My Portfolio
Welcome to my portfolio. Here you’ll find a selection of my projects for MAIS.
A Neurodivergent Perspective of Damasio’s Emotions and Feelings
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 615, Athabasca University
Theresia Williams
24 August 2024
Abstract
Antonio Damasio’s Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain presents an exploration of how emotions and feelings influence human cognition and behavior, with useful insight on how our thoughts and feelings impact our bodies, and our health. Though Damasio’s paper is well written and educational it does lean towards a neurotypical bias and does not factor into account various brain types. The paper by Damasio also uses outdated language to describe what he interprets as the only way to have a healthy brain. While Damasio’s theories provide an understanding of the interactions between human neurology and emotions and feelings, they are exclusively grounded in a neurotypical perspective. This typical brain lens potentially overlooks the diversity of emotional experiences among neurodivergent individuals. This paper attempts to reinterpret Damasio's theories through a neurodivergent lens, incorporating recent research on autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and other neurotypes to present a more inclusive understanding of human emotional processing.
Neurotypical Bias in Damasio’s Theories
Damasio’s exploration of "biological regulation" in emotional responses hypothesizes that many emotional responses occur in ancient brain structures without conscious awareness (Damasio, 1994). The theory contrasts what Damasio calls "archaic" brain structures, responsible for primary emotions, with evolved "modern" brain structures that are involved in complex, secondary emotions. This view offers insights into emotional processing in a neurotypical brain but overlooks the significant neurological variability among individuals, especially those who are neurodivergent.
Autistic people often exhibit substantial differences in brain structure compared to neurotypical individuals. Research suggests that autistic individuals tend to have a larger prefrontal cortex and an amygdala that develops differently, growing more rapidly in early childhood and potentially shrinking later in life (DeWeerdt, 2020). These structural differences imply that autistic individuals may experience emotions more intensely or differently, challenging Damasio's assumption that primary emotions are processed similarly across all humans. The difference in the experience of emotions and feelings in atypical humans is not anything that is broken about their operating system, it is just different from typical brain types. This difference in brain structure highlights the need for a broader understanding that accommodates the diversity of emotional experiences in neurodivergent populations. It is also of interest to ponder, if what constitutes a feeling to one person is the same feeling in another. A feeling of loneliness, or the emotion of anger may arouse different bodily symptoms from one person to another, much like we cannot tell if the colour blue looks the same from one person to another. It would be of interest to study these emotions in various individuals to ascertain where in the body the feeling lies, and how acutely these emotions are felt in real time.
The Limbic Brain
The limbic system is described as the "emotional brain," and plays a crucial role in moderating between the internal bodily environment and the external social environment and sensory input. Involved in regulating emotions, memory, and arousal, the limbic system acts as a bridge between our physiological condition and our interactions with the world around us. The limbic brain, particularly structures like the amygdala, hippocampus, and hypothalamus, use signals from both the internal bodily environment (such as hormonal levels and visceral states) and external social cues (such as facial expressions and social context) to produce appropriate emotional and behavioural responses. (Purves, 2001).
What is considered "appropriate" in terms of social behaviour and emotional responses is highly subjective and deeply rooted in neurotypical, and often ableist norms. These social norms often dictate how people are expected to respond to social cues, such as facial expressions, body language, and other contextual signals. Autistic individuals, whose neurological processing may differ significantly from the neurotypical population, often interpret and respond to these cues in ways that are perceived as atypical. An autistic person might not adhere to expected social behaviours, like maintaining eye contact or responding to emotional expressions conventionally. This divergence does not indicate a lack of emotional or social intelligence, but rather a different, yet equally valid, way of interacting with the world. For some autistic people eye contact can be painful, and loud, unexpected noises can physically hurt. The limbic system in autistic individuals may process social and emotional information differently, leading to responses that do not align with neurotypical expectations, but are nonetheless appropriate within the context of their unique neurological wiring (Remi, 2017). This processing difference challenges the assumption that there is a universal standard for "appropriate" social behavior and highlights the importance of recognizing and valuing diverse manners of social interaction when studying anything related to the brain.
Damasio emphasizes the role of the limbic system, especially the amygdala, in processing primary emotions like fear and anger, which are emotions crucial for survival (Damasio, 1994). However, Damasio’s interpretation of the limbic system's function is largely grounded from a neurotypical perspective, which may not fully incorporate the complexity of how neurodivergent individuals moderate between their internal world and external environments.
Autistic individuals often exhibit atypical sensory processing, which can affect how they perceive and respond to both internal and external stimuli (Dubois et al., 2016). The limbic system in these autistic individuals may process signals differently, leading to emotional responses that are not aligned with the neurotypical expectations in Damasio’s theory. This divergence can manifest in social interactions that can be perceived as inappropriate, not because their emotional processing is deficient, but because their limbic system integrates sensory information differently. Being aware of these operating system differences is integral to collecting data on emotions and feelings that does not view neurotypical behaviour as the gold standard. As Temple Grandin famously said, “The world needs all kinds of minds.” (Grandin, 2010). To exclude different brain types, or to view them as inferior to the neuro-typical standard in Damasio’s writing does us all a great disservice.
The limbic system's role in mediating between internal and external environments is also influenced by interoception which is the brain's ability to sense and interpret bodily signals. Research has shown that neurodivergent individuals, particularly those with ASD, may have altered interoceptive awareness, which can lead to delayed or exaggerated emotional responses (Riquelme et al., 2016). This awareness of interoceptive differences challenges Damasio’s assumption that there is a singular, "correct" way for the limbic brain to function. Simon Baron-Cohen et al, study this difference in Talent in Autism: Hyper-Systemizing, Hyper-Attention to Detail and Sensory Hypersensitivity, and conclude “The origins of the association between autism and talent begin at the sensory level, include excellent attention to detail and end with hyper-systemizing.” (Baron Cohen et al., 2009)
The neurochemical environment within the limbic system further complicates this mediation process. Neurodivergent individuals often have distinct neurochemical profiles that influence their emotional regulation. Differences in dopamine production in individuals with ADHD or OCD can affect how the limbic system processes reward and punishment signals, leading to impulsive behaviors or heightened anxiety (Dubois et al., 2016). These neurochemical variations add to the need for research to show how the limbic system's role in emotional processing is understood, particularly in the context of neurodivergence.
