In Mormon world there is a woman who is Mormon-famous, largely as a blogger. She was involved in a plane crash and suffered extensive burns all over her face and body, along with her husband who was not quite as badly hurt. She relates her emotions at the time of waking from her coma to see herself for the first time post-accident as feeling like she wanted to just die, that she never wanted her children to see her that way. She later has a change of heart and became sort of an advocate and a promoter of self acceptance, among other things. Tonight I was thinking of what a drastic change that was -- from not wanting even your own children to see you, to being photographed and viewed by millions. And despite no longer being attractive by society's standards, she is widely accepted, loved, and viewed as brave, and I'm sure rightly so.
I was thinking about my own experiences with religious or other morally driven types who have read my book and responded to me about it. Largely (as I expected from this turn-the-other-cheek crowd) Mormons tend to be amazingly supportive. But there were a few who were not, including one person that I knew personally who put it to me a little this way -- it's not the things I've done that were so problematic morally (which are, after all, relatively tame compared to the sorts of sinners that churches routinely welcome in their doors), but how I feel about those things, e.g. lack of remorse. Of course, lack of remorse happens to be a symptom of my personality disorder. Which begs the question -- in what ways am I responsible for my lack of remorse (that resulted from genetics and my disrupted childhood, neither of which I had any control over)? Under what philosophical or moral standard does that make me a morally objectionable person? How am I not like the burn victim -- ugly or distasteful society's standards, but allowed to not feel shame or self-hate about my psychological disfigurement because I suffer it through no fault of my own.
Along the same lines, this recent comment on an older post:
Hello human race. I have an unpopular opinion to share;
Psychopaths/sociopaths are either genetic, or made via extreme trauma before the age of 3 yrs, or both! In both cases, these people have no control. They don't choose this.
I present the solution: Star Trek's Data's emotion chip. Psychopath/sociopath has complete control at all times, can choose to remove it whenever they wish, dial it up or down, or off.
How to get them to do it? Present it as a dare, a challenge. Therapists to help them with the transition. Problem over.
They are still people. A monster is a victim who got no help when they needed it, that's why they're monsters now. They had no choice, no control.
Offer it to them, then. If we empaths are so much better than them, prove it. Don't hate them. Help them.
I was thinking about my own experiences with religious or other morally driven types who have read my book and responded to me about it. Largely (as I expected from this turn-the-other-cheek crowd) Mormons tend to be amazingly supportive. But there were a few who were not, including one person that I knew personally who put it to me a little this way -- it's not the things I've done that were so problematic morally (which are, after all, relatively tame compared to the sorts of sinners that churches routinely welcome in their doors), but how I feel about those things, e.g. lack of remorse. Of course, lack of remorse happens to be a symptom of my personality disorder. Which begs the question -- in what ways am I responsible for my lack of remorse (that resulted from genetics and my disrupted childhood, neither of which I had any control over)? Under what philosophical or moral standard does that make me a morally objectionable person? How am I not like the burn victim -- ugly or distasteful society's standards, but allowed to not feel shame or self-hate about my psychological disfigurement because I suffer it through no fault of my own.
Along the same lines, this recent comment on an older post:
Hello human race. I have an unpopular opinion to share;
Psychopaths/sociopaths are either genetic, or made via extreme trauma before the age of 3 yrs, or both! In both cases, these people have no control. They don't choose this.
I present the solution: Star Trek's Data's emotion chip. Psychopath/sociopath has complete control at all times, can choose to remove it whenever they wish, dial it up or down, or off.
How to get them to do it? Present it as a dare, a challenge. Therapists to help them with the transition. Problem over.
They are still people. A monster is a victim who got no help when they needed it, that's why they're monsters now. They had no choice, no control.
Offer it to them, then. If we empaths are so much better than them, prove it. Don't hate them. Help them.
I've been thinking about this a lot, lately. Genuine, transformative remorse eludes me. I cannot feel guilt or shame to a degree that would be sufficient to alter my behaviors, or curb certain impulses.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy concerning the data chip is somewhat disconcerting. Certain emotions, I can "shut off" quite effectively. But on? That is a different matter.
Is emotional mastery defined as the ability to *turn on* guilt, shame and remorse, as easily as they are shut off?
