to speak with him anymore, because the Bible is always in the way of real discussions.
My now-ex partner was a Bernie-bro with me before the 2020 election, but after Covid went far-right. It became hard introducing him to people because after I'd ask "so what do you think of so-and-so?" and he'd respond that they're nice but brainwashed normies.
With both, I feel like they'll hear me out but "they're always right" and not open to moving their beliefs, only moving others. Sigh.
Now I'm happily single and also almost no-contact with my dad and my mental health is much better!
I have some problems with this.
In the first place, who decides what an "extremist" is? One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. From the viewpoint of the British government in the late 1770s, American colonists fighting for independence were (what we would now call) extremist terrorists. An "extremist" is someone with a view far removed from my own that I regard as unacceptable, but the same also applies the other way round. Extremists don't consider their views to be extreme - in fact, they think of them as entirely reasonable, not to mention true.
Secondly, doesn't this kind of view enshrine our comfortable middle-of-the-road views as the norm against which all other views are to be judged? Is that a justifiable position?
Lastly, and most seriously (although this relates more to your other article about Zmigrod's views), I think it's extremely dangerous to start characterising views from parts of the political spectrum that we don't agree with as due to some kind of brain malformation or malfunction. It's a short road from that to considering (as the Soviets did) dissenting political views as defective or aberrant, and those who express them as ill and in need of some kind of "cure".
I suspect that Leor Zmigrod would refer to both freedom fighters and terrorists as extremists because they are at the far end of a political spectrum and were willing to hurt themselves or others based on their ideologies.
It does seem to enshrine middle of the road views as less extreme, but when I read the other article and one of her research papers it strikes me that what she is talking about might best be described as people who take a whole set of beliefs (a complete ideology) and substitute belief in that ideology for actually thinking critically about each belief in isolation. That goes along with the rigidity of thinking, black and white thought process, alleviation of fear of the unknown, etc.
Thus differentiating the person who blindly believes everything their church for example says vs. someone who claims the same religion but doesn't agree with certain aspects of it and analyzes each new claim for themselves.
It was not possible to show up dissending political views in USSR. If you alive, you were communist. If you are not,then you were not defective or aberrant, then you
were dead. It happens so because Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was diagnosed with severe paranoia . He shot three professors who dare to show him their reports on his state of health. He shot his wife who dare to criticize him.He claimed them the liars and the people's enemies. He consider himself to be healthy. He refused any cure.Later, as his disease progressed,he developed the suspiciousness of high degree(mania of being threatened). It seemed to him everybody is against him ,and many people,devoted communists and gifted persons, were killed in jails and concentration camps during the period he was in power. Surprisingly, he made no physical harm to Elena Dmitrievna Stasova when she dare to criticize his terror. Together with V.I. Lenin and N.K. Krupskaya, Elena was in the core of bolshevik's party, and the first love of Lenin. In his young age Lenin proposed her but she refused to become his wife. She was the friend of female bolsheviks Alexandra Collontai and Maria Essen. She lived long life (93 years) ,was engaged in international politics and cultural activities in USSR and abroad. She died in 1966.
We should study the brain to develop effective methods to cure mental illness .
There is the difference between the reasons for extreme thinking and the reasons for extreme behavior.
To clarify the statement ,let us commit seven thought experiments.
* Imagine Albert Einstein in the coal mine unable to rise the hammer. Watch him called
"worth for nothing" worker and being kicked by the master and laught at by other workers.
*Imagine the schoolteacher reading the life story of Philo Taylor Farnsworth, "The father of television", in the kid's magazine "Young Farmer".
*Imagine the schoolgirl who wants to charge her i-phone. She put her i-phone on the floor in the high school corridor during the break, just because the only in service outlet is low on the wall.
*Imagine Mr X who spits on his roommate boot, not in the napkin.
*Imagine Mr Y put the used napkin in his girlfriend pocket, not in the dustbin.
*Imagine the killer who forgot his revolver on the kid's playground,and returned back just to take his item back. What will he see there?
* Imagine: the manager approved the sadist Mr.Z for dentist position in his clinic. They shook hands. "See you tomorrow!" Will they shake hands tomorrow?
Now imagine possible consequences. Write them in your notebook.
After imaginary session will be over, you will get the list of stories about people showing the extreme harmful behavior.But there was no their fault.They behaved so not because THEY were predisposed for extreme thinking.They were simply FORCED to behave in such a way.
They behaved in extreme way because SOMEBODY , predisposed for extreme thinking, deliberately or occasionally, put things/people on the wrong places.
The reasons for extreme thinking may be classified as 1) occasional: ignorance, the lack of responsibility, disability, and 2) deliberate: provocative goals,anxiety,envy,anger,enmity and other bad emotions;sadism.
This paragraph from the article:
“The first is how extreme views can often lead to extreme and harmful behaviors. As Zmigrod told me, “one of the hallmarks of thinking ideologically is when you start to see someone as the other. And that's a terrible recipe to dehumanize each other and ultimately then to commit acts of violence against each other and even against yourself.”
This paragraph is so juvenile and one-sided only because they think that extremism hurts others.