The Relationship Between Reason and Emotion
Damasio argues that reason and emotion are inextricably linked. According to Damasio, emotions are not just in the background of rational thought; they are integral to it. The theory is that emotions are a necessary tool for making decisions, as they help prioritize information and guide behavior in a way that purely rational thought cannot (Damasio, 1994). This intricate system of decision making happens in the neocortex, where the integration of emotional and rational processes occurs. Damasio's theory is compelling, but again, it is primarily rooted in a neurotypical understanding of how the brain processes emotion and reason. Neurodivergent individual brain structures function differently from the typical, and therefore, they may experience a different relationship between reason and emotion. Autistic people might rely less on emotional cues when making decisions, focusing more on logical or rule-based reasoning which could be due to differences in how their limbic systems interact with the prefrontal cortex, resulting in a different, but no less appropriate, approach to integrating emotion and reason.
The intensity of emotions experienced by neurodivergent individuals, such as those with ADHD or OCD, can sometimes overwhelm the rational decision-making process. An individual with OCD might experience intense anxiety (mediated by the limbic system) that overrides their ability to make reasoned decisions, leading to spontaneous behaviors. This dynamic suggests that the relationship between reason and emotion can vary significantly depending on neurochemical and structural brain differences, a complexity that Damasio's theory does not address. Society needs risk-takers, and entrepreneurs, and people who make decisions that Damasio would not perceive as rational. Rationale could be viewed as a subjective; what works for one human during their lifetime, may not be the preferred way to live for another. “Emotions (like cognitive strategies) are not rational or irrational per se: How (un)reasonable their influence is depends on their fit with the environment.” (Volz & Hertwig
2016, p.101).
The relationship between reason and emotion in neurodivergent individuals also raises questions about Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis. If somatic markers are based on emotional experiences, and those experiences are processed differently in neurodivergent individuals, then the decision-making shortcuts that Damasio describes might operate differently also. Neurodivergent individuals may develop alternative strategies for integrating emotion and reason, which may not align with neurotypical models but are nonetheless effective, and help an individual navigate and regulate their emotions when making decisions.
Sensory Processing and Interoception in Neurodivergent Emotions
Research has shown that atypical sensory processing, including heightened or diminished sensitivity to stimuli such as touch, pain, and proprioception, is now a recognized diagnostic criterion for ASD (Dubois et al., 2016). This atypical sensory processing extends to interoception, as discussed previously, where neurodivergent individuals may have delayed or altered awareness of internal bodily states. An autistic individual might not immediately recognize sensations of hunger or discomfort, leading to delayed or atypical emotional responses to these states. “Between-group interoceptive differences in individuals with and without ASD have been repeatedly demonstrated, with a slight tendency towards hypo reactivity in interoceptive awareness in individuals with ASD.” (Dubois et al., 2016).
The implications of these differences in interoception are significant. Damasio’s theory assumes that emotional responses, particularly secondary emotions, are largely consistent across individuals, based on the assumption that all humans have similar interoceptive experiences. Interoceptive differences can influence how neurodivergent individuals react to and with their environment. Autistic children, for example, are often characterized by sensitivity to tactile and proprioceptive stimuli, which can lead to heightened emotional responses or withdrawal from sensory-rich environments (Riquelme et al., 2016). These sensory processing differences are not just behavioral quirks; they represent fundamental variations in how the brain interprets and reacts to the world, which in turn impacts an individual’s emotional experiences and social interactions, and therefore, decision making.
Genetic Factors
The role of genetics in shaping neurodivergent traits is also relevant to this discussion on Damasio’s work. Recent research has identified certain neanderthal-derived genetic markers are more common in autistic individuals than in the general population (Loyola University, 2024). These genetic factors suggest what we now consider neurodivergent traits may have been advantageous in certain evolutionary contexts, contributing to the survival and adaptation of early human populations. This evolutionary perspective challenges the notion that neurodivergent traits are deficits or malfunctions; instead, they may represent alternative strategies for interacting with the world, shaped by different environmental pressures. The discovery of these neanderthal genetic markers raises important questions about the relationship between neurodiversity and human evolution. If neurodivergent traits were advantageous in certain contexts, they should be considered a natural and valuable part of human diversity, rather than pathologized as disorders. In Neurotribes, The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, Steve Silberman embraces this concept and acknowledges that, “A growing coalition of educators, clinicians, and disability rights advocates are embracing the concept of neurodiversity.” (Silberman, 2015, p.482). There is still work to do for this diversity to be included in academia and research. It is perhaps possible that the pathologizing of different neuro-types may be directly related to the value that society places on capitalist structures, and whether a person fits into our working model of social norms.
Ableist Assumptions in Damasio’s Work
At the core of this discussion is the issue of ableism, the belief that there is a singular, normal way to have a healthy brain, and that deviations from this norm are inherently pathological or inferior. Ableism manifests throughout Damasio’s work in the assumption that neurotypical brain functions represent the ideal or default state of human experience, thereby marginalizing those who do not fit this mold. When Damasio discusses test subjects he describes them as normal, “When he (Paul Ekman) gave normal experimental subjects instructions on how to move their facial muscles, in effect "composing" a specific emotional expression on the subjects' faces without their knowing his purpose, the result was that the subjects experienced a feeling appropriate to the expression,” (Damasio, p.22). However, there is no description of what normal means in this instance. This one-sided perspective fails to recognize that neurodivergence, variations in brain structure and function that result in conditions like autism, ADHD, and OCD are a natural and valuable part of human diversity.
