Roulette William Smith, Ph.D.
Institute
for Postgraduate Interdisciplinary Studies
Palo Alto, CA 94306-0846 USA
E-Mail:
najms@postgraduate-interdisciplinary-studies.org
E-Mail: najms@humanized-technologies.com
Revised Version of a Presentation to the
4th International Conference on
Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and Psychotherapies
Baiyun, Guangzhou (CHINA) – September 24th-26th,
2007
Abstract
[1]
Transpersonal psychology subsumes many areas, although issues pertaining to
‘consciousness’
remain a central theme underlying many studies and reports. Examples include
classic studies
of consciousness and altered states of consciousness, meditation and
mindfulness, shamanism
and mind-altering substances, spirituality, and personal transformations.
Significantly,
philosophers and neuroscientists now are making substantial inroads into the
biological and
molecular basis for consciousness.
[2]
Philosophy Professor David J. Chalmers suggests that the challenges of
consciousness should
be dichotomized into “easy problems,” on the one hand, and the “hard”
or “really hard problem,”
on the other hand (1995). According to Chalmers:
“The easy
problems of consciousness are those that seem directly
susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a
phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural
mechanisms. … The easy problems of consciousness include
those of
explaining the following phenomena:
Chalmers then states
that: “The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of
experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of
information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974)
has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This
subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual
sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the
quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception
in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then
there are bodily
sensations, from
pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured
up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a
stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that
there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of
experience.” (p. 201)
[3]
This report focuses on a third type of difficult problems; to wit, three
intriguing problems of
awareness, belief and reality. These problems
occasionally appear in clinical clients who
generally are not considered appropriate for research or laboratory
investigations of
consciousness. Their circumstances, challenges and problems ultimately may
prove to be far
more significant to researchers, especially if their realities, when
compared to their experiences,
contribute to the elucidation and explication of the onset and formation of beliefs.
[4]
One type of problem associated with reality is identified in persons who need
help or assistance,
and yet those persons have absolutely no knowledge or cognitive understanding
of their needs
for assistance. There can be no mistake that these persons possess
consciousness. Nor is
there any doubt that they possess personal senses of realities. Yet they often
misunderstand
more than they understand. They make mistakes and break things. They would
rather replace a
broken item rather than repair it. Their problems are classified under the
rubric of “unknowing
neediness.”
[5]
The second type of problem is identified in persons who constantly seek help or
assistance, and
yet they have absolutely no need for assistance. These persons consume enormous
quantities
of attention needlessly. Their behaviors are costly and chaotic. Their problems
are associated
with “worried wellness.” The worried well also misunderstand more than
they understand on
occasions. Interestingly, their problems often are relegated to third-party
insurance providers
that decide whether or not to pay claims. In the end, neither these persons,
their professional
healthcare providers, nor others are well-served by an underlying dysfunctional
healthcare
system unresponsive to fundamental needs.
[6]
The third type of problem perhaps is even more important at a practical level.
The underlying
clinical challenges point to issues of awareness – apart from
beliefs, experiences and realities –
in scholars, clinicians and potential clients. In other words, Chalmers’ really
hard problem
overlooks a transpersonal meta-issue of awareness in clinicians,
scientists, and, their subjects
and co-researchers. This meta-issue occasionally is manifested in ‘experimenter
effects’,
experimental bias, poor experimental design, and, failures in logic and “scientific
(and scholarly)
‘common sense’” (Smith, 1983; Smith, 2006b; Smith, in preparation).
[7]
Although differences in reality and perceived experiences may be
minor or subtle in most
persons, those differences may be quite profound in both the unknowingly needy
and worried
well. This report focuses on a specific subgroup of persons who are unknowingly
needy and/or
worried well. In particular, the focus is on persons who do not have
‘common sense’,1 and rarely
1 Lacking common sense,
having no common sense, and aberrant common sense all are terms referring to
persons’ ways of thinking that differ from the ways of thinking in their
cultures, groups or herds. In other words, Copyright © 2007 by Roulette William
Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
seek clinical
support. Attention is directed to the extremely hard problem of
consciousness involving:
documenting and
treating unknowing neediness and worried wellness. Persons who do not have
“common sense” occasionally may not understand, may misunderstand,
cannot understand, or may be out of touch with their
consciousness and/or realities.
[8] Why focus on
common sense and the lack of common sense? The present studies of common sense
date back to the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1970s, Smith (1971) flirted with
artificial intelligence aspects of common sense.2 Then, quite
fortuitously in 1985, 9 young elementary school students were observed who did
not have “common sense.” This determination was based on their responses to
mathematics questions and problems, and other aberrant personal behaviors. The
students were enrolled in grades 3 to 6 in a Sunnyvale, California (USA)
elementary school Mathematics Laboratory. The mathematics laboratory provided
remedial support for students performing poorly on mathematics tasks, and
provided enrichment tasks and activities for “gifted” students.
[9] The Mathematics
Laboratory was located in one section of the School Library. In a fortuitous
conversation with the school librarian, she revealed that those same 9 students
also performed poorly on reading tasks. These observations were reported to the
school principal who then recommended that these matters be discussed in
parent-teacher conferences. Those parent-teacher conferences revealed that for
each of those 9 students, one or both parents were uniformly “negative.” Those
parents simply did not (and possibly could not) say anything good, positive or
commendable about their child (Smith, 1986; Smith, 1987; Smith, 1988; cf.
Smith, 1971). After extensive historical and biographical research, the
phenomenon of “aberrant” common sense3 associated with parental
negativism was found to be widespread and universal, though not appreciated in
education, psychology, medicine, other social sciences, or any clinical
professions (Smith, 1992). The term “psychoviruses” then was introduced to
possibly explain the transmission of non-genetic information leading to the
evolution and development of aberrations in common sense and in other
psychosocial disorders or dysfunctions.
[10] Psychoviruses
are snippets of infectious, non-genetic information which interfere in
“normal” cognitive development. Those snippets of information indirectly may
lead to changes in DNA in brain. Psychovirus effects can be especially profound
in children between their births and approximately age six. Children appear to
be especially susceptible to adverse effects during the “terrible twos” and
shortly afterward. Situational effects also can produce psychoviruses and
those persons have
and use personalized styles of “sense” which do not comport with the common
styles of
“sense” used by peers, within herds or other groups.
2 This report does not review artificial intelligence issues
pertaining to common sense and consciousness. Rather,
the focus in this report is on “transpersonal” aspects of common sense in
humans.
3 Throughout this report we use “aberrant” to connote sufficiently
unusual manifestations of a phenomenon which
on the surface may appear usual or “normal.” Upon finer grained analyses – and
particularly in selected situations –
the underlying phenomena may be profoundly different, though not worthy of the
labels “abnormal” or “disabled.”
