From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Apr 07 1999 - 13:46:33 MDT
Interesting points about stress. There are definitely people around
who have a constant level of arousal that is very high, quite likely
so high it is deleterious.
[Note that this is not necessarily stress; stress is defined as states
where your coping mechanisms are not enough to meet the demands of the
stressors, not just going around with lots of hormones and a brain on
noradrenaline. ]
Arousal is in some ways addictive: it enhances learning which is good
- we quickly learn about dangers, but it also means we more easily can
develop habits that lead to arousal (at least when it is originally
tied to some positive reinforcement; think action movies). It is *fun*
to be aroused. But the effects of going in a constant corticosteroid
"high" are similar to being stressed all the time - burnout, neural
damage, cardiovascular disease, negative personality traits being
overexpressed and so on. It is the short bursts of arousal that feel
the best and work best, the long periods of high tension are
deleterious.
> Lyle Burkhead said...
>
> >Is the list healthy?
> >I had forgotten how much stress is involved in reading the list...
> > But I wonder, what
> effect do e-mail arguments have on our health? In spite of our talk about
> life extension, we may all die before our time, just from the stress.
A good point. Of course, there is one thing to read a mail by some
idiot that makes your blood pressure rise and makes you bang an
answering post on the keboard - that is just a quick arousal peak and
likely not that dangerous if it is relatively rare (although it might
still be worth thinking about exactly why you react like you do, this
behavior might not be good for you). The problems start when your
blood pressure and skin conductance begins to rise just by looking on
the posts of the list, or when you get the above peak effects so often
they start to overlap. Then the more dangerous long-term arousal
effects tend to develop; since the list is smaller than the rest of
life (for some of us :-) the effect will likely be burnout and leaving
after a while.
"david gobel" <davegobel@erols.com> writes:
> In my household I performed an experiment on my clinically depressed son. Ad
> libidum entertainment was appx 2 1/2 hours video games, of the shooter type.
> TV was appx 4.5 hours of the edited R type (heavy action/violence) and
> cynical comedy of the seinfeld/satnitelive ilk. Comics appx 1/2 hour of
> team/gang warfare type...X Men. He was on St. Johns Wort and could/should
> have been on stronger stuff, constant arguments w/parents, zero interest in
> needs of others, growing intolerance and verbal and very mild physical abuse
> to younger sister,total and absolute self absorption, growing obesity etc ad
> nauseum...While on a walk I described to him the symptoms, causes and cure
> approaches to drug addiction
> and then asked him to consider the possibility of his having become addicted
> to his own hormones.
>
> As an experiment, we BOTH went on a media fast...no TV or Video games for 7
> days.
Interesting experiment! I like it. Of course, this is just an
individual case and the exact mechanisms involved are likely more
involved than just overstimulation and stress, but it shows that
rational "home cures" can work.
I have for a long time been waguely thinking about the need for calmer
media. As an information addict I spend most of my waking hours in
front of a computer, television or a book. And I have definitely
noticed negative effects on my thinking when I get too much arousal
into this mix (just a short break, I have to rush to my printer to get
a 50 page article on the neuroscience of emotion, and then I have to
browse these pages and fix that simulation... :-). Add to this normal
stress and caffeine... ouch.
But there are interesting possibilities beside trying to avoid
drinking too much coca cola, flaming on the web, not reading
everything interesting and not playing Civilization II until 5 in the
morning. Technological fixes are after all a favorite matter on this
list :-)
For example, I wonder if windowing systems and multitasking on
computers do not encourage fragmented thinking. It is too easy to
start up a browser to look for new information (and then we hypertext
away). Windows pop up on their own. Mail arrive - the computer
beeps. Maybe we should start looking at interfaces that are *less*
responsive? The same might go for other media - maybe scrapping the
remote control?
> I have more to say, but i'll stop here cause I talk too much.
> dave gobel
> If we can't make it to 10,000 what's the point?
Exactly. And I want to be a relaxed, interested decimillenarian.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:30 MST