Historically, the field of neuroscience and psychology has often pathologized neurodivergent traits, framing them as deficits to be corrected rather than differences to be understood and respected (Walker, 2021). This pathologization is a form of ableism, as it implies that there is only one correct way for a brain to function and that those who do not conform to this standard are somehow broken or less than fully human. Such views ignore the rich diversity of human experience and the various ways in which different brain types contribute to the tapestry of human life.
Neurodiversity advocates argue that neurological differences should be recognized as natural variations within the human species, much like diversity in physical traits such as height or eye color (Singer, 2016). From this perspective, neurodivergence is not a flaw or a disease but a fundamental aspect of human variation. This understanding challenges the ableist notion that there is a single, ideal way to be human and that all deviations from this ideal must be cured or fixed. There is no evidence to support the notion that neurotypical brains are inherently healthier or more developed
The ableism inherent in dismissing neurodivergent experiences is not only scientifically unfounded but also socially harmful. Ableism perpetuates stigma and discrimination against individuals who are not allistic. By pathologizing neurodivergence, society reinforces the idea that individuals need correction rather than acceptance. This one size fits all perspective can lead to harmful interventions, such as forcing neurodivergent individuals to conform to neurotypical standards, rather than support that respects the unique needs and strengths of neurodivergent individuals. “Disability theorist Jackie Scully has suggested adopting the term “embodied anomaly” in order to more neutrally define differences and appreciate the subtleties of bodily and social experiences of people with disabilities (Scully 2003). This kind of linguistic awareness provides the groundwork for new understandings of people with disabilities as fully human and capable of all major life activities.” (Kristin Bumiller 2008).
To challenge ableism and promote a more inclusive understanding of human cognition, it is essential to adopt a neurodiversity-affirming perspective, especially in research that relates to the brains operating systems. This inclusive approach recognizes that there are many ways to have a healthy brain and that neurodivergence is a natural part of human variability. Instead of viewing neurodivergence as a problem to be solved within research, we can appreciate divergence as an integral part of the human experience that enriches our collective understanding of what it means to be human. The word normal is used often to describe brain types throughout Damasio’s work and yet, normal is subjective. As Damasio says, “A feeling about a particular object is based on the subjectivity of the perception of the object, the perception of the body state it engenders, and the perception of modified style and efficiency of the thought process as all of the above happens.” (Damasio, 1994). The same could be said of human beings, their perception of what may constitute as normal behaviour or thought patterns will vary and therefore is subjective.
Conclusion: Reconciling Damasio’s Theories with Neurodivergent Experiences
Given the complexity of emotional processing, Damasio’s theories, while insightful, could be expanded upon to fully account for the diversity of human experiences. Damasio’s model of emotional processing, which is based primarily on neurotypical individuals, provides a useful background understanding of the complexities of the brain, but falls short when applied to neurodivergent populations. To create a more inclusive understanding of emotions and feelings, it is necessary to integrate insights from neurodivergent research and experiences. One way to reconcile Damasio’s theories with neurodivergent experiences would be to adopt a more flexible understanding of emotional processing. Rather than assuming a single, universal pathway for emotions, we can acknowledge that different brain structures, sensory processing patterns, and neurochemical balances will lead to a variety of emotional experiences and outcomes. A neurodivergent affirming approach would not only broaden the scope of Damasio's work, but also promote a more inclusive view of human diversity. The more we learn about the variety of human brains and wiring, the more accepting we can be of traits that diverge from what is considered standard.
Additionally, incorporating recent findings on the genetic and evolutionary aspects of neurodivergence can provide a deeper understanding of why these differences exist and how they have contributed to human adaptation. Recognizing the evolutionary roots of neurodivergent traits allows us to appreciate the ways in which differences have been woven into the fabric of human history, contributing to the resilience and adaptability of our species. In conclusion, Damasio’s theories when applied with neurodivergent experiences may require a shift away from ableist assumptions and toward a more inclusive view of human diversity. Acknowledging there is no single or correct way to have a healthy brain, we can better appreciate the full spectrum of human experience and move toward a society that values all individuals.
References
Baron-Cohen, S., Ashwin, E., Ashwin, C., Tavassoli, T., & Chakrabarti, B. (2009). Talent in Autism: Hyper-Systemizing, Hyper-Attention to Detail and Sensory Hypersensitivity. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1377–1383. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40485909 Accessed 24 August 2024
Bumiller, Kristen. (2008). Autism, Gender, and Reimagining Disability. The University of Chicago Press Signs, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 967-991. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/528848.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A000352ab518a625bfa927da1a4b4709d&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1 Accessed 24 August 2024
Damasio, A. (1994). Damasio, A. (1994). Emotions and Feelings in Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (pp. 127–164). Avon.
DeWeerdt, S. (2020, July 14). Amygdala, The Brain’s Threat Detector Has Broad Roles in Autism. Spectrum News. https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/amygdala-the-brains-threat-detector-has-broad-roles-in-autism/#refs Accessed 18 August 2024
DuBois, Denise., Ameis, Stephanie H., Chuan Lai, Meng., Casanova, Manuel F., & Desarkar, Pushpal. (2016). Interoception in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review.