As someone who possesses many sociopathic traits, it would appear that some of my emotional "dials" are stuck in a very low position (remorse, guilt, shame, empathy, fear, anxiety) whereas others are set too high (anger, defensiveness, protectiveness, self-preservation, aggression, arrogance.)
This combination of traits, juxtaposed with pronounced hedonism, makes me impulsive, insensitive, irresponsible, difficult, and occasionally cruel- but it does not make me a monster. On the flipside, it also bequeaths to me strength, resilience, perseverance, flexibility, stamina, and mental vigor.
I am an attractive woman. But if I were to become disfigured, I am quite certain I could adapt, because I do not care what people think of me.
You can't be a victim, M.E. Even if you lack empathy, you can behave as though you possess it.
^Says the person who rarely does. :P
Thought-provoking post.
Protectiveness?
DeleteCan you please explain?
Yes. I spent my early childhood being ripped to shreds on a daily basis by everyone around me. I had no one in whom to trust or confide. My parents were *extremely* harsh- my father being the kind of man who spent almost a decade in jail for causing someone grievous bodily harm. He thrashed me sporadically.
DeleteI was a social reject in grade school (my being smart in an "inner city" school was a disaster- think Hermione Granger in a "Dangerous Minds" kind of environment. Plus I had to fend off little pissants threatening to rape me on a daily basis, and got into fights all the time.)
By the time I reached high school, I resolved that nobody would fuck with me again. I was smart, good-looking, and positively vicious. Not surprisingly, I became very popular after that.
I am very protective of myself, and what's mine.
Another question.
DeleteWhat does emotional mastery mean to each of us?
I bet we each have very different definition.
A, I cannot believe what you went through. Difficult to wrap my mind around it.
DeleteA
DeleteDid never the golden rule appeal to you ? Ever ?
P.
O&W, it wasn't that bad. Even the most mistreated folks here have it *easy* compared to so many. The vast majority of people in North America and Western Europe have no idea of what real hardship feels like. We are breeding a generation yellow-bellied, entitled, complacent fools whose biggest concern is whether or not they can afford the latest IPod. We are overfed and unconcerned; the lot of us. What I was subjected to is paltry. I have absolutely nothing to whine or complain about. Struggles and challenges build character.
DeleteP, yes, as a matter of fact, it does. It is an ideal I aspire to, and the principle upon which I seek to base all of the major decisions in my life. It is the central tenet of my moral code. I just have a lot more trouble applying it than most. And here, I'm just me- unadulterated and uncensored. It feels good.
"But there were a few who were not, including one person that I knew personally who put it to me a little this way -- it's not the things I've done that were so problematic morally ..., but how I feel about those things, e.g. lack of remorse. Of course, lack of remorse happens to be a symptom of my personality disorder. Which begs the question -- in what ways am I responsible for my lack of remorse (that resulted from genetics and my disrupted childhood, neither of which I had any control over)? Under what philosophical or moral standard does that make me a morally objectionable person? How am I not like the burn victim -- ugly or distasteful society's standards, but allowed to not feel shame or self-hate about my psychological disfigurement because I suffer it through no fault of my own."
ReplyDeleteFirst the niggling: It doesn't "beg the question" (philosophical term of art related to circular argumentation) but "raises the question". Also, you forgot the question mark (?) in your "How am I not ..." at the end of the quoted section.
Well, I hope you don't hate the haters, or feel bad about living in a world with such intolerant, hateful people. It couldn't be any other way. Just as I couldn't help correcting you or writing this.
I'm reminded of Sam Harris on free will and love.
The illusion that almost all humans suffer, almost all the time is that they are the thinker of their thoughts, autonomous agents choosing things, doing things, making things, etc as they live out a wonderful drama that is, amazingly enough, centered on them. Part of that dream is that others are the same, and hence they are to blame for the bad things they do.
Of course, you don't have to hate termites or mosquitoes in order to exterminate them - but it sure does make it easier and automatic, and life certainly does seem less tragic.
Oops. I did that link wrong. Here is that thing on love and free will.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, Sam Harris has said that Christianity pretty much makes it impossible for people to understand the nature of their minds - particularly the fact that they don't control their thoughts, choose their impulses, etc. because the metaphysics start by saying that humans have "free will", that certain thoughts are bad, etc.
Thanks for that link. I'm a fan of Sam Harris, although I must admit that unlike him, I am prone to nihilism.