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
psychoviral
responses (Smith, 1987; Smith, 1988; Smith, 1992; Reuters, 2006; Christakis and
Fowler, 2007). Although the concept of psychoviruses predates computer viruses,
the computer virus metaphor is appropriate. Psychoviruses differ from memes
(Dawkins, 1976) insofar as the gene–meme metaphor cannot explain many clinical,
laboratory or molecular findings which psychoviruses can explain. The gene–meme
metaphor also cannot explain evolutionary findings associated with a
“tripartite” model of evolution (Smith, 2005a; Smith, 2005b; Smith, 2006a;
Smith, 2006b; Smith, in preparation). Not insignificantly, the notion of
psychoviruses portends a potential companion notion of ‘psychovaccines’.
[11]
A possible molecular and evolutionary basis for common sense was investigated
during the past
three years (Smith, 2004a; Smith, 2004b; Smith, 2004c; Smith, 2007a; Smith,
2007b; Smith,
2007c). This includes studies of common sense in more than 41 cultures
worldwide (see Table
1; cf. Taormina, 2006).
[12]
As a microcosm, one component of the common sense research focuses on the
evolution and
development of common sense in post-World War II Germans, Jewish Holocaust
survivors
residing in the USA, and Jewish Holocaust survivors residing in Israel.4
These groups were
selected because much of World War II history and its consequences are amply
documented
and archived. Even if common sense in Germans and Jewish persons differed
before World
War II, one hypothetically5 should not expect statistically
significant differences among Jewish
Holocaust survivors in Israel and the USA. Thus, the underlying design provides
important,
though not-too-rigorous, controls in these exploratory studies.
[13]
Preliminary evidence suggests three divergent strands of common sense
associated with these
three subpopulations. War and other trauma also appear to contribute generally
to divergences
in common sense elsewhere6 – resulting from genocide,
ethnic-cleansing, other crimes against
humanity, and other specific traumatic events. A few examples include:
4 Although Holocaust victims
included many persons and groups other than Jewish persons, the decision to
focus only on Jewish persons is based on practical considerations (e.g.,
availability of archives and documents, identifiable survivors and their
offspring, access, etc.). 5 This is a “null” hypothesis. In actual
fact, one should not be too surprised if there are significant divergences in
common sense in Jewish Holocaust survivors in Israel and the USA. Environment,
culture, government and other factors may contribute to those divergences. 6
In all instances of divergences in common sense cited in this report,
attributions of responsibilities or “blame” are avoided, even though blame and
causality may have relevance. Rather, the sole focus is on phenomena underlying
common sense, aberrant common sense, and changes in common sense. A goal is to
understand how evolutionary, molecular, developmental, situational and
clinical events may contribute to the explication of common sense and
changes in common sense. 7 Whereas Boccaccio’s writings were
diachronic, Tuchman’s approach was more synchronic.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
Even during the 4th
International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies
and Psychotherapies, strife and violence among monks and the military in
Myanmar are a
replay of the violent 1988 clashes between students and the military in Burma.
More recently,
wild firestorms in southern California traumatized many persons after more than
2300 homes
and structures were burned to the ground and more than 500,000 persons had to
be evacuated.
Thus, if instances of war and trauma contribute to divergences in common sense
in individuals
and groups/herds, then studying processes and dynamics underlying experiences,
belief
formation, reality, and awareness may have value – especially if they have
profound
psychological, social, political and moral implications requiring universal
caveats emptor (Smith,
1986; Smith, 1987; Smith, 1992).
[14]
The extremely hard problem discussed in this report is not
associated with separate general
cultural experiences per se. For example, divergent differences in
common sense in Germans,
8 Examples include: “Parable
of the Old Men and the Young”; “The Dead-Beat”; “Mental Cases”; “Arms and the
Boy”; and “Conscious.”
Copyright © 2007 by Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
Jewish Holocaust
survivors residing in the USA, or Jewish Holocaust survivors residing in Israel
per se are not considered. Rather, an immediate challenge concerns
separate realities among a unique and very small sample of German
persons9 who lack common sense (cf. Smith, 1986; Smith, 1987; Smith,
1988). Their common sense (or absence in common sense) does not comport with
mainstream common sense in Germany. The present in situ10
phenomenological study examines theoretical, philosophical (including moral and
ethical), methodological, economic, developmental, epidemiological and clinical
issues associated with this small sample of unknowingly needy and worried well
persons.
[15] Insofar as
‘common’ sense in humans develops between birth and approximately age six years
old (Smith, 1988; cf. Fulghum, 1986/2004), the extremely hard problem
specifically includes concerns for the extremely difficult scholarly and
clinical challenges of nurturing common sense skills in pre-school and
elementary school aged children who lack common sense. Because the propositi
and co-researchers in this study are adults, the focus is expanded to include
high school students, post-baccalaureate young adults, and older adults – none
of whom may have common sense.11 Older adults who lack common sense
may provide clues to boundaries and limitations regarding the intractability of
possible clinical treatments and therapeutic responses. Older adults also may
shed light on the long-term stability of common sense. A central theme guiding
this research is whether one can help these unknowingly needy persons. Is
providing assistance and nurturing change a lost cause? If DNA plasticity is
affirmed based on a hypothesis that DNA is the repository of long-term memories
(Smith, 1979; Smith, 2003b; cf. Exhibit 1), what combination of molecular,
psychopharmacological and/or therapeutic approaches can optimize therapeutic
responses, if at all – and at what ages?
[16] On a broader
scale, one is reminded that war often is a target and object of
many (military, political, game-theoretic and other) decisions and studies.
Research on common sense and aberrant common sense suggests that stability in
common sense may be a concrete benefit of peace. Examples of war and traumatic
situations possibly contributing to divergences in common sense were cited
earlier. The potential for homogeneity in common sense and possible
reduction in the prevalence of instances of aberrant common sense could be
one benefit and objective. Other possible benefits include reductions in costs
associated with clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic activities, as well as
societal costs associated with unforeseeable consequences of divergences in
common sense – including many of the types of traumatic events cited above. In
other words, micro- and macro-economic aspects of common sense must be factored
into the extremely hard problem, particularly insofar as rational thinking and
behaviors become economic issues. An apt analogy might be Ignaz Semmelweis’
observations about hospital sanitation when coupled with recent concerns about
methicillin-resistant (or, more accurately, multi-resistant) staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA; cf. Klevens et al., 2007). War and trauma may contribute to
messy, unhealthy and costly multi-resistant divergences in common
9 That the propositi in this
study are Germans may be purely coincidental – an accident of circumstances.
Retrospective analyses of other persons lacking common sense from the larger
database affirm many of the findings in this report. 10 The term in
situ is derived from Latin and means “in the situation.” 11
Throughout this report, we use aberrant common sense, having no common sense,
and lacking common sense interchangeably. Again, we are challenged to find
appropriate nomenclature which is sufficiently descriptive of underlying
cognitive processes. In alleging that persons have no common sense, there is no
intent to imply that those persons have no sense. Quite to the contrary, they
merely lack an appreciation for others’ sense within their herd, clan or
culture, and how their own behaviors do not comport with others’ common
or communal sense.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
sense – including
further aberrations in common sense and possibly leading to additional war and
“terrorism.” The hidden micro- and macro-psychological and economic costs
associated with chaos, war, terrorism, trauma, and stress-related disorders
must take front and center stage.