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, Volume 52, pp. 04-111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S073657481630096X Accessed 24 August 2024
Grandin, Temple. (2010). The World Needs All Kinds of Minds. TedX. https://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds?subtitle=en Accessed 24 August 24, 2024
Loyola University. (2024). Groundbreaking Study Unveils the Role of Neanderthal Genes in Autism. Loyola University News. https://www.loyno.edu/news/jun-07-2024_groundbreaking-study-unveils-role-neanderthal-genes-autism#:~:text=This%20new%20study%20adds%20autism Accessed 18, 2024
Purves D, Augustin. (2001). Neuroscience. 2nd edition. GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al., editors Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10799/ Accessed 24 August 2024
Riquelme, Inmaculada., Hatem, Samar M., & Montoya, Pedro. (2016). Abnormal Pressure Pain, Touch Sensitivity, Proprioception, and Manual Dexterity in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Neural Plasticity. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2016/1723401 Accessed 24 August 2024
Silberman, S. (2015). Neurotribes. The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. Avery. Penguin House.
Singer, J. (2016). Neurodiversity: The Birth of an Idea. The MIT Press. http://dickyricky.com/books/psych/NeuroDiversity%20-%20The%20Birth%20of%20an%20Idea%20-%20Judy%20Singer.pdf Accessed 18 August 2024
Volz, K. G., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Emotions and Decisions: Beyond Conceptual Vagueness and the Rationality Muddle. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 101–116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26358547 Accessed 24 August 2024
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press. Wiley Online Library. (2016). Children with ASD characterized by abnormal sensitivity to touch, proprioceptive, and painful stimuli. https://neuroqueer.com/neurotypical-psychotherapists-and-autistic-clients/ Accessed 18 August 2024
Yergeau, M Remi. (2017). Authoring Autism. On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/authoring-auti
Accessed 24 August 2024
Assignment 1
Reflective Analysis of Theory as Liberatory Practice by Bell Hooks
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
September 7, 2023
Reflective Analysis of Theory as Liberatory Practice by Bell Hooks
This essay annoyed me. On first read, I could not quite articulate why it annoyed me, so I read it a second time. I did not want to read it a second time, because it annoyed me so much in the first read. I read it a third and a fourth time as now I was irritated by my feeling annoyed by it, and needed to investigate specifically why I was having such a negative response.
We have this essay that sets out to describe how theory can be utilized to liberate, and it is not that I disagree with that, discussion has its place. However, the essay points out the ableist, racist, sexist, and classist systems within academia that are far from equitable, but it does so in a linguistically complex manner. The entire essay could have been written in far simpler vernacular and therefore understood by more people, and that would have been an example of an action much needed to further the cause of liberation that Hooks states that she cares so much about.
When I was in my late teens, thanks to ADHD, I would (and still do,) hyper-fixate on a topic periodically, and when I was going through my “read all the classics” fixation, and during a particular obsession with George Orwell, I stumbled upon one of his essays that has stuck with me throughout my life. Politics and the English Language resonated so deeply with me at the time, that I think about it every time I put fingertip to keyboard. I also think about Politics and the English Language when reading an essay on Theory as Liberatory Practice, and I suspect it is why I felt increasingly annoyed with Bell Hooks. It is not so much what Hooks is saying in her essay that is the cause of irritation to me, though she has her moments there too, but it is how she is saying it. If words evoke thought, and action on those words is the intention, (with liberatory in the title, I assume that it is) then surely marketing an essay toward the common masses and making sense of those thoughts to as many people as possible should be the goal.
Orwell, in his essay, calls this use of academic jargon within a political essay “pretentious diction,” and I tend to agree. Is there anything more infuriating than an intelligent human, with a fantastic brain, full of ideas that could change the world, not being able to articulate those ideas so that they are understood by everyone, not just those sitting in academic houses? Language is communication, and if it is not always communicating effectively to the most amount of people, then is it really doing its job-which is ultimately to introduce new concepts to new people? Hooks’ style had me recollect Orwell’s essay, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” (Orwell). I’m no psychologist, but I am a woman, and I know how it feels to fight to take up space, to have to work harder than everyone else in the room in order to be taken seriously in male dominated industries, and to constantly have to prove oneself in a room full of mediocre men, and if I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Hooks has possibly let those fears slip into her writing and it reads (to me at least) as insincere.
Hooks is far more intelligent and educated than I will ever be, and I am certain that whatever commonality that I share with her with regard to being a woman in the patriarchy, she has experienced far more prejudice than I because she is a black woman, and I am a white woman. My curiosity leads me to wonder if Hooks has ever stopped to question her writing style and taken the time to connect to her true self more fully in what she wants to achieve in her political writing? Is she over-compensating for being an intersectional-marginalized academic and showing us all how smart she is, rather than using her intellect more efficiently? In my advocacy work, both professionally and personally, I know that there is a difference between intellect and wisdom. Intellect in advocacy can be used as a weapon and make people almost afraid to ask questions about a topic for fear that they will appear silly. Intellect can intimidate, and in advocacy, and when fighting for change, education is the desired outcome, intimidation is not. Wisdom is knowing how to use intellect to educate and accommodate the most amount of people at any given time. I think in this essay, Bell Hooks only uses her intellect, and it is disappointing, and it is that disappointment I think that irritates me. The essay is a wasted opportunity. Though I do not blame Hooks, I cannot help but feel that she is trying too hard to prove herself, and that it damages her purpose.
So now that I can clear up my initial irritation at the vernacular used in Hooks’ essay, I turn toward the content. I do not disagree that some discussion and theory must take place for change to materialize. However, I too am tired of talking. Talking does not seem to be getting us anywhere, and as a mother of a daughter I could not have predicted that my daughter would have less rights over her autonomy in the world than I did growing up, but here we are. There will always be people, like me, that are frustrated with lack of action towards common goals. People that are in a hurry to see change before their children inherit the ugly side of society. I related to the woman in Hooks’ feminist circle that was just “tired” of all this talk (p.6). Hooks says that the woman’s response “disturbed” her (6), which I think is a very strong choice of words, and no matter how many times I read this essay it is that line that makes me squirm the most. Hooks response and choice of the word “disturbed” seems condescending, and patronizing. If the woman says she’s tired of talking, then she’s tired of talking, and obviously has spent a lot of time doing so. The woman has obviously moved in circles that are unfamiliar to Hooks. Hooks says that she is not often privy to such conversations with other women. I would suggest that Hooks seek out more of this woman’s acquaintance circle if she wants more enlightening, and theorizing conversation. Like myself, this woman it would seem, has had this discussion in her communities a thousand times before, and its movement that she is now expecting.