DeleteI can't for the life of me understand why M.E. isn't "out there" more.
ReplyDeleteWhat is she "protecting?" Did she marry and have a family yet?
Sociopaths ARE the future. The only thing to fear is fear itself.
The sociopath has to want the chip.
ReplyDeleteYawn! Folks with no control? If they feel "the urge", they just squat and shit? Hardly sounds like the folks often dominating corporations and politic, does it. "Subcategories" of the condition known as (zodiac) Scorpio are famous for to be "all about" control, nothing except control. So anyone imagining psychopathy to be an "unorganized", chaotic state of mind: think again. Rethink this.
ReplyDeleteViolent psychos almost always are "manufactured" by beatings/abuse by their surrounding, the passive ones are the ones their parents loved, these never "became". The parental doting sort of made them an "empath-costume" to wear in life.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem your so-called empath encountered, M.E., was lack of empathy - they couldn't imagine how you might be unable to feel remorse. So they just went ahead and replaced can't with won't, because they're more comfortable with that. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut there is cognitive empathy too, which neuro-atypical minds can experience. You may not be able to switch on the circuits that allow you to 'feel' remorse; you can still try to go out and prove you have the circuits to 'think' it, if you wish.
This links on from your Father Brown post: will your so-called empath have the hypocrisy to tell you they can't forgive you, I wonder? Or will they have the honesty to admit they possess the functional circuit necessary, but won't forgive? And will they consider the moral implications of that? The bridge needs foundations on both sides ;)
I don't feel guilty for anything. I feel sorry for people who feel guilt. - Ted.
ReplyDeleteThat is how I prefer to live my life. I let the consequences happens for what I do, not for what I am, think or feel. I live in a consequentialist approach to life.
"They are still people. A monster is a victim who got no help when they needed it, that's why they're monsters now. They had no choice, no control."
ReplyDeleteI resent one-sided thought processes like this. Not that I disagree completely, but there's much more to it than just a matter of choice. I mean, what if someone chooses to be a monster? Free will includes the freedom of choosing to do the wrong, or to be a monster.
Past abuse doesn't legally justify doing the same to others. Play it full risk then, no justification needed.
"Don't hate them. Help them."
I advice asking first whether help is wanted. Really, it's annoying if someone wants to help if there's no need for help - tho it's often funny to see the reaction upon pointing out the 'helper' is being selfish by wanting to change a situation they're not even involved in...
@M.E.
You are what you are, if you can't change it then don't waste energy on trying. Problem solved.
"I advice asking first whether help is wanted."
DeleteI agree 100% with you in this point, some people just want to 'save the world' without noticing how much they are just annoying, if the person don't want your help just don't do it and let them face the consequences of whatever they are doing.
"@M.E.
You are what you are, if you can't change it then don't waste energy on trying. Problem solved."
I want to point out that you can only discover if you can or can't do something if you try it first. Except for things that are irrational in the first place, as putting a infinite amount of water in a ordinary cup.
And in this case you have to think whenever the people really wants it deep inside. For me it sounds like the "Bicentennial Man" killing himself just to become 100% human.
*if you "don't" try it first
Deletesorry
I hate it when self-righteous life savers try to keep me from finding the true limits. Just can't stand it.
DeleteI see your point, however I was referring to when you already know it's an impossibility. :)
"For me it sounds like the "Bicentennial Man" killing himself just to become 100% human."
If I'm not mistaken, he didn't kill himself in order to become 100% human but rather wanted to become 100% human which lead to his death - knowing this, he still insisted on becoming human. Head first against the wall - bam! dead. Good film, very poetic.
yeah, as you point out, in some cases you already knows that just there is the impossibility, knowing yourself and your limits based on previous experiences and extrapolating to a given situation, and maybe this case is one of these....
DeleteI agree it is an excellent film!
But it is like smoke, if you smoke knowing that it can give you lung cancer, and you get lung cancer you actually just ended up killing yourself. It is not that you decided: "ok, I don't like my life so I gonna smoke till I die". But you intentionally joined in a activity that the end result is certain that will kill you, so you are responsible for your own death, and did it consciously, you killed yourself.