[17] At an
epistemological level, this report indirectly examines consequences of
professional failures to elucidate and explicate clinical aspects of
negativism, common sense, unknowing neediness and worried wellness in clinical
psychology, psychiatry, medicine, the neurosciences, and clinical social work.
Insofar as negativism and aberrant common sense often are manifested as chaotic
thinking and behaviors, occasional costly and harmful consequences, and in
other forms of inappropriate and complex human dynamics, the absence of a
negative personality disorder (cf. Millon, 1981) and aberrant common sense in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV-R TR
and various versions of the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) – 9 and 10 now must be
redressed. The term “common sense” does not appear in the DSM IV-R TR, any
version of the ICD, or in any known clinical or professional textbook in
medicine, clinical psychology, or clinical social work.12 Yet,
disorders of negativism and common sense pose special challenges because they
mimic personality psychopathology as well as sociopathology due to their impact
on and consequences for others. Moreover, professional trends in most health,
health care and public health systems require that clients seek professional
assistance rather than professionals seeking out the unknowingly needy.
Unknowing neediness simply is not on the professional ‘radar’ – and especially
in disorders of common sense. Persons who lack common sense generally do not
seek help and require novel interventions. Worried wellness usually falls
within the purview of health insurers largely because of economic
considerations. There is little consideration for experiential aspects within a
client’s reality, within professional realities, or within the intersection of
those realities.
[18] In summary, a
truly difficult problem for consciousness research is brought to light in
studies of common sense and aberrant common sense. This problem becomes even
more complex when consciousness issues underlying experimenter-subject and
clinician-client dyads become a part of the challenge. Assessments of awareness
and need then become a central part of the equation.
Introduction
[19] When
Professors Cyrus and Magdalena Lee issued their call for papers for the 4th
International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and
Psychotherapies, the plan was to submit a manuscript discussing recent and
preliminary results on divergences in “common sense” obtained during the past
two years. A two month retreat in Germany was organized with a goal to assemble
and analyze data related to post-World War II divergences in common sense in
Germans, and Jewish Holocaust survivors in the USA and Israel. Insofar as a previous
12 Although many features of
aberrant common sense mimic the borderline personality, it is sufficiently
different and deserves its own Axis II designation. The ICD-10 does include two
classifications (that is, F94.8 – Other childhood disorders of social
functioning; and, F94.9 – Childhood disorder of social functioning,
unspecified) which could subsume some commonsense-related issues, although
those categories do not take into account adult-related matters. Those
classifications also do not capture the cognitive aspects of the putative
disorder. General anxiety disorders in adults (ICD-10 – F41.1; ICD-9
– 300.02) also are presenting symptoms in aberrant common sense, yet these
disorders fail to characterize the spectrum of findings.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
presentation at the
3rd International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal
Psychologies and Psychotherapies dealt with new perspectives on evolution
and their implications for nurturance and the transpersonal
(Smith, 2005), a goal this year was to show, at least theoretically, that
“common sense” and its divergences have a biological basis in humans consistent
with the far-reaching “tripartite” (that is, three part) theory of evolution. A
working hypothesis is that common sense generally is encoded in non-proteomic
regions of the DNA genome. It is nurtured between the time of birth and roughly
age six, and is not genetic per se. To the extent that common sense may
represent herd behavior, a reasonable goal is to determine if there are common
encodings for common sense within herds, cultures, etc. Just as a ‘genetic
code’ facilitates consistent protein production based on genes in the proteome,
a common non-proteomic encoding scheme may underlie long-term memory
mechanisms. Ultimately, changing Guanine*Cytosine::Adenine*Thymine13
ratios in selected regions of brain might serve as crude markers for assessing
common sense traits and components. These crude markers could lead to the first
serious efforts aimed at distinguishing common and unique consequences of
nurturance – and consciousness. This long-term research approach also can
demonstrate breadth, depth and richness in the tripartite theory of evolution.
That is, the theory is sufficiently powerful to capture and explain some of the
most elemental forms of the human experiences – and even at a molecular level.
[20] Common sense
is one of those elemental experiences. Most persons use the term common sense
in their everyday lives, yet as noted above, there are very few discussions of
the psychology of common sense in the literature. Despite its use, without an operational
definition, one may never truly “know” what is meant by the term common sense
within any herd or cultural context. Even when persons are asked to define
common sense, they often encounter considerable difficulties. Indeed, initial
interest in German common sense (in contrast to common sense in Germany) arose
in the late-1980s in conversations with friends and professional colleagues in
Munich, Germany. When discussing then extant research on common sense in young
children (Smith, 1986; Smith, 1987; Smith, 1988), there was no uniform
agreement regarding an appropriate German term for common sense. There was
general agreement that gesundermenschenverstand best represents the
notion of common sense. Moreover, because there is general agreement that Gezond
verstand is the Dutch expression for common sense and because of
similarities in Dutch and German languages, it is reasonable to assume that gesundermenschenverstand
is an appropriate representation of what generally is regarded as common sense.
Table 1 lists many representations of the term common sense in different
languages.
[21] The challenge
of understanding common sense is far more complex than one of determining
definitions or common terminologies (cf. Table 1). Psychotherapist Salamin
Alphonse (at the 4th International Conference on
Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and Psychotherapies, personal
communication) notes that while bon sens may represent a correct
dictionary translation of the term into French, sens commun or sens
pratique may be more appropriate. The French term sens pratique (cf.
Bourdieu, 1998; Geertz, 1983; Robinson, 1983)14 may provide a clue
to an essential element in common sense; to wit, the importance of some
13 Hereafter designated G*C::A*T.
14 Clifford Geertz defines common sense as a form of ‘local
knowledge’ (Geertz, 1983); to wit, cultural language that forms the basis for
all agreements and is implied but not necessarily written. His emphasis is on
knowledge not underlying cognitive processes. Pierre Bourdieu (cf. <http://en.wikipediai.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu> and <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu>) defines sens
pratique in terms of fields, habitus and doxa.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
underlying
practical and socially conforming cognitive (memory and mental
processing) activities within groups, herds and/or cultures.15
This would support occasional claims that a person is “book smart,” yet has no
common sense.
[22] Table 1
provides a clue to another important aspect of common sense. The traditional
Chinese idiographic characters and Sanskrit terms for common sense point to
possible long-term and evolutionary aspects underlying common sense. These
representations underscore the importance of distinguishing and disambiguating nature
and nurture in discussions of common sense. Although many scholarly
pronouncements on common sense by western philosophers and religious scholars
may have originated in medicine during Middle Ages and Renaissance (Mullooly,
2003; Mullooly, 2006), the Chinese and Indian linguistic traditions clearly
indicate much earlier uses of the concept / notion. There also is evidence of
Aboriginal persons in Australia having historical and cultural notions of
common sense.16 Furthermore, when the naturalistic report of a
battle between a herd water buffalo and pride of lions is considered
(Schlosberg and Budzinski, 2004), it is evident that both biological (that is,
nature) and herd / cultural (that is, nurturance, development and adaptation)
components are important.
