There is talk by some people, that we are a product of "NATURE AND NUTURE": in other words, that our personalities, to include how each of us respond to stress (including any childhood or adult traumas, and general life stressors - including the stress of Modern Day Living), has a very significant "NATURE" Component - in other words, a significant GENETIC (otherwise termed "BIOCHEMICAL") COMPONENT.
But does this necessarily mean that we are talking about issues regarding the actual WIRING of our BRAINS? To include our brain's CELLS, THEMSELVES? The actual MAKEUP of the NEURONS? And their "LEVEL of SENSITIVITY", say? Or, that some might have "LESIONS" in their brains? Or "ENLARGED VENTRICLES"? That might "PREDISPOSE" SOME OF US to BEING HIGHLY "REACTIVE", say? Or what one might term "SKITTISH"? Or "NERVOUS"-PRONE? Or what one might say, "Afraid of our own Shadow", or "NEUROTIC"?
ARE HUMANS a WHOLE LOT LIKE "LOWER-FORM" ANIMALS, in other words, such that SOME animals, like Golden Retrievers, are calm and gentle creatures - ARGUABLY due to GENETICS? And other animals, like CHIJUAJUAS, are considered "high strung" - again, DUE to their GENETICS, largely or significantly?
Or is this strong genetic component something that the HUMAN BEING has LARGELY TRANSCENDED, GONE BEYOND?
And that, for a HUMAN, the FACTORS that DO DICTATE how VULNERABLE we ARE, to STRESSORS, particularly AGGRESSION from OTHERS, and overall THREATS to our LIVES, has 99% TO DO with our ABILITY to DEFEND ourselves, both by way of what BODY TYPE we have, AND our GENDER?
Such that SOME "BODY-TYPED" persons are MARKEDLY MORE VULNERABLE to being "PUSHED AROUND", and same, regarding a particular GENDER, and this then DICTATING our "BASELINE" level of ANXIETY, and REACTIVITY to potential threats to our survival and pleasure in life?
Such that SOME "BODY-TYPED" persons are MARKEDLY MORE VULNERABLE to being "PUSHED AROUND", and same, regarding a particular GENDER, and THIS, then, DICTATING their "BASELINE" level of ANXIETY, and REACTIVITY to potential threats to their survival and pleasure in life?
And furthermore, isn't it true, that most societies do not look favorably upon those who are physically "weaker", to CARRY WEAPONS - at the READY - weapons OTHER than MUSCLES, LARGER BODY MASS, a LARGER PROPORTION of MUSCLE-to-FAT, and TESTOSTERONE-level, WITH WHICH to DEFEND themselves?
(Do schools, say, permit the more "FRAIL" children to CARRY BASEBALL BATS with them, to class, or for WOMEN to carry GUNS with them, or even AK-47 ASSAULT WEAPONS? (And not simply concealed weapons, but weapons DRAWN OUT OF THE HOLSTER, READY for IMMEDIATE USE, like how a soldier in an Infantry unit is carrying such, on the battlefield?) For isn't the learning of Karate, say, for a woman in The Bronx or other, rather a trivial weapon compared to carrying an AK-47, when it comes to preventing a rape? Such that she will never, ever feel she can trust her capacities with using Karate, to do what she is hoping it will - PROTECT her with a HIGH degree of certainty? For, wouldn't it be "odd', to outfit a soldier or any homeowner with a GUN that only fires 20% of the time, when one pulls the trigger, and thus is a very unreliable weapon, where predictable results are concerned?
0 Comments