(I don't want to point out whenever it is right or wrong do anything, as in the smoke case I think you should be able to do whenever you want with your body, because it does not interfere with anyone else besides you)
But unfortunately this wasn't the point =(
I just wanted to point out that in this particular case it is put yourself to a suffering that beforehand you don't need to experience. Maybe, it is possible to live a life as a good person without needing to suffer the pain of others.
This last part I still trying to figure out. But honestly, for now, my main concern is with the bottom line.
"But it is like smoke, if you smoke knowing that it can give you lung cancer, and you get lung cancer you actually just ended up killing yourself. It is not that you decided: "ok, I don't like my life so I gonna smoke till I die". But you intentionally joined in a activity that the end result is certain that will kill you, so you are responsible for your own death, and did it consciously, you killed yourself."
DeleteAgreed. :)
I'd like to add (a bit off-topic though) that in my opinion, smoking and knowing it can cause death or at least speed up the process of dying is an active demonstration of free will. (I smoke, but that's really off topic xD )
"I don't want to point out whenever it is right or wrong do anything, (...)"
I can only guess what's good/right/acceptable or bad/wrong/unacceptable so I rarely think about this in totalitarian terms, instead I try to find constants, or at least easily retainable guidelines. However I don't have a clue how far off the road I am.
"But unfortunately this wasn't the point =(
I just wanted to point out that in this particular case it is put yourself to a suffering that beforehand you don't need to experience. Maybe, it is possible to live a life as a good person without needing to suffer the pain of others."
I see, sorry for misunderstanding you. Honestly it didn't enter the equation for me that it might be mandatory or not to suffer others' pain in order to be a good person. Now that I think about it, I don't see a reason for having to suffer at all. If you refrain from hurting others intentionally and do unto others as if they're helpless lowlife creatures without the ability to help themselves, then you neither need conscience nor affective empathy to be a good person. If I wasn't so short-tempered and frustrated most of the time I'd have the capacity to be a saint.
I hope I got your point this time, if not I'd be happy about a very simplistic explanation. :)
yep, I think we agree in everything, including that I also smoke xD
Deletelol okay xD
DeleteI don´t buy the misty-eyed "psychopathic" need to belong. This is highly suspect. Real ones do not want to belong/cannot belong and do not care. They´re on their own AND CANNOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. Should be written in as question on all those tests: "Are you alone, like in outer space, and cannot change this condition, in any way, not even in a room filled with people holding your hand & saying they adore you?" Any "no" answer should disqualify, then "membership" in "that club" should not be accepted due to reason of "creative imagination"..
ReplyDeleteI think it's more nuanced than that. Being social or wanting to be is deeply ingrained in humans - probably more than any other trait. Except in extreme cases like feral children or severe autistics everyone wants to belong.
DeleteNot saying they can though. Growing up I knew I experienced things differently, I see the people around me as if through a pane of glass. Which can be nice, there's nothing like seeing someone breakdown emotionally, trying to pound on the glass and knowing they can't get in. But it's also isolating and sometimes that's hard.
The most dangerous points for me though are when I ignore the glass, when I try to be like everyone else. In that moment I feel human but it's immediately followed by disaster. Because I'm not fooling them, I'm fooling myself.
The best is my relationship with another socio. We both know we're alone, but we can be alone together.
"Real ones do not want to belong/cannot belong and do not care."
DeleteSo you're the arbiter of who is and isn't a "real sociopath?" Pfftt.
Ever been in custody/isolation. ?
DeleteI am asking because it is a sort of ultimate test of oneself. Am I a social being or not one may ask. Well, get tossed into a cell, locked up for a week, and answers Thy Shall Find. ..
But it isnt a recommendable strategy. It sure put some things into perspective though.
P.
> Which begs the question -- in what ways am I responsible for my lack of
ReplyDelete> remorse (that resulted from genetics and my disrupted childhood, neither of
> which I had any control over)?
It depends on who you ask.
> Under what philosophical or moral standard does that make me a morally
> objectionable person?
You personal moral standard is the one that matters.
> How am I not like the burn victim -- ugly or distasteful society's standards,
> but allowed to not feel shame or self-hate about my psychological
> disfigurement because I suffer it through no fault of my own.
She was changed against her will. People will have sympathy for her. You've
always been this way. People might think that you're just a bad person.
After a big life event not that long ago, I decided to examine my life in order to
identify any problems I thought I had.