A Role for Evolution in Common Sense and A Role for
Common Sense in Evolution
[23] A tripartite
theory of evolution (Smith, 2005b; Smith, 2006a; Smith, 2006a; Smith, in
preparation) differs from Charles Darwin’s theory insofar as the tripartite
theory has three unique components. The first component (A) subsumes all
of Charles Darwin’s ideas. In other words, Darwin’s theory is necessary,
though not sufficient, to explain human evolution. The two remaining components
in the tripartite theory are: B) in utero experiences and
possible consequences in later life related to those in utero
experiences (that is, intrauterine events and “experiences” between mother and
child taking place in a woman’s womb during pregnancy; possible transfers of
‘soulful’ and nurturing information in utero, and, possible long-term
consequences of drugs, addictions, methylations/imprinting and the intrauterine
environment; cf. Verny and Kelly, 1981/1983; Barker et al., 1989; cf. Coles,
1990; Haig, 1996; Forsen et al., 2000; Killian et al., 2000; Barker, 2001;
Godfrey and Barker, 2001; Eriksson et al., 2001; Reik and Walter, 2001; Verny
and Weintraub, 2002; Barker, 2002; Barker, 2003a; Barker, 2003b; Bihl, 2003;
DiPietro, 2006; Dolinoy, Huang and Jirtle, 2007); and, C) DNA is the
repository of long-term memories in brain and the immune system (Smith, 1979;
see Exhibit 1). An abundance of clinical, epidemiological, experimental and
theoretical evidence suggests that changes in DNA occur dynamically largely in
non-proteomic regions of the genome (Smith, in preparation). Preliminary
evidence from a variety of sources suggests that many of those DNA changes in
brain may convert adenine*thymine-rich regions to guanine*cytosine-richer
regions, possibly accompanied by methylation events. In immune memories,
recombinations and rearrangements in immunoglobulin hypervariable genes
represent an established mechanism (Tonegawa et al., 1978; Sakano et al.,
1979).
[24]
15 I especially am grateful to
Jutta Thompson, Greg Andonian, Gerard De Zeeuw, Salamin Alphonse, Fei Zi, Ming
Lee, John Clemens, Julio Vidaurrazaga, Byron Marshall, James Stasheff, Michael
Eisenstadt and others for assisting me in sorting out the importance of various
cognitive components underlying common sense and aberrant common sense. These
components include memory, culture / herd, processing, problem-solving,
mistakes and error processing, etc. 16 At this time, it is not known
if any Aboriginal notions of common sense are consistent with ‘dream time’.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
Other memory
mechanisms associated with C include mutable loci and transpositions
(McClintock, 1950; Smith, 1979), mirror neuron activities (e.g., imitation and
grasping of intentions; di Pellegrino et al., 1992; Fadiga et al., 1995;
Rizzolati et al., 1996a; Rizzolati et al., 1996b; Gallese et al., 1996; Grafton
et al., 1999; Iacoboni et al., 1999; Arbib et al., 2000; Ramachandran, 2000;
Iacoboni et al., 2001; Iacoboni et al., 2005), and psychovirus actions (Smith,
1987; Smith, 1988; Smith, 1992). In addition, new transmissible and epigenetic
memory mechanisms (e.g., autotoxicity, autovirulence, context-specificity,
‘hit-and-run’ and ‘beneath-theradar’ transmissible infections; Smith, 1983;
Smith, 1984; Smith, 2003a) may contribute to autoimmune, psychosomatic and
other psycho-immuno-neurological axis disorders and syndromes.
[25] What generally
distinguishes A from B and C is the forms of information
transmitted and how that information is reproduced and replicated. The
replication and transmission of molecular information associated with A
primarily is genetic. Although Darwinian evolution presumably can accommodate
the transmission of substituent particles (for example, prions and other
autotoxins; transposons, microRNAs, snRNPs, and other autovirions; and other
potential generators of diversity [Smith, 1984; Smith, 1989]), psychoviruses
and mirror neuron actions (e.g., imitation and grasping of intentions) are more
difficult to reconcile. Components B and C generally cannot be
explained in Darwinian evolutionary terms. B and C can explain
Lamarckian evolution and more – including common sense. C identifies
other evolutionary advantages often overlooked in Darwinian evolution –
including aging and different economic benefits (e.g., volunteerism and
philanthropy). This tripartite evolutionary perspective may generalize to marsupial
mammals, too (cf. Killian et al., 2000). Marsupials include opossums in the
Earth’s northern and southern hemispheres, along with an extraordinary variety
of other marsupials mostly in the southern hemisphere (for example, kangaroos,
wallabies, koala bears, wombats, and even the Tasmanian devil and thylocine;
see <http://www.pbase.com/mr2c280/australia_mammals>).
[26] That there may
be a molecular basis for common sense and that there is a role for evolution in
common sense, is not at all obvious. Some scholars may be inclined view common
sense diachronously (that is, of, relating to, or dealing with phenomena
[as of language or culture] as they occur or change over a period of time
prospectively and/or cumulatively) or synchronously (that is, chronological
arrangement of historical events and personages so as to indicate coincidence
or coexistence; retrospectively and/or historically). These dichotomies,
dualities, oppositions and distinctions may be artificial and simplistic – and
represent instances of descriptive – structuralism and its inadequacies
(Smith, 1983). Descriptive-structuralism is unlikely to shed any light on a
possible molecular basis for common sense.
[27] A second
possible approach to explicating common sense might involve heuristic –
functionalism (Smith, 1983). One’s views of common sense must appreciate
diachronous and synchronous (i.e., descriptive) details. Yet, an underlying
appreciation for molecular and biological (i.e., functional) processes also is
in order. Those processes may provide clues to broad molecular elements,
even though those processes remain to be more fully explicated. As noted
earlier, common sense possibly is encoded in non-proteomic portions of the
genome. To the extent that this possibility is affirmed, an immediate challenge
and long-term goal may be to ascertain whether there really are “common”
elements underlying brain activities – and especially in regard to
consciousness and common sense. In other words, does the term “common” in
common sense have relevance at a molecular and non-proteomic level?
[28] This report
reveals a third possible approach to explicating common sense. After planning a
two month scholarly retreat in Germany in order to complete a report for the 4th
International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies
and Psychotherapies, those best laid plans were derailed because of
emergent chaos in the German household. The planned report not only would
provide preliminary evidence of three divergent strands in common sense emerging
from post-World War II, the report would have considered biological,
evolutionary and developmental advantages of common sense to survivors of World
War II. In the end, aberrant common sense was determined to be the source of
the chaos. This third approach emerged from that chaos. In situ
observations of aberrant commonsense17 behaviors were
extraordinarily rich, informative and invaluable, and, represent a unique and
fortuitous embodiment of logistic reasoning (Smith, 1983). By viewing
aberrant common sense in real-time, one now may be able to understand more
about both common sense and aberrant common sense.