The trouble with being a woman that wants to illicit action, is that we are women, holding up most of the sky, at two-thirds the pay, and one-third the appreciation. It is difficult to rally troops because time and responsibilities and exhaustion and emotional traumas take their toll. It can be done, but perhaps we need intellectuals like Hooks to take the lead and turn their intellectual theories into wisdom, and practice. I realize that I have possibly set myself up for disaster here by reflecting somewhat negatively on the writing of a person whose skill is far superior to mine, but this is my honest response to a piece of writing that I so wanted to enjoy. The topic of Hooks essay was exciting to me, but I felt a pervasive snobbery and insincerity from Hooks with each read of it, that I was unable to shake despite much re-reading and much reflection.
Works Cited
Hooks, Bell. (1991). Theory as Liberatory Practice. Feminism in the 90s: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice Conference. The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism
Orwell, George. (1946). Politics and the English Language. https://www.orwellfoundation.com
Assignment 3
Focus Area of Writing and New Media Reflection Essay
On The Way to Computational Thinking by Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
3 October 2023
Focus Area of Writing and New Media Reflection Essay
On The Way to Computational Thinking by Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A
My main area of interest in writing and new media is neurodivergence, so anything related to the brain is of particular interest to me. My daughter is autistic and both she and I have ADHD (amongst other neurodivergent diagnosis.) I write about neurodivergence a great deal in my work, so computational thinking relates directly to my work-life in social media content creation, and in my day-to-day existence.
When writing about a subject like neurodivergence, my goal is always to have as many people as possible read it, and fully comprehend the subject matter. At work I am always thinking in terms of algorithms and search engine optimization when creating new content for a client, and I have carried this over into my personal writing and advocacy work. It is a useful tool in reaching not only a target demographic of people that may be familiar with a subject matter, but also in reaching a new audience that may not be up to speed on a particular topic. Writing is a communication tool, and writing online has the potential to reach as many people, generations, and backgrounds as possible. When attempting to educate the masses on a particular issue, the more the writer knows about how algorithms and marketing work, the better.
Over the last few years, we have witnessed a lack of understanding of the basic principles of science, and critical thinking. We have witnessed how divided a culture can become without understanding. What is the point of having knowledge without the wisdom to know how to use that knowledge to educate as many people as possible? Without wisdom, and computational thinking skills, gaining knowledge for knowledge’s sake and keeping that knowledge within a small section of academia is just ego feeding.
This problem-solving and computational thinking skill has really helped me in my work life, and this has been of particular use when managing people, and in advocacy work. Breaking down a topic into small, and easily digestible parts has for me, been the key to spreading awareness on neurodivergence amongst other issues. Some of my peers are so brilliant in writing these heavily articulated, intellectual answers on the forums, responses so weighted with words that I find myself pulling up the dictionary to make certain that I understand. This is, after all, academia, it is to be expected; however, it is my hope that any of my thoughts, feelings, and insights throughout this course cannot only be fully understood by each person in the class but, also beyond the class. Writing as a tool of communication has been weighing heavily on my mind since starting MAIS 601. Do I concede and start to write for academics, or do I continue to slip in the odd colloquialism, and curse word, as a friendly gesture to the masses that I want on side?
Psychology, media studies, and writing are disciplines that when combined make the most sense for me to pursue as an end goal. I need an acute awareness of psychology and of marketing when writing content for advocacy. If theory in computational thinking is “breaking a big problem or task into smaller parts that can be solved in succession,” (Berry & Fagerjord 6). then for me, in writing, how I can break down theory systematically, and articulate theory so that it is palatable to the most amount of people is my main concern in advocacy work. I would like to always be conscious of ego and ask myself what I want the outcome for my reader to be. Do I want to show how much knowledge I have, or do I want the wisdom to share that knowledge with as many people as possible. For me, the answer will always be the latter.
Works Cited
Berry, D., & Fagerjord, A. (2017). "On the Way to Computational Thinking." In Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age. Polity Press. https://drr2.lib.athabascau.ca/index.php?c=node&m=detail&n=59459
Assignment 4
Critical Reflection: Spacetime is Just a Headset: An Interview with Donald Hoffman
If you enjoy listening to conversations that simultaneously blow your mind, and hurt your head, then this video is for you. This conversation between Donald Hoffman and interviewer Hans Busstra is simply fascinating, and its relaxed tone is very engaging. Donald Hoffman mentions The Matrix so many times in this video that I just re-watched it to make clear the references. Hoffman is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that space-time is not real, and only consciousness is real. Space-time, in this theory is the product of our consciousness, and our consciousness is the only constant. Hoffman uses the analogy of a virtual reality headset to describe space and time being conjured into existence by our own imaginations.
I decided to test Hoffman’s VR theory and travelled the world on an app called Wander. At first you can detach from the game, but it doesn’t take too long (minutes in fact,) to become fully immersed in it. As I walked along the street I grew up on in Wales and travelled back to a house that I once lived in in Italy, I certainly felt as though I was there. I couldn’t feel anything like wind, or rain, or eat a delicious plate of pasta, but with sight alone, I took stock of my emotions as I was visiting these places in VR, and it did have an impact on my feelings. For me, a sighted person, the space-time is a VR headset analogy works. I don’t think it would work without the sense of sight, perhaps a new analogy is needed that includes how those without sight experience this theory. I am also now beyond curious as to how Hoffman would explain his theory to people without sight, as it relies heavily on the sense of vision in the explanation.
