Originally posted by Burning thoughtHow is knowing why you are in incredible agony worse than not knowing? Are there any studies on that, cause, now, from my point of view, just being in pain and having no idea what's going on except for it, seems pretty shitty.
its true, it would have been far worse if it was an older kid, 4-10 years who knew what was going on. The kid itself in this situation was a baby thus, would not understand what was happening apart from the fact it was recieving pain.
Unless you are saying that 14 year olds can feel more pain than 2 year olds (behind blue eyes), if so, I don't know whether that is true, are there studies on the subject or is that a guess?
It would give more fuel to the 14 year old poem-emo group.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtThat's very subjective.
because not knowing your going to die, whats harming you etc is better than knowing your going to die, knowing your family are doing this to you. i would certainly prefer not to know or understand whats happeing when ime being beaten rather than knowing.
Originally posted by Burning thought
its true, it would have been far worse if it was an older kid, 4-10 years who knew what was going on. The kid itself in this situation was a baby thus, would not understand what was happening apart from the fact it was recieving pain.
I don't think it would have been far worse at all. An older child would have been able to alert other adults to what was going on. However the baby was totally dependent on the adults who tortured him, he was completely helpless and could do nothing to stop the agonies and injuries being inflicted on him.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtYou did not "explain", you "stated". And whether he knew what was going on he certainly felt the pain of what happened.
His loved ones are at less of an advantage than he is from his death, the kid himself as I explained at that age had little idea of what was going on.
Originally posted by The Pict
I don't think it would have been far worse at all. An older child would have been able to alert other adults to what was going on. However the baby was totally dependent on the adults who tortured him, he was completely helpless and could do nothing to stop the agonies and injuries being inflicted on him.
Thats not ncesserily true, an older child may have not told anyone due to the fear of another beating and thus knowing fear would be yet another affliction which would make it worse for that child. But the subject was the beating itself of it being worse for an older child, the circumstance is debatable.
Burning Thought: by "not knowing what is going on" do you mean something more like "would not have the same contextual experience and socially constructed family relations as an older child, thus reducing the emotional impact of being betrayed by a mother"?
because, like, the child would obviously know what is going on, and there is evidence that even very young children have some sense of a Theory of Mind, meaning the child might have even known that the mother had a personal motive to hurt it (It clearly would be able to identify its mother and that she was hurting him). I think I get what you are saying, but like, wouldn't the same logic say that its not that bad to torture animals because they aren't conscious like fully developed humans?
you said: "Not really poor kid"
I would disagree. I think the lack of any context makes it worse. It is like torturing an animal, it is completely helpless and at a loss.
Sure, there will be some issues for older children regarding parental attachment, but the complete lack of control (control in this case being a general understanding of what is happening in a more abstract sense) would create a situation of incredibly high anxiety in the child, especially given the importance of the parental bond at such a young age.
Yes but from the animals point of view it understands no reason, and most beings are helpless if attacked, a 40 year old guy who has done nothing harder than push pencils for example would be just as helpless as a child if 4 body builders set upon him with steel bats, the diffrence would be the guy would be in more torment since he would be more knowing of whats happening, a child or an animal as your example brings up would have less understanding of whats happening, hell the pain would likely simply be completly instinctual as would their fear.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes but from the animals point of view it understands no reason, and most beings are helpless if attacked, a 40 year old guy who has done nothing harder than push pencils for example would be just as helpless as a child if 4 body builders set upon him with steel bats, the diffrence would be the guy would be in more torment since he would be more knowing of whats happening, a child or an animal as your example brings up would have less understanding of whats happening, hell the pain would likely simply be completly instinctual as would their fear.
Physical pain is automatic. You don't feel any less if you don't understand the reason for it.
yes physical pain, but if you do understand the reason, you can feel more pain mentally, and perhaps even physically since its proven that knowing something happening to you can make it hurt more than not knowing about it. For example this morning I cut my chin shaving, I did not feel anytihng until about 20 minutes later I realised it was bleeding, then I started to feel the pain. I think theres been other ways this has been proven but you probably get the idea.
In the babies case, it does not understand where its going to feel the most pain where as most people could tell you when their older where they feel it would be the most painful.