[29] In summary,
preliminary findings related to the evolution of common sense in generations of
post-World War II Germans and Holocaust survivors, when coupled with logistic
reasoning about aberrant common sense, possibly can provide a glimpse into
biological, developmental and evolutionary mechanisms underlying common sense
and aberrant common sense. These findings also will support using common sense
as a concrete marker when building a solid foundation in peace studies.
Finally, the findings now propel the ‘transpersonal realm’ into virgin and
uncharted territories in genomic studies and neurosciences.
[30] Logistic
reasoning also provides clues to needs for proactive and anticipatory
strategies aimed at avoiding divergences in common sense. For example,
increasing numbers of mothers now serve in the USA military services. This
phenomenon also is occurring in other nations. Estimates of USA women soldiers
serving in the Iraq war now exceed 170,000 tours in duty. Women also comprise
approximately 10% of soldiers assigned to the war in Iraq (<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14964676>; Norris, 2007). Women
in the USA military services also have higher prevalence rates of
post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) than their male counterparts (Norris and
Hillard, 2007; Milliken, Auchterlonie and Hoge, 2007). Having women serve in
the military is deemed a social objective aimed at reducing gender inequities
and providing human rights consistent with the United States Constitution. Yet,
many of those military mothers are being separated from their young children
during those children’s formative years when common sense is developing. Those
children also could be exposed to psychoviruses or other situational stresses
from other non-parental and non-familial sources.
[31] Military
service women of childbearing ages, and who may have experienced PTSD, pose a
second challenge. Their PTSD could lead to aberrant nurturance of any offspring
subsequent to their diagnosis of PTSD, thereby causing other divergences in
common sense. Ultimately, an increase in prevalence rates of aberrant common
sense may be a consequence of the shortsightedness in USA military strategies
regarding the lack of strategic planning for long-term
17 Throughout this report,
common sense is used as a noun, and commonsense is used as an adjective.
Copyright © 2007 by Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
consequences of
childbearing women in the military (cf. Montagne, 2007; Norris, 2007; Milliken,
Auchterlonie and Hoge, 2007; also see <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14964676>). Any aberrations in
common sense may be viewed as concrete markers and indicators of the
ill-thought and ill-advised prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even more important, the national caveats emptor in regard to “terrorism” are
profound (cf. Smith, 1987; Smith, 1988; Smith, 1992; Smith, 2002). Insofar as
these wars allegedly are responses to terrorism, evidence of excessive
humiliation and torture (at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, CIA extraordinary
rendition sites worldwide, and the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba), terrorism could beget further torture and terrorism – contributing to a
cycle of divergent, divergences in common sense. Similar cycles of terrorism
are evident in Russia where Chechnyan terrorists become even more emboldened by
Russian responses to Chechnyan terrorist attacks.
[32]
This proactive scenario should cause one to pause and consider what clinicians,
scholars,
transpersonalists, military planners and others should recommend and practice
if peace,
common sense and sanity are to be preserved – and if one’s offspring (and
others) are to enjoy
long-term benefits of peace. There also is a need for concrete
technologies (in terms of reliability
and validity) to assess common sense and its aberrations – and, by inference,
peace. It now is
time to invent and develop non-invasive technologies to assess DNA changes –
and to correlate
DNA dynamics with common sense, peace and other clinical entities.
[33]
Parenthetically, in citing the proactive consequences of the war on future
manifestations of
common sense in the USA and elsewhere, it also is worth mentioning a
little-noted proactive
aspect and consequence of China’s ‘one child” policies on population control.
There is little
evidence that the forefathers of this policy weighed its consequences and
implications for the
spread of HIV/AIDS. This example is particularly important because of a
question from a young
female university student at the 25 September 2007 “Going Along with Professors
– Speakers of
the World” Forum at the International Hall in one of university of Guangzhou’s
10-university
center complex. The event was co-hosted by the Guangzhou University of Chinese
Medicine.
The woman requested professors’ views on “one-night (sexual) stands” (cf.
Wilson, 2007).
[34]
The young woman’s question was extraordinarily important insofar as the spread
of HIV in
university communities can have devastating long-term consequences. Her
question also was
important because of the relative imbalance in the ratio of males to females
caused by China’s
one-child policy. The transmission of other sexually transmissible diseases is
no less important
(cf. Moss et al., 2007). Most persons overlook one extremely important
epidemiologic fact about
HIV, lentiviruses (in general), and other transmissible agents causing slowly
progressive
diseases (for example, prions). In all instances, the quantity of the virus is
inversely correlated
with the profoundness of disease within an individual and within the herd
(Smith, 1984; Smith,
1994; Smith, 2001; cf. Kelley et al., 2007). As virus titers increase (that is,
as virus “load”
increases), then incubation periods become shorter. Over the long-term, as
virus titers increase,
manifestations of diseases become more profound. This finding has special
significance in
physical islands and social islands because virus titers sometimes can increase
exponentially –
both within individuals and herds. Perhaps more important, all agents causing
slowly
progressive processes comport with as many as eleven ‘near-axiomatic’
features – including the
inverse proportionality rule and an ‘island’ hypothesis (Smith, 1994).
[35] The ‘island’
hypothesis states that prevalence rates for infectious agents causing slowly
progressive diseases and the profoundness of those associated diseases generally
are greater in island environments. College campuses often are social islands
with many unknowingly needy clients (cf. Wilson, 2007). These factors, taken
together, reveal increased risks for women in China (that is, a social island
confounded by the one-child policy) to receive higher titers of HIV than their
male counterparts – at least initially. To the extent that there are fewer
female sexual partners available in the society, increased titers and
infections rates then can shift to males. Hence, if sexual activities are
carried out without consideration for others, the prevalence of HIV and
opportunistic infections could continue to rise exponentially – and
dynamically, shifting disproportionately among females and males. In short,
common sense, common knowledge, and evolutionary considerations dictate
that human sexual predilections take into account HIV/AIDS, other sexually
transmitted diseases, and socio-politico dynamics. By this logic, “one night”
stands, at this time in history, may be regarded as a form of aberrant common
sense.
[36] Overall, the
spread of HIV in humans is nicely illustrated in the Benetton photo
essay appended near the end of this paper (Exhibit 2). The particular issue of
the Benetton Colors Magazine appeared in 2000 – just in time for the XIII
International AIDS Conference in Durham, South Africa. At that time, the
spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa was thought to represent the worse
case scenario in this dread pandemic. The alarming changing prevalence rates of
HIV/AIDS in India and China now should give pause to all Chinese nationals –
and especially to university and college students (cf. Wilson, 2007). Along
with the spread of HIV/AIDS, one can anticipate an increase in the prevalence
rates and varieties of other infectious diseases – and especially sexually
transmitted diseases.