If Hoffman is correct, it means that our consciousness has existed before this lifetime and will continue to exist long after this lifetime. There are many trains of thought that this video will send you on, and many of them may be (for want of a better word,) spiritually inclined. The group response to this video and my analysis surprised me in just how spiritually leaning the discussions became. Though I had brushed upon spirituality within this concept, it appears to have made a big impact on those in the group that have belonged to religious institutions. I had an expectation that other aspects of this theory, such as how we explain the concept to accommodate those without sight, or if this impacts a person’s daily life choices were of more interest to me, but it seems it really struck a nerve with people already pre-disposed to seeking spiritual answers. I am more intrigued by the questions that this theory raises and perhaps this is the result of my not having any history with religious doctrine. There were so many questions to choose from to discuss from this video, and the further down the rabbit hole I go with this topic, the more in awe I am about this majestic experience we call life.
My questions to the group were:
1, Does it unnerve you, or liberate you to think that only consciousness is fundamental?
2, If this theory is proven to be true, would it have an impact on how you live your life? (Do you feel more/less significant/insignificant as a human creating their own reality on the fly?)
Works Cited
Spacetime is just a headset: An interview with Donald Hoffman. Nov 6, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Q8kbsrE9o
MAIS-601 Final Assignment
Lisa Spencer-Cook
MAIS 601
Dr Derek Briton
December 15, 2023
Reflective Analysis of My MAIS 601 Journey
I have found this class intriguing, challenging, enlightening, and at times frustrating. This is the first group class I have taken after two years of individual study with my undergraduate degree. The change has not been an easy one to make and has raised conflicts within me that I did not know existed. This course has made me think a lot about people and their emotional regulation. I have thought a lot about ego and come face to face with an old pattern that I have of putting other people’s thoughts and feelings before my own. The healthy and unhealthy ways that people communicate in group settings is interesting to me, and I have attempted to be both mindful, and observant of communication strategies. I am from a neurodivergent household, my life is full of making accommodations, and I am a better human for it, but treading the wire of where accommodations end, and entitlement begins has been one of many personal reflections during this course. The subject matter in MAIS-601 has been fascinating, but the nuances of the background content of human interaction has been the unexpected part of this journey.
Making sense of theory was not an altogether new experience for me. I was raised by a scientist and family dinner table discussions often lead towards theory, and philosophy. Theory in my very science-oriented household had no room for nuance. Something is either fact, or not fact based on scientific observation, and any discussion outside of the parameters of current scientific methods would be shut down immediately by my father. Growing up in a household of all females, with a scientist for a father was kind of like observing a rooster in a hen house. Any conversation that steered too far in the direction of creative philosophy, and thinking outside of the limitations of science, would be quickly shut down by a very masculine temper tantrum. The hens learned to back down and keep the peace quite quickly. It was a little daunting to be raised in a house where you are not at liberty to express thoughts and ideas, and it can make a person feel that their contributions to discussions are not valid unless they are the one with the aggressive nature and a PhD. It took me a long time to return to school, and now finding myself in academics and doing a masters, but I still have quite acute imposters syndrome, no doubt a result of my upbringing.
Imagine my delight upon entering forum discussions about the limitations of science. My overwhelming relief to find articles written on the very subject that I have been attempting to communicate for years but have never been able to fully articulate. Reading The Impact of Newell’s “A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies”: Reflection and Analysis by James Welch was like finding ammunition I didn’t realize I had been going into battle without. To read in forums that I was not the only person in the world to question the limitations of science in a worldview was thrilling to say the least. I wanted to learn this quote by heart; “In other words, human beings cannot, as the scientific method claims, obtain a vantage point from which to understand complex systems, because human understanding is imprisoned by its own preconceptions.” (Welch, 197). Science is necessary, but I have always thought that there is nuance in the universe that we may not be able to understand with current science alone. I felt vindicated reading through this first forum, and with that, slightly braver.
However, it was not too long before a dominant ego was to silence me. I have thought long and hard about sharing this next encounter on my journey, but it is an integral part of my personal growth, and I would be doing myself a disservice if I were to dance around it. When a woman reaches a certain age, usually past forty, she becomes very tired. Tired of micro-aggressions, and societal norms, and expectations. Tired of keeping the peace and nurturing (therefore enabling,) those raised as males in the world. Middle age is when women become more fully themselves and they start to shed the weight of other people’s egos and limitations. As a single, working, student, and a parent, time is everything to me. Time is my most valuable asset. I do not have minutes in a day to do with as I choose, let alone hours. The gender disparities with time have been discussed and studied for decades. Women do not have as much leisure time as men. Women in general do more household chores, less paid labour, they raise children and simultaneously take care of ailing parents, all while carrying the weight of the emotional and psychological labour in any given household. (Rubiano-Matulevich, E, & Viollaz, M. (2019). Gender Differences in Time Use. Allocating Time Between the Market and the Household. P.4).
I mention time disparity with gender because it played such a toll on me psychologically in the next part of my MAIS journey. It was time to start and complete our first group project. We had been told by AU that systems would be down for a day during this time, so we had less time than usual. There wasn’t movement within our group at first, so I took the initiative and started to scope out how people wanted to move forward. I initiated some ideas about how to proceed and got the ball rolling. In our group there were three women, including myself, and one man. One of the women engaged and let us know her schedule, and when she would be able to do the readings and share her thoughts. One woman was silent. The one man suggested that we meet via video conference and change the system that we were using (the well thought out AU website) to google. It was here that because of time restraints and equitable practices that I mentioned Occam’s Razor, and that we would perhaps be more productive and efficient if we could just get started in the system laid out before us. The one woman that was participating agreed, the man said that he needed to take some time away to gather his thoughts on the issue and would be in touch after having done so.