One of the biggest problems was that I was *MADE*, or at least tried to make
me, feel empathy for things that didn't matter because "that's what good people
do" or "it's the nice thing to do" or whatever else they would say. When I
analyzed those things I saw that they were just problems those other people
had and they wanted me to feel sorry or blame me for them. I told them if they
don't get professional help I was going to cut them out of my life until they
did.
I have no moral problem with it. They have a *GIGANTIC* one. According to
their moral beliefs I should take responsibilty for their problems and fix
them by doing whatever they tell me to.
Living according to someone else's moral standard is a sure way to have a
miserable life.
"Living according to someone else's moral standard is a sure way to have a
Deletemiserable life."
Agreed.
"She was changed against her will. People will have sympathy for her. You've always been this way."
DeleteWhile I agree that "neuro-typicals" use this logic, there is a problem with it - we are either born monsters (genetics/epigenetics) or we are made monsters (nurture). Either way, we too were made this way - we never had a choice.
One of the elements of my "moral compass" and impulse control is that I remind myself that I don't have to act on my thoughts and feelings - I can and should choose what outcome I want.
Being judged for my actions, I can accept. Being judged for simply not being able to experience "empathy" or "guilt" like other people do, I do not.
If someone had been born with at least partial hearing, and then through genetics and/or environment lost their hearing by the age of 12 (like Evelyn Glennie, for instance), would these same people blame them and say they just won't hear?
DeleteAs you said, HLH, it's what you do (or don't do) that counts. Nobody can change the past. But if they learn from it, surely that is a good thing.
"One of the elements of my "moral compass" and impulse control is that I remind myself that I don't have to act on my thoughts and feelings - I can and should choose what outcome I want."
DeleteYeah. But of course, that is much easier said than done. :P
It doesn't matter what I feel or don't feel. My actions are indeed what count. But when that emotional feedback loop is missing, or severely lacking, there is little to stop one from indulging in the same behavioral patterns, again and again.
"Being judged for my actions, I can accept. Being judged for simply not being able to experience "empathy" or "guilt" like other people do, I do not."
Maybe someone more empathetic could answer this question. Do guilt and shame feel the same? Does the average person carry these around all the time? Feel them for more than a few seconds? Is it like a short "pang", or a vague sense of momentary, ill-defined discomfort, then poof! All gone? That is how I might describe my experience of guilt or shame. All my feelings tend to be shallow and short-lived. This is not a conscious choice I am making; it is just how I operate.
^That is if I feel anything at all. More often than not, there is just ... Nothing there.
DeleteIt isn't unpleasant- like that angsty "empty" or "void" I've heard some others complain about- it is just a sense of being emotionally neutral or flat. Until I'm pissed, or happy, or horny, lol. Few other states exist for me. I rather like it this way, and don't find myself lacking in the emotional department.
I never said impulse control was easy or that I'm any good at it - it's just what I've learned through the "school of hard knocks." 8)~
DeleteI do think guilt and shame are different. Guilt is about what you've done and is "other focused." Shame is about what you are or think you are and is "self focused." This is more observational than experiential - I'm curious is other folks have a different take.
I agree with HLH that they are different things.
DeleteI don't often feel shame. (I see shame as a feeling imposed from outside by others.) I felt it more when I was younger. When I do it feels like a recent burn. It doesn't last much longer than a burn takes to heal either.
I sometimes joke that I have an overactive guilt gland. Guilt feels... heavy and a little bit itchy, the sense of something festering. Guilt is an inside thing, done by yourself to yourself. In extreme cases, I'm beating myself up. For me it can last years. I'm not even sure making redress eases it fully. And of course sometimes there is no real way to make redress. I use it as my watchdog - Remember this? Don't ever do that again.
@A regarding lack of feeling. When I have switched off my emotions, it's a sensation of lightness and, I suppose, something close to peace. I don't find it unpleasant.
I'd be interested to hear how other people experience guilt and shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Wwy3rbsbQ
Delete@M.E. Great post. Why is lack of remorse problematic to society?
ReplyDeleteLack of remorse is problematic to society IFF a significant proportion of individuals are characterised by it. So we would expect to see naturally selected controls to ensure the proportion doesn't get too high. And of course, we do see that. This is why our institutions have some longevity.
By what philosophical standard can anyone's feelings be legitimately judged? In my experience, controlling types (including religious and some societal institutions) like to point out that a person's feelings should be this or that and it's bullshit as @Dmaged and @SansDire attest.