[37] Before leaving
the issue of HIV/AIDS, it is important to stress the underlying common sense and
common knowledge implications (see Footnote 46). Knowledge about HIV/AIDS,
other sexually transmitted diseases, and opportunistic pathogens must become
common knowledge, in addition to the common sense issues regarding
transmissibility of infectious pathogens. Cooperation is a central tenet in
common sense. This is in contrast to reasoning used by virtually all persons
with aberrant common sense. All other things being equal, the ways and actions
of persons who lack common sense focus solely on their own ways and actions –
and not the ways and actions of the herd. The last two graphics in this report
are taken from an elementary school morality education textbook entitled “SHOGAKU
DŌU TŌKU／どうとく(Morality /
The way of virtue) for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
grades” (Umiuchi et al., circa 1967; Exhibit 4). They are excellent
illustrations of both cooperation and common sense.18 Similar crisp
and clear, “commonsense” instructions about cooperation and considerations
for others were provided as animated passenger information on Japan
Airlines (JAL) flights to the 4th International Conference
on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and Psychotherapies. Another
commonsense example from recent Japanese literature is Moriko Shinju’s Mottainai
Grandma comic series illustrating the inappropriateness of waste (Shinju,
2004/2004; Kestenbaum, 2007). Shinju’s underlying message is the common adage
“waste not; want not.”
18 Unique in the second lesson
is the exceptional step (the last panel on the bottom left) taken by the fox
character to teach others what it (that is, the fox) learned from the bear.
This step generally is not seen in lesson plans in schools in the USA. The
example also illustrates cultural differences in common sense.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
An In Situ Phenomenological Analysis of
Aberrant Common Sense
[38] As mentioned
earlier, a two month scholarly retreat was planned to complete a manuscript for
this 4th International Conference on Humanistic and
Transpersonal Psychologies and Psychotherapies. Those plans were disrupted
for elusive reasons which remain difficult to fully understand. During the
retreat in Germany, glaring, costly and potentially harmful examples of
aberrant common sense were continually encountered. The remainder of this
presentation focuses on an in situ phenomenological study19 and
analysis of aberrant common sense during that two month period. The situation
was particularly interesting because of the confluence in emerging concerns for
“illness,” “aberrancy,” “health,” “wellness” and “helping.” Regarding helping,
the focus in this in situ study is on unknowing neediness (in persons
lacking common sense), and not the worried well. This is not to conclude that
persons lacking common sense cannot be among the worried well. Indeed,
Proposita “D” (see below) often presents as a hopelessly worried well client.20
Propositi –
co-researchers in this study21
[39]
The propositi in this report include a divorced middle-aged mother (Proposita
“A”) and her two
young adult, interracial22 daughters Propositi “B” and “C”. The
investigator has known Proposita
“A” since July 2004. He met Propositi “B” and “C” in March 2005. Other
propositi include two
somewhat elderly next door neighbors (Proposita “Y” and Proposita “Z”) whom the
he also met
in March 2005. Propositi “Y” and “Z” are unrelated.
[40]
Of these propositi, Proposita “C” clearly lacks common sense. This was
immediately apparent in
March 2005. Aberrant common sense in Propositi “Y” and “Z” became evident in
2006. Their
aberrancies in common sense are somewhat peripheral to the present study,
except insofar as
their behaviors initially sparked concerns about potentially high prevalence
rates of aberrant
common sense in post-World War II Germany. Propositi “A,” “B,” “C,” “Y,” and
“Z” are German
citizens residing in a large urban city in Germany. Proposita “A” was diagnosed
with aberrant
common sense in May 2007 midway through this in situ study. There is no
evidence that
Proposita “B” has any aberration in common sense, although indirect evidence
suggests that her
father Propositus “X” lacks common sense.
[41]
A divorced middle-aged mother (Proposita “D”) is known to this investigator
since 1972. Her
aberrant common sense was diagnosed in 1985 – shortly after it was reported
that transmissible
negativism and aberrant common sense represent important clinical entities.
Prior to 1985,
19 Phenomenological studies in
psychology and other social sciences are not new (cf. Braud and Anderson,
1998). This study is unique insofar as its in situ component is more
akin to ethnographic research in anthropology. 20 Interest in the
unknowingly needy and worried well is derived from the classic adage / paradigm
about the dichotomization of knowledge and action (see Endnote after the
References). 21 The word “propositi” is the plural of proposita
(female) and/or propositus (male). These terms refer to designated
persons in a pedigree or family tree. 22 Interracial, interfaith and
interethnic relationships are cited because of past findings associated with
propositi who lack common sense (Smith, 1992; Smith, 2004c). Of 37 propositi
marriages and divorces, 24 of those marriages were interracial and 1 was an
interfaith marriage (67.6%). Also, of those 37 propositi marriages, 16 involved
2nd marriages (43.2%), and 1 involved a 3rd marriages
(2.7%). Twelve of these multiple marriages were to interracial partners. Thus,
the significance of the high prevalence rates of interracial, interfaith, and
interethnic relationships among persons with aberrant common sense remains to
be explored beyond being a mere caveat emptor. More than 70% of Proposita “A’s”
partners are interracial.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
Proposita “D” was
considered to be strange, challenging, difficult, moody, emotionally labile,
worried well, anxiety-laden, frequently prone to errors and misunderstandings,
unreliable, and self-absorbed. In this study, Proposita “D” is one case control
for Proposita “A” insofar as her age is the same age as Proposita “A,” she and
Proposita “A” are second generation survivors of World War II, and Proposita
“D” has members of her family who were displaced by World War II. Proposita “D”
has a teenage, interfaith/interethnic son (Propositus “E”) who is approximately
five years younger than Proposita “C.” Propositus “E” is selected as a case
control for Proposita “C” particularly in view of findings on psychoviruses
(Smith, 1987; Smith, 1988; Smith, 1992; Smith, 2004c) and higher prevalence
rates associated with anxiety disorders in families. The significance of the
latter will become apparent later in this report.
[42] Both Propositi
“D” and “E” are cited in earlier studies (Smith, 1988; Smith, 2004b; Smith,
2004c; Smith, 2006a; Smith, 2006b; Smith, 2007a; Smith, 2007b). Proposita “D”
is Jewish and, as noted, a second generation survivor of World War II. Her
father’s family is Sephardic Jewish, although he was born in Poland and
migrated to Canada before the Holocaust. Her mother is Ashkenazi Jewish who,
along with her (mother’s) sister, was hidden by French Catholic families on
farms in France. They were raised as Catholics. Propositi “A” is a non-Jewish
second generation World War II survivor, and Propositi “Z” and “Y” are first
generation World War II survivors whose religious heritages are unknown.
[43] By any description,
Propositi “C” and “E” would be regarded as non-autistic savants insofar as each
excels in some personal passion (that is, Proposita “C” is a child actress of
considerable acclaim, and Propositus “E” is an expert on Civil War history).
Propositus “E” alleges pass-life experiences and past-life regressions, though
this has never been assessed.