Imagine my surprise then, when instead of a transparent conversation in our forum thread, I received an email in my private messages from the man that was taking a time-out. An email describing this man’s feelings, and how hurt they were by my productivity suggestions ensued. A detailed description of how this man was interpreting my suggestions as a personal attack on his ideas. I sat with my mouth open wide for a good half an hour, reading the email, and then going back to the thread for reference. I could not find where or why this person was reading our transparent forum discussion as some kind of personal attack. I am old and tired, and had I received this email in the workplace, I would have forwarded it to the HR department and left it for them to handle. However, this is school, I have made many sacrifices to be here, I am taking a course in interdisciplinary studies, and I must find a way to diffuse this man somehow. This email, and deciding how to respond to it, and how to navigate it, put me in a position where I was spending time wrestling with why this bothered me so much. It took me a while to recognize why I felt so upset by this email, it wasn’t ego, it wasn’t offence, it wasn’t even that this person decided to privately share their feelings. When I got right down to it, I begrudged having to take the time to deal with this. Lack of transparency (not sharing it in our group forum,) felt threatening, because in a collaboration of any kind, transparency is everything. Threatening also, in that if I was continue making reasonable suggestions towards productivity in the forum, then I would have to spend time, energy, and effort into making certain that this man’s ego was not bruised in any way, and that his ideas were celebrated. This is the type of time-consuming nonsense that women have been dealing with for centuries, and I had not realized just how tired of it I am. I was also consumed by the idea that there are people that have the time, energy, and inclination to share their thoughts and feelings with complete strangers, handing the stranger a job to fix their thoughts and feelings, rather than dealing with their own emotional regulation on their own time. I am sure this person is a perfectly decent human being and thinks that this type of emailing is acceptable, and therein is where the conflict lies. It’s not him, it’s me. I do not think it is acceptable to receive unsolicited private emails from people you are working with in a group. I had to ask myself the age-old question of, “Do I want to be right, or do I want to be happy?” I chose happy.
I decided to reply with a simple “I am so sorry that your feelings were hurt, there was no intention of that on my part.” I had already taken the lead on the first project, so I invited him to use his skills with formatting to complete the task and submit it. It all went ok from there. When it came to the second group project, the dread was profound, so I had already decided to remain as silent as possible, wait for this man’s suggestions, say yes to them, no matter what they were, and just get it over with. It was again just the three of us involved in the second group project, and what interested me the most was that my female peer was responding in the same manner that I was. “Yes, that sounds fine.” “Sure, good idea.” I wonder, and I will never know for certain, if she had also been on the receiving end of a private email. My female peer is about my age, and I wonder if she too has learned over the years to just “go along with their ideas,” because we do not have the luxury and entitlement of the time it would take to handle ego in a different way. If you have ever been curious as to why women do not hold more power in the world, I believe that time is the answer. We are yet to start the third and final group activity, and I still don’t know the best way to deal with this conflict. I recognize that this person needs to be put in charge of something to thrive, and perhaps needs to feel that their ideas are the preferred ones. It raises many interdisciplinary issues for me to think about when working in groups. How do we do efficient and productive work, while taking care of individual egos? This, despite the subject matter of the course being fascinating, was where my brain was transfixed during my initial introduction to MAIS – time disparities, and personal egos. I chose to deal with the issue in as peaceful a way as I could think of, but I admit that it does not feel good, or right. I still have work to do to make certain that the next time I encounter this kind of communication, that I handle it differently. I want people to feel good about themselves, but I don’t necessarily want other people’s feelings to be my responsibility. I took it upon myself to make certain this person felt valued and was celebrated after that email, and that takes time and energy, and it takes up brain space that could be better utilized on the task at hand. For me, this enabling is a behavioural pattern that I would like to break.
My individual subject matter for this course was the nature of consciousness. My interest in consciousness is profound and I do tend to hyper-focus on topics like this. I watched the Matrix to view the subject matter in 3D and understand the concepts in story-form, and I spent many hours going down you-tube rabbit holes. It had never occurred to me that a person’s consciousness might not exist within a person’s brain. The idea that consciousness is fundamental and existed long before us and will continue to exist long after us was a theory that resonated and delighted me. (Hoffman, D. 2022. Spacetime is Just a Headset).
Within the forums, these ideas and concepts about consciousness turned to religion. People discussed their gods, and biblical versus were used in the discussions. This turn towards religion at first surprised me in an academic setting. I realized that I tend to disengage from discussions once religion is brought into the equation. I sat with my thoughts on this for a while, pondering why I take myself out of conversations once biblical verse is cited. I realize that throughout my life, though I have many friends from many religious backgrounds, I do not respect religious beliefs. That is hard to say, so let me clear; I respect a person’s right to religious freedom, and I would fight for that right, but I do not respect religious beliefs. I have always considered religion and cults to be one and the same. Often children are indoctrinated into religion from birth, and I have always thought of that as a brainwashing. People can choose to believe whatever they like; I have no objection to that. If belonging to a religious organization adds value to a person’s life, then so be it. However, because I do not respect the thought processes involved in religious faith, I have a difficult time respecting the academic opinions of those that belong to religious institutions. I know it is not very politically correct to say that you do not respect the viewpoint of millions of people that pray to a deity, but it has taken me forty-eight years to figure out that I have this deep-rooted prejudice, and if I am not being honest with myself in this process, (and by necessity, my peers,) then I render the journey pointless.