Jains are so extreme in their ideology of JeevDaya that they literally walk naked looking down & mouth covered so as not to hurt an ant or a microbe. In their quest to follow Jainism extremely they don't hurt anyone but themselves.
Extremism is not bad the idea for which you adopt the extreme attitude is bad like communism, Islam, wokism, and liberalism.
Western civilization and its ideas are practical only they are not good at philosophy also they operate in a period/region that's starts from Greeks and west they do not go back further or recognize the contribution of the East.
Elena, You say "It is obviously to everyone that human brain does not change it's structure because of the changes in it's owner's thoughts." But that isn't quite accurate. Our brains do adapt to our thought patterns. Pathways we use frequently get built up and become easier to activate. Obviously there are large scale structures that are consistent but the brain function does change some with experience and particular uses. Practicing something can definitely lead to more neural pathways and activity in a certain part of the brain over time. So I think it depends on exactly what 'differences in brain function' are being described by the author.
I suspect extremist ideology is in some ways similar to being skilled at math. Some people are predisposed so when they are exposed to math ideas they quickly develop skill for it. But almost everyone can develop a fairly high level of skill with enough practice/exposure. And equally someone predisposed to be good at math can never get good at math, if they don't study it at all and instead focus on other things.
So the predisposition toward extremism might not be a strictly necessary condition depending upon environment. Nor does a predisposition definitely mean you will develop extremist ideology depending upon environment. But it does increase the chances of someone developing extremist ideology given similar environments.
I am speaking about structure of the brain ,not the functions.
Brain is material object with definite structure,the part of human body.
Thought is ideal. It may be imposed to the person from outside as well as developed himself.
But we can not develop the new tooth ourselves to replace the extracted one just with the power of the thought. We can not develop the third leg or the third ear, the second heart or liver. We have two kidneys in our body. If somebody would start thinking about kidneys he cannot develop the third one. Because the ideal thought cannot change the structure(composition) of material body(human organism).
I am not sure about functions. May be. But not necessarily.
Once I witnessed how Mr.X with bachelor's degree in molecular biology, could not understand the difference between 1/4 and 3/4. Being asked to pour the 3/4 glass of water,he confused it with 1/4 and put the tiny quantity of liquid on the bottom.His brain could not operate fractional numbers. If only he would be told not to pour the glass up to the rim, he would fulfill the task without any confuse. He could not be trained in math because he was not predisposed to abstract thinking,but he was good in biology.
I would completely agree that we cannot just do some mental exercises and grow an extra gram of brain in a particular region or anything like that. Sorry for my misunderstanding of your post.
What is the difference between mental exercises and the thought?
I never spoke about any mental exercises.
Some of us really need the extra gram ... of grey matter.
Thank you for fruitful discussion.
Well you referenced just thinking about growing an organ. So thinking about growing some more brian. I was referring to an exercise like doing a bunch of math, doesn't grow more grey matter in the math region of the brain.
No I referenced not about growing an organ but about the possibility to change the structure of human organism or its composition by growing extra but not useful parts with the power of thought.
Organism consists of organs. Wall consists of bricks. Substance consists of atoms and molecules,and its particular disposition
forms the structure lattice or structural chains of the substance,both inorganic and organic. Under the term STRUCTURE I understood the particular quantity and disposition of different elements (parts,organs) of the whole.There are such pair of categories in philosophy: the parts and the whole. Parts compose the whole. But the whole is not just the sum of the parts.When parts composes the whole,the new quality appears.
Organs are the parts of organism and their disposition composes its structure. Only if we will change the structure of the whole(that is if we will change the quantity or quality of it's parts), we will get new quality of the whole. Exercises could help to produce new neurons. But it is also possible to change the structure of the brain by surgery. Such method is extreme.
Why are you so hard in terms?
Listen to the story:
Nobody can refer the Tully the Monster of Illinois to this or that biological group since 1966. In 2023 paleontologists investigated the structure of his eye and made the conclusion it is vertebral creature. For the first glance,it seems such conclusion demonstrate extreme way of thinking, but don't be in a hurry. You should be the specialist in the area to make sharp conclusions or criticize the statements in branches of science you are strange to.
Nice to have a talk with such highly educated person as you.
Thank you for your kind attention
When you say .......we chose who we want to be ...... that's a whole new arena, how free are we to able to chose who we want to be? we are so conditioned , surrounded by other people 's perspective, their own views , upbringing, how we were treated, our geographical location, climate, etc so much influence, do we really freely choose who we want to be ?
I think this phrase is loaded, maybe you could address this one week, if you haven't. already done so?
Would love to read other's comments on this.
Really we can not choose who we want to be because we are conditioned by physical abilities of our body.For example broken leg prevent us from dancing on the stage.
Highly emotional person cold not drive safely and prefer to hire personal driver.
On the other hand he is good in creative activities(e.g. in poetry) where emotions play the important role. Engineer should be able to concentrate and be accurate with numbers.Emotional person hardly would become good engineer. Medical doctors must be predisposed for compassion.People with great physical power and strong healthy bodies could become sportsmen. Certainly everybody could be trained but without particular success. Person on the wrong place will provide more troubles then benefits for himself and others, and will end in extreme harmful behavior.
We should choose not who we want to be, but who we are able to be in the certain set of conditions.