[44] Proposita “F”
is a second case control for Propositi “A” and “D.” She is a divorced
Japanese-American who lived her formative years in internment centers in
California (that is, from months shortly after her birth until the closure of
the internment centers). Thus, Proposita “F” may provide another perspective on
the impact and consequences of World War II on the development of common sense
and it aberrations.
[45] Of all
propositi, only Proposita “D” actively discusses World War II – a common
finding in Jewish Holocaust survivors and their offspring. Germans and
Japanese-American survivors of World War II and their offspring are less likely
to openly discuss war-time experiences.23 Indeed, it is somewhat
difficult to document Trümmerfrauen (that is, “rubble women”)24
activities in Germany, even though they played a significant role in the
reconstruction of select regions in Germany (because of the scarcity of males
due to deaths and infirmity caused by World War II). The
23 Different groups respond
differently to war and trauma. Armenians are increasingly vocal about their
1915 experiences. Cambodians are relatively mute regarding the “killing fields”
and displacements. Chinese only recently have begun to discuss the Cultural
Revolution. Thus, an analysis of rhetoric (including prose, poetry, art, film
and music) and divergences in common sense may have value if divergences in
common sense in responses to war and trauma are affirmed. 24 Because
their activities generally were not organized or coordinated, Trümmerfrauen could
be extremely important in one’s quest to understand the evolution and
development of common sense and aberrant common sense in post-World War II
Germans. However, there is no evidence that Propositi “A,” “B” and “C” are
progeny of Trümmerfrauen.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
investigator knows
relatively little about Propositi “Y” and “Z,” however they may be significant
in future studies because they are first generation survivors.
[46] Of more than
50 adult propositi in a database of aberrant common sense (Smith, 1987; Smith,
1992; Smith, 2004c), there is very little evidence of significant religious or
spiritual practices among the propositi. None of the in situ propositi
revealed any spiritual practice, even though Propositi “A,” “B” and “C” are
Roman Catholic. Propositi “A” refused to pray in two situations where prayer
may have been appropriate or indicated. This general observation could provide
an opportunity for further investigation, particularly in the context of
resistance, intransigence and “my way or the highway” responses in most persons
lacking common sense. Faith in higher powers, in contrast to hope from the
occult, lies at the core of this concern.
[47]
Proposita “A” is the master tenant in a house owned by the investigator, as is
her daughter
Proposita “C” A third unrelated young adult male (Propositus “W”) also resides
in the household.
Proposita “B” is the first-born child of Proposita “A,” and is a university
student living
approximately one hour away from her mother and sister.
[48]
As reported earlier, there were advance plans for a two month scholarly
retreat. These plans
were negotiated with Proposita “A” at least six months prior to the planned
visit. Despite this
agreement, Proposita “A” may have changed her mind, although this was never
communicated
to the investigator.25 Because of egregious, profound and ongoing
instances of extreme passive-
aggression in Proposita “A” upon his arrival in Germany, the focus of this
research was changed
to identify and understand possible reasons underlying those aberrant
behaviors.
[49]
The diagnosis of aberrant common sense in Proposita “A” was made on 20 May 2007
after
more than one and a half months of observations,26 visits with
relatives, family, friends and other
acquaintances, and, direct observations of breakages, mistakes,
misunderstanding, and
numerous inappropriate actions. The thoroughness of this investigation was
deemed essential
because Proposita “A” revealed no obvious aberrancies in common sense in the
past, and
because of the sanctity of the business (that is, landlord – tenant)
relationship.
[50]
The concept of passive-aggression was unknown to any propositi in this study.
Despite this,
Proposita “C” and her father (Propositus “X,” the ex-spouse of Proposita “A”)
are profoundly
passive-aggressive.27 This was observed in March 2005, during visits
in 2006, and also was
25 This is just one example of
Proposita “A’s” extreme passive-aggression. 26 The chaos at the
beginning of the in situ period was palpable. It then was necessary to
“rule out” borderline personality disorder, confabulations, severe
passive-aggression without other co-morbid disorders, etc. 27 This
finding raised two vexing issues. The first vexing issue concerns the earliest
manifestations of passive-aggression in Propositi “A,” “C” and “X.” This was
important in disambiguating possible vectorial actions of psychoviruses – ‘from
whom to whom’. The second vexing issue was whether aberrant common sense in
Propositi “A” and “X” may have been transferred to each other. After in situ
encounters with Proposita “A’s” mother, siblings and childhood friends, it was
apparent that Proposita “A” lacked common sense prior to meeting Propositus
“X.”
reported by
Proposita “A” in numerous telephone calls and on various occasions. The
father-daughter passive-aggression was so profound and frequent that it often
produced stress and anxiety in Proposita “A.” During the April-May retreat
period, Proposita “B” also cited evidence of her father’s profound
passive-aggression. Direct and indirect evidence, as well as testimony from
friends, confirmed that Propositus “X” lacks common sense.28
[51] During the
retreat period, aberrant common sense associated with Proposita “A,” and
secondarily with daughter Proposita “C,” contributed to chaos,
misunderstandings, property destruction, harmful and destructive personal and
social relations, and faltering landlord-tenant relationships. The purpose of
the present in situ phenomenological analysis is to document and
understand aberrations in common sense during the two month period. A goal is
to identify processes associated with aberrations in common sense, and reasons
for their destructive consequences. More important, because of ongoing interest
in the evolution and development of common sense in generations of Germans and
Holocaust survivors in post-World War II Germany, it was deemed important to
understand the etiology of aberrant common sense in situ. After all, it
also is important to understand and possibly rule-out any relationship of the
immediate instances of aberrant common sense to the broader issue of
divergences in common sense arising from World War II. This is the reason
Propositi “D,” “E” and “F” are incorporated in the study as case controls.
Can persons
with aberrant common sense shed light on “healthy” or “balanced” persons’ (that
is, common) sense – gesundermenschenverstand?
[52] Quite often
diseases are used to elucidate and explicate normal processes. For example,
research on slow viruses which contribute to dementia in brain and the immune
system led to a new model of evolution and long-term memories (Smith, 1979).
That same model accurately anticipated HIV/AIDS (Smith, 1983; Smith, 1984) and
more than 90 epigenetic diseases associated with gamma herpesviruses and
adenoviruses (Smith, 2003a). Linus Pauling’s groundbreaking research on sickle
cell anemia led to an understanding of the molecular basis for genetic diseases
(Pauling et al., 1949). Huntington’s disease is likely to shed light on
boundaries between proteomic and non-proteomic regions of genomes, as well as
relationships among cognitive and sensory-motor components. Hence, an ambitious
goal in the present research on aberrant common sense is to provide useful
clues to reality, consciousness and formation of beliefs – in addition to a
possible biological basis for common sense.
[53] Ponder these
questions: how can one diagnose aberrant common sense? What distinguishes
common sense from aberrant common sense? What nomenclature should be used to
describe persons who lack common sense? Is “aberrant” an appropriate term to
describe one having no common sense? Can psychiatry, clinical psychology and
other “helping” professions develop an awareness of, appreciation for, and therapeutic
approaches to “transmissible negativism,” “aberrant common sense,” “unknowing
neediness” and “worried wellness”? Why have other scholars failed to recognize
diseases of common sense, unknowing neediness, and worried
This does not rule
out Propositus “X” lacking common sense early in his childhood. Indeed,
indirect and second-
hand information support this proposition.