I have always thought of myself as person without prejudice. I check my privileges often. I advocate against prejudice and discrimination in my work-life, and yet here I find myself grappling with the fact that I do indeed carry a prejudice. I discriminate, and I judge a person’s intellect based on religious orientation. I recognize that if a person belongs to an organized religion, I am not able to fully trust their critical thinking skills. I came to this realization in week 10 of this course, and it did not sit well with me at all. I feel terrible that I will dismiss a person’s opinions on an array of subjects based entirely upon the fact they belong to a religious institution. This is something I am working towards over-coming. I can respect a person’s desire to be inquisitive about the nature of existence, and for want of a better word, the search for spiritual practices, but belonging to religious organizations and taking religious doctrine seriously is where I come a bit undone. I stand ashamed of this bias, and I am attempting to find common intellectual ground with those that I may have, in the past, dismissed as not being big on critical thinking.
In late 2020 my best friend died. So much of this course has reminded me of the conversations that she and I had in the weeks before her death. We discussed death in a way that I had never discussed before. Open, and honest conversations about death that changed the way that I now live. I live with more gratitude for my existence than I ever did before. My friend was not afraid of dying, she had been suffering for a long time, and she was ready to concede, and release, but she was overcome with fear for the loved ones that she would leave behind. She and I discussed the universe and the nature of existence all the time. My last words to her were, “Energy does not die, and you are the brightest light that I have ever known. We will meet again, in some form or another, and when we do, we will recognize each other, just as we did in this lifetime.” At the time, these were just comforting words to a dying beloved friend, but I have thought of them often during this course. If our consciousness is fundamental, and we only believe space and time to be real because we learn object permeance at a young age, (Hoffman) then perhaps there is some shred of truth in my last words to my friend, it certainly would be nice. Though I don’t doubt that humans will be searching for the meaning of life, and existence for all time, I always go back to the words of Brian Cox, “What more do we want? We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.” (Cox, eden.uktv.co.uk).
I have mentioned in previous papers for this course that I always want to write in a way that is understood by as many people as possible. The best way (in my opinion,) to fight capitalism is to educate the masses. During the pandemic we witnessed how many people have very little understanding of the basics of how science works, and we saw that this led to complete chaos, and hateful rhetoric that mostly stems from fear. I perhaps have some inherent working-class guilt about academia, and though I have made many sacrifices to be able to study at this point in my life, I consider it a great privilege. If I am not utilizing all that I have the privilege to learn, and breaking it down into bite size, digestible portions for others, then there is little point for me in garnering knowledge. As a person with ADHD, I often have delayed processing times, and the forums were sometimes too fast for my brain that often has far too many tabs open at once. I needed more time with the ideas and concepts for the subjects to fully resonate. I intentionally tried to challenge the language being used in the forums and cut to the heart of the discussions, to the relatable, and the human aspects of the theory. If we can relate to the theories on offer, and share our experience, and therefore our humanity, then more than just the neuro-typical academics thrive. Again, it was the nuances of interactions in the forums that I was drawn to (and this could be an ADHD thing.) I noticed many women in the forum asking if their question or opinions make sense, when in fact, they make perfect sense. Men rarely do this. It was interesting to witness, these women with brilliant minds doubting themselves, or almost apologizing for having an opinion. I am sure I have done it too. We must do better. It is my hope that having been raised by us, my daughters’ generation will not apologize for their thoughts, opinions, intellect, and leadership skills, and that universities will learn how to accommodate neuro-divergent individuals.
This course has been a wonderful experience. I had not been expecting as many references to The Matrix, and that was a delight, because the more I learn about the universe, and the nature of existence, the more I think that The Matrix writers may have it pegged already. I was not expecting to study consciousness, and as a person that has been trying to wrap their head around quantum physics for years, that was a real treat. Realizing my own prejudices, and short-comings, and working on overcoming them was also an unexpected turn of events. Grappling with how I can make changes to the way I deal with conflict or others’ emotions in a working capacity is on-going, and I recognize that the way I have been handling these situations is enabling, and unhealthy. I have at times been consumed with guilt as I sit around discussing the nature of existence while the world is literally on fire. It has often felt self-indulgent, and egotistical to be discussing these things in an academic environment. I feel tremendous guilt when I am not actively doing things that insight positive change, but instead actively discussing issues. This internal conflict reminds me of the bell hooks article, Theory as a Liberatory Practice, and the woman in her discussion group that was “just tired of all this talk,” and was calling for action. (hooks, b. 1991). However, perhaps this discussing is the way we change the world, by sharing opinions on topics in transparent and safe environments, and then passing along all that we learn as we go about our day, or perhaps, that is how I justify it. It will forever be a mystery how we humans can simultaneously take ourselves so seriously, and yet not seriously at all. There is so much beauty in all the theories we have discussed this semester, the never-ending wonder at the nature of reality and existence is spectacular to be a part of. I hope that I can carry everything that I have learned this semester, keep questioning, and continue finding the heart, and humanity in all the theories that I encounter on my MAIS journey.
Works Cited
Cox, Brain. About Prof Brian Cox. https://eden.uktv.co.uk/people/brian-cox/ Accessed December 15, 2023
Hoffman, Donald. (2022). Spacetime is Just a Headset. An Interview with Donald Hoffman. Essentia Foundation. https://youtu.be/-5Q8kbsrE9o?si=WgolwynsEu-Zrebl Accessed December 15, 2023
hooks, bell. (1991). Theory as Liberatory Practice. Feminism in the 90s: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice Conference. The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism
Rubiano-Matulevich, Elaine, & Viollaz, Mariana. (2019). Gender Differences in Time Use. Allocating Time Between the Market and the Household. World Bank Group. Gender Global Theme.
Accessed December 15, 2023
Wachowski, Lily & Lana. (1999). The Matrix. Warner Bros.
Welsh, James. (2018). The Impact of Newell’s A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies. Reflection and Analysis. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies Vol.36(2), pp. 197.