Do you *suffer* from lack of remorse, M.E.? Or is the suffering more related to potential ostracisation? I'm really interested in the answer.
Feelings are evolution's gift for navigating social situations. The most clear and present ongoing danger (at least perceived danger) to a human is social ostracisation. I've read and experienced that you and other sociopaths are perfectly well-equipped with mechanisms alerting you to ostracisation flags. A keen sense for where blame lies seems to be an effective shortcut, for example (hence the rapid blame-shifting tendencies). Your supreme acting capacity. Lying. Etc.
Sociopaths differ from empaths in the set of capacities they have for existing within society. A good materialist philosopher would be hard-pressed to deny the validity of the sociopathic existence. Morally objectionable? It's irrelevant if you can maintain your place in society.
My sociofriend is being ostracized. I think perhaps partially because of me, because of both the way I have supported him and showed his true colors to others. See, I like him - a lot, but I have to come first. Me and my family.
DeleteIf I stay on his side, I might also be ostracized. I got some remarks today that said to me "stay with us or go with him".
It is months from happening (me being ostracized) but I am not sure whether to help my sociofriend come back into the fold (and how) or to just drop him. He is useful to me, and I do like him.
Any suggestions?
Only you can answer that, OldAndWise. It's between your need and your belief (realism and conscience, if you will).
DeleteI'd be minded to call out those who gave you those remarks and confirm whether they really meant that. If so, I'd point out that they are behaving in a very manipulative way, so really shouldn't be objecting to someone else who behaves that way. I'd also be questioning whether I wanted to associate with someone (or a group) who are prepared to ostracize me for something like that. If your friend's condition were recognized as a mental illness what they are doing would be classed as discrimination towards him and discrimination by association towards you. But I am known for shooting myself in the foot on a fairly regular basis by my habit of pointing out such things ;)
Where family is involved it becomes more complex.
Ostracisation is far less of a problem in society as we experience it today than in the cultures in which our genome developed. Cities are so diverse and we have so many potential connections, endless different interest groups and subcultures.
DeleteFamily might be a different kettle of fish? It depends. There is always choice. I would not choose leave my children, for example. But parents and other relatives? There is a choice*.
I don't know your story so it's difficult to ask questions that don't appear crude and unsympathetic. An ultimatum? Even veiled? I would let that slide off.
Do there need to be sides?
Make the choices you want to make. How people respond to that is their own deal. Or as Polonius says: to thine own self be true. And as Epicurus pointed out: good things are easy to get.
* I did choose to leave my family behind for a while. Each for different reasons. I'm speaking to my father again now and find things are so much better. I'm not yet speaking to my mother or sister.
Another thing I learnt from my sociofriend is patience. Nothing is set in stone. Time is not so linear. Patience.
BTW it seems I absorbed your point keeping a bit of distance. It felt good when I saw my sociofriend (hope you don't mind my appropriating that term!) tonight. Furtive smiles.
A bit of distance feels good, doesn't it?
DeletePerhaps we can view a sociopath as a black hole. Some people able to extract some of the energy without being sucked in. Most people get swallowed and lose part of themselves.
Another analogy is a flame. Get close and you get warm. Get too close and you get burned, sometimes irreparably.
Most of the time we can relax and let our instincts guide us. Around a sociopath, we have to use our intellect to understand our emotions, why and how he was able to trigger them, and be vigilant and protective of ourselves.
You've put this very well. I like the black hole energy analogy. I find after seeing the FNP (my sociofriend) my dopamine levels spike because I've had to be more aware of myself. It's always exciting.
DeleteI can be very impulsive, very bold afterwards but have never regretted it. Never regretted taking the path with heart, which seems slightly clearer in the flood of dopamine.
You've reminded me of one of M.E.'s themes: that being increasingly "selfish" ie seeking to satisfy one's own needs reduces the tendency for using manipulation. I imagine this can be generalised: taking care of one's self first improves one's ability to relate in mutually useful and pleasurable ways.
Everyone has the same capacity... no limits but some of us limit ourselves.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, excellent point.
DeletePerhaps we can say there is potentially the same *capacity*, moderated through variably preferenced *functions* (using MBTI cognitive functions as a parallel).
Does that work better?