Then youve got the fact that a baby would not sit there fretting about being attacked again like a toddler would.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Then youve got the fact that a baby would not sit there fretting about being attacked again like a toddler would.
what are you talking about?
a baby would have less contextual experience, thus would be more likely to anticipate an attack, as it would associate it as normal behaviour
also, a grown man is much less helpless against 4 body builders with bats than an infant is. He has far more options, the capacity to reason with his assualters, a chance of escape, etc. All of these things would give him a cognitive sense of control over the situation that a child could not have. A sense of cognitive control is associated with less stress.
Not having control of a situation and having no understanding has been shown to increase stress and "fretting" compared to being informed.
Originally posted by inimalist
what are you talking about?a baby would have less contextual experience, thus would be more likely to anticipate an attack, as it would associate it as normal behaviour
also, a grown man is much less helpless against 4 body builders with bats than an infant is. He has far more options, the capacity to reason with his assualters, a chance of escape, etc. All of these things would give him a cognitive sense of control over the situation that a child could not have. A sense of cognitive control is associated with less stress.
Not having control of a situation and having no understanding has been shown to increase stress and "fretting" compared to being informed.
How would a baby anticipate an attack? its the same reason why babies will, again and again eat a food that they dont like, hit something that always returns among other pointless things,they simply dont understand.
I was talking in the sense that they were already beating him, their both helpless to such an assault. Not to mention that the guy is more likely to panic at the sight of them adding to stress anyway, he would be fearful as he is backed into a corner that he knows he would have difficulty getting out of, a baby would not understand those things, it would not know much of anything until its actually struck.
Its impossible to threat after an event if you dont really understand what really happened to actually think and fret over it, please explain this to me
Originally posted by Burning thought
How would a baby anticipate an attack? its the same reason why babies will, again and again eat a food that they dont like, hit something that always returns among other pointless things,they simply dont understand.
babies eat food they don't like: really? I can think of many times hearing parents talk about their infants as picky eaters. Also, very young children have no individual capacity to prepare food, thus they are quite limited in their other options.
Hit something that always returns: babies aren't born with a developed motor cortex. Movement like that acts to refine their motor control and integrate sensory experiences into a single percept (ie, proprioception, vision and touch when hitting something).
They don't understand: The actions of children are not caused by their inability to understand. I'm writing a paper on autism and language development right now, and from some of the insight I received through researching this, it seems that a large number of behaviours seen in children are there to increase communication and interaction with the world around them.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I was talking in the sense that they were already beating him, their both helpless to such an assault.
short of making the 40 year old man a low functioning vegetable with the capacity of an infant, he will always be less helpless than a child.
he may be helpless, but the child will always be more so given they are smaller, weaker, more prone to injury, less capable of reasoning etc.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Not to mention that the guy is more likely to panic at the sight of them adding to stress anyway,
the stress response you are speaking about is an instant rush of cortisol. In dangerous situations it serves to reduce stress, increase performance, and in this case would produce a higher likelihood of escape.
in a person who is being tortured, cortisol would be released constantly, which would then lead to the problems with stress and anxiety.
Originally posted by Burning thought
he would be fearful as he is backed into a corner that he knows he would have difficulty getting out of, a baby would not understand those things, it would not know much of anything until its actually struck.
Research similar to that done with Little Albert has shown that infants understand fear quite well.
Any child would be intimidated by a group of large men with bats based on simple instinctual drives.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Its impossible to threat after an event if you dont really understand what really happened to actually think and fret over it, please explain this to me
well, let me give you a simple example (I need to get back to my paper, though I'm sure this will continue).
1) You walk outside. You are hit in the head by something. You have no idea what it is. Each time you walk outside you are hit by it.
2) You walk outside, someone hits you. You can see them outside and learn new behaviours to avoid what is happening.
which situation is going to cause you less stress? In the first, you have no idea what is happening, and thus will have a high level of what is called cognitive dissonance. Recent research has also shown that lack of understanding or control is related to conspiratorial thinking, so in situation 1) you are likely to start attributing getting hit to other, unrelated things, or just accepting it as part of reality.
Or in the second one, where your fear of getting hit produces behaviour that is able to minimize cognitive dissonance.