Box: deprivation, escape, control

Post Reply New Topic

Hi!

I was wondering if anyone here had psychosis, depression or anything else?

I've found a box, which is really interesting to me.
I want to hear your opinions on the box, what you think are true and what is not correct in your opinion.

Control Imbalance: Arises from a stimulus that triggers a powerful instinctual reaction resulting in an obsessive need to control a situation. The evolutionary reason for this type of imbalance is to survive life threatening situations by stimulating the mind and body to act quickly and powerfully.

Deprivation Imbalance: Arises from a stimulus that triggers a powerful instinctual reaction resulting in an obsessive need to consume. The evolutionary reason for this type of imbalance is to correct dietary deficiencies in order to avoid malnutrition and survive.

Escape Imbalance: Arises from a stimulus that triggers a powerful instinctual reaction resulting in an obsessive need to escape from a situation. The evolutionary reason for this type of imbalance is to create a fantasy world in order to mentally survive intolerably painful situations which cannot be escaped physically at the time and must be endured.

please read!! :S

your just trying to be clever now aint you?
good find thank you

I also think it is interesting, and I know a couple of troubled people who fit neatly into the first and second columns. I also fit the third one quite accurately and my behaviours were indeed motivated by the need to escape from painful situations. It's a pretty good theory of archetypes, though of course not everyone will fit into neat boxes.

Maybe some people are being put off when they get to the bit about "chakras"? I do energy work too, and it's correct about my (third column) issues being in the upper chakras.

Yes, I don't know actually what the chakras mean but they make sense to me
I also read that EGO can be the western version of chakras, I don't knwo of that is true, but still.

Dont we all. What I find interesting is many here would rather blame themselves, instead of assigning fault with their parents or big brother's handling of autistic difference.

'I wish I could have been the big brother you always wanted, but I cant be what I want, anymore than you can.'

I don't agree with the "primary causes".

I fit in all three categories a bit, but especially into: "Deprivation" and second into: "Escape", into "Control" just a tiny bit. This also matches with my symptoms.

Frankly I found the table pretty difficult to understand, though it's interesting. From what I understand of it, I seem to fit in all three loosely. Or maybe that indicates that I probably don't fit in any one of them. I actually don't even know what mental condition I have. I've been told I have depression/anxiety by professionals, but I don't know really.

My first reaction is negative.

I have a dislike of excessively reductionist schemes, particularly when (as always seems to happen) in the quest for imposing simple order on complexity the creator(s) of the scheme gloss over all sorts of meaningful differences and significant details. This seems like just such a case.

There are wonderful simplifying schemes that help advance understanding, like Coulomb's Law or Newton's gravitation.
While later work may reveal deeper complexity, these simple schemes are useful ways of conceptualizing an actual order and pattern in nature. This does not seem like one of those schemes, but a deeper look may uncover something.

My second, more analytical response is to ask some questions and note some clear problems with the table:

First question: what does it say?

This is a matrix with three columns labeled deprivation, control and escape. The row heading for these column labels declares them to be "imbalance types." Is this a term with a clear, known meaning? Not really. Evidently some claim is being made that there are things called deprivation imbalance, control imbalance and escape imbalance.

A google search on each of these terms reveals that they are not in common use. A contested theory of social deviance in criminological circles goes by the name "control balance theory" but a quick exploration of that material indicates that it is not related to the ideas in this table. The only other clear hit in the quick google search is for "escape imbalance" and this is a post in a public forum on health topics that seems to associate celiac disease and Aspergers. Perhaps this posting and the table are the work of the same author? In any case, these do not seem to be terms in general use so there is no consensus understanding of what they mean.

Since there is no explanatory paragraph or text explaining what these "imbalance types" are supposed to be, and they are the top of the table, understanding what the table is supposed to mean will be difficult. Maybe exploring the rows will clarify what this is about?

Second question: what specific meanings are created in the table rows that follow the headers?

First row: "Personality symptom" --I know these words. Are they personality symptoms? I am not sure what is being said, but at least I do know what greed, pride and envy are. What is suggested by the pairs (deprivation, greed), (control, pride), (escape, envy)... it is not clear.

Second row: "Emotional symptom." Like the first, I know these words, but it's unclear what the intersection of the columns and rows is supposed to convey.... Wait, Pride is a personality and anger is an emotion? Debatable. Unclear.

Third row: "Neurotransmitter"-- OK, chemicals. Does the known research on these chemicals suggest that they can be associated with the elements listed on the first two rows? I have not really gotten into neurotransmitters, so I'll have to do some research... a quick look says no--these chemicals are implicated in all the elements.

Norepinephrine/Noradrenaline, for example, in its action in the orbitofrontal cortex and the response to "reward" stimuli would have to have a role in "greed." Norepinephrine is also clearly associated with depression--so this would put it in the first column.. The more I look, the shakier these pairings seem--scanning down to additional rows, it gets worse:

Is there an association between serotonin and diabetes? Chron's disease? Celiac disease? Does a dopamine imbalance cause Alzheimers? AIDS? WTF? My BS detector needle just jumped way over to the red zone.

Dopamine is associated with the Brain but Serotonin and Norepinephrine are not??????????

Add to this "Chakras" and "Virtues" and we are shading into systems of belief rather than knowledge. The BS meter needle twitches upward again and settles way over at the high end of the scale (yes, my BS detector, a mental construct, uses an analog gauge!)

Quick scan of additional rows... There is a lot vagueness here and I guess it could function like astrology or the I-Ching: because there are a lot of vaguely defined terms, the table affords the reader with an opportunity to synthesize personally significant meaning by reading into it ideas that it does not explicitly state and which may be generated consciously or unconsciously by the reader. Beyond that, there is not enough clarity to say that it means anything. In those cases where the elements are very specific, e.g., neurotransmitters and diseases, though the associations are so vague that they can't be specifically refuted, whatever might be suggested by them seems to be wrong.

This tends to confirm, to me, the initial feeling that this is an excessively reductionist scheme and the creator has done the typical thing of forcing all sorts of complexity into a simple structure in a way that does not advance understanding and does strip away significant detail and meaningful distinction. This reminds me of medieval schemes from Europe, India and Asia with the various Zodiacal elements, "elements" such as earth, air, water and fire, humors and such like:
Interesting as a game, perhaps useful for exploring the unconscious, but not helpful in advancing knowledge.

I still can't really imagine what it is supposed to say, but I am fairly confident that it is wrong in some of the connections the row/column structure implies.

^ What (s)he said.