28 Passive-aggression and aberrant common sense represent different
psychological entities. Earlier studies on
“transmissible negativism” led to a hypothesis that ‘transmissible negativism’
psychoviruses could contribute to
aberrant common sense, particularly in young children between birth and
approximately age 6 (Smith, 1987; Smith,
1988; Smith, 1992; Smith, 2004c). However, not all persons with aberrant common
sense are negative.
Copyright © 2007 by
Roulette William Smith, Ph.D. – All rights reserved.
wellness? Insofar
as persons who do not have common sense generally will not self-refer
themselves for therapy and counseling, how can chaos and other harmful
behaviors be circumvented in this unknowing needy subpopulation? Finally, why
is there an absence of any concept of common sense or aberrant common sense in
textbooks on psychiatry, clinical psychology and other helping professions –
worldwide? Have our heads been stuck in the sand during the past century?
[54] Two years ago,
Smith (2005b) announced a tripartite model of evolution at the 3rd
International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and
Psychotherapies. A visual aid was used to depict that only 1.2% of the
human genome comprises the “proteome” – the protein encoding region of the
genome. That is, only 1.2% of the DNA in cells can explain our genes. Those genes
and proteins are the principal “stuff” in Darwinian evolution. For purposes of
simplification, one might call this nature. A large fraction (say, 75%)
of the remaining ~98% of the genome sometimes is referred to as “junk” DNA, and
cannot be explained by Darwinian principles. It now is proposed that a small
fraction of this allegedly “junk DNA” is used to encode “common sense” – beginning
at birth and extending to one becoming roughly six years old (cf. Fulghum,
1986/2004). An empirical issue then becomes whether the encoding schema for
common sense are consonant or “common” in any ways for animals in a cohort. If
so, this could provide powerful and compelling evidence that herd behavior may
have a common biological basis. The general proposal is that nurturance
and other forms of long-term memories largely are encoded in non-proteomic
portions of the genome. Because this presentation focuses on persons who do not
have common sense, a general theory of common sense will be discussed and amply
documented elsewhere (Smith, 2004a; Smith, 2004b; Smith, 2004c; Smith, 2007a;
Smith, 2007b; Smith, 2007c; Smith, 2007d). Suffice it to say, aberrant common
sense may be encoded somewhere in non-proteomic regions, but this no longer is
the primary concern.
[55] This report is
about people who do not have common sense. Smith’s earliest observations of the
phenomenon of aberrant common sense occurred in 1985 (Smith, 1986; Smith,
1988). Nine children in a Sunnyvale, California Elementary School Mathematics
Lab revealed types of mistakes in mathematics that simply could not be
explained using any form of error analyses. Their responses were outliers by
virtually every assessment of errors. More will be said about those 1985
experiences near the end of this report on in situ phenomenological
analyses and experiences of the situation in Germany earlier this year.
[56] In earlier
reports (Smith, 2004c; Smith, 2006b; Smith, 2007a; Smith, 2007b; Smith, 2007c;
Smith, 2007d), common sense was defined as “core ‘nurturance’ in herds.”
Although this definition is vague, its intent was to underscore the uniqueness
of common sense in herd behaviors. Herds may include spiritual, ethnic,
cultural, sects, professional, or other groupings of living entities. In plain
language, the definition of common sense was meant to represent core
“nurturing” experiences possessed by most members of a herd. Nurturance
derives from parents, friends, community and other herd experiences – including
environmental influences. This is an embodiment of Marian Wright Edelman’s
reference to an African proverb that “it takes a village to raise a child.”
Aberrant common sense generally refers to outliers – both as individuals in the
herd and as thinking and problem-solving behaviors not shared by most members
of the herd. The village metaphor fails. Persons with aberrant common sense do
not seem to have acquired village or herd teachings / values. The vagueness in
the earlier definitions was meant to underscore uniqueness, variability and
value-laden aspects in taught, learned and nurtured experiences.
[57]
In the end, the present in situ phenomenological findings reveal that
neither of these definitions
– for common sense
or aberrant common sense – is adequate or sufficient to capture the salient
mental features central to logic and information processing in common sense. On
the surface,
nurturance should be both necessary and sufficient to enculturate all of the
needed logical skills
for survival and other practical decision-making. This in situ
phenomenological study reveals
otherwise. It underscores a need for a finer grained analysis of thinking,
cognition and
mentation. For example, earlier studies revealed the importance of mathematics
problem solving
and reading skills in commonsense and aberrant commonsense behaviors (Smith,
1987; Smith,
1988; Smith, 1992). Those studies also highlighted unusual error processes
associated
mathematics and reading in persons who lack common sense. For this study,
selected
mathematics, problem solving and deep reading skills are deficient in adult
Propositi “A,” “D,”
“F,” and younger propositi “C” and “E.” Their deficiencies teach that logistic
reasoning and
anticipatory skills are critically important in common sense, whereas the
absence of logistic
reasoning and anticipatory skills may be associated with frustration,
humiliation and anxiety
disorders. This may be a reason why Proposita “D” graduated cum laude from
University of
California, Berkeley and possess a law degree, yet still lack common sense.
Propositi “A,” “C,”
“D” and “F” are high-functioning, non-autistic individuals except when
confronted with extreme
tasks and/or critical thinking challenges. Then they become “unglued” and “come
apart.”
[58]
Perhaps more important, the scope of breakages, errors, mistakes,
misunderstandings and
misinterpretations are quite prevalent and prominent in persons lacking common
sense. Those
error processes often produce anxiety and generalized anxiety disorders over
extended periods
of time. Estimates of prevalence rates for anxiety disorders range from 3% -
17% in the general
population (Ries, 1996; Gater et al., 1998). Insofar as many of the propositi
in this study live
near Mainz, Germany and at a greater distance from Berlin, the prevalence rates
for generalized
anxiety disorders in Mainz are particularly intriguing (cf. Table 3 in Gater et
al., 1998). Yet,
because little is written about common sense, aberrant common sense and anxiety
disorders, it
is not known whether aberrant common sense is a major component of this
fraction.
[59]
In the present study, Proposita “A” is medicated for an anxiety disorder. She
revealed this to the
investigator and only one other person. None her children, siblings or other
family members
were informed of her medication. Proposita “D” resolutely refuses any medical
attention for her
frequent anxiety attacks – even upon recommendations of her primary care and
other
physicians. Proposita “C” is unmedicated, although she has consulted a clinical
psychotherapist
upon the recommendation of her primary care physician. Neither Propositi “A”
nor “C” is willing
to consider long-term psychotherapy (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy),
even with
substantial positive incentives and inducements.
[60]
Although many features characterize all propositi in this study (see Table 2),
two features of
aberrant common sense define all pro