Over Sensitivity Is A Bioenergetic Disorder?

[ljihkugft7]

This may seem obvious but anyway.

Does anyone think that maybe there is a correlation between being overly-sensitive / easily-offended and stress metabolisers?

I’ve noticed that as I’ve healed from Veganism I’m way less sensitive and things just don’t offend me anymore?

Big generalisation, but I’ve noticed that a lot of gay people are either really over weight or really skinny. Do you think maybe that’s why that culture is so sensitive?

I’m just noticing a lot of snowflake personalities in the new age cultures and it doesn’t seem healthy.
Whereas, there’s a lot more mental stability in the more traditional cultures.

Please don’t get offended by me. I just want an open dialogue to discuss off centre topics.
Really open to debate and healthy disagreement.
I just want to learn.

 

[yerrag]

I think that with good metabolism everything is in balance, because there is enough energy to keep things in balance. With that balance, everything will more likely fall into their proper place, as nature intended. With the harmony established, it's less likely that any disruption will unsettle it, because the whole can overcome the minor perturbation. In this sense, the whole system is robust and can withstand any insult hurled against it. This centeredness and being well-grounded provides a steady foundation. We are sensitized though to our surroundings but without being easily sensitive and disturbed by it.

 

[Beastmode]

I don't have a robust metabolism, but in my experience thus far, the better it gets; the less impacted I seem to be by environmental "stressors." (i.e- EMF, background noises) Another way of saying this is I'm aware of the potential "stressors," but I'm not as sensitive to them as I once was.

I think our best service to others isn't how we look at them, rather how we see ourselves. The healthier we are, the less judgmental we'll be of others. Eating the Peat way isn't going to get anyone there, unless you live a quality life overall and take care of yourself.

The less I focus on what I think I'm seeing in others, the more space I create to see my own "stuff."

I think @yerrag hits it perfectly with " the whole system is robust and can withstand any insult hurled against it."

 

[Lollipop2]

@yerrag @Beastmode great responses. @Cleo I have also contemplated these ideas and I do tend to overall agree with your observations. That stability in traditional settings is what allows that tradition to survive. I do think there is a balancing act between stability and instability. Neither one is all good or all bad. Instability allows for change and that can be a good thing or not depending on the situation. Also sometimes snowflakes are beautiful. If you look at nature, both rocks and snowflakes exist. I think removing the observational judgements of others helps us remain true to our own preferences without making another wrong.

Metabolic health has brought me much more clarity and strength in dealing with the external environment. I have also noticed much more emotional health and stability. Good energy helps make life interesting and creative.

 

[lvysaur]

I’m just noticing a lot of snowflake personalities in the new age cultures and it doesn’t seem healthy.
Whereas, there’s a lot more mental stability in the more traditional cultures.

Unpopular opinion, but I personally think the preponderance of "snowflake phenotypes" is vastly overstated, either due to deliberate ignorance of reality, or brainwashing by right-wing media.

The reality is that "snowflakes" are at least as prevalent, if not more prevalent among the right-wing than among the left. Unbiased people may think otherwise because they've been taught an arbitrary and politicized model of this phenotype.

A left-wing snowflake may complain about male sexuality, "transphobic" comments, and want a total defunding of the police.
A right-wing snowflake may complain about female independence, non-white characters in media, and may want a European ethnostate (AKA a safe space).

It's similar to the hypocritical term of "identity politics", which has been the central phenomena for many dozens of millennia by now, but only takes on a new terminology when the old version of identity politics (AKA white/first world/US/Christian/male) starts being challenged.

I think that traditional cultures, regardless of origin, have much more stable behavior--and the western far right is not a traditional culture by any means. This includes the fact that older women (age 65+) are more likely to describe themselves as feminist than 30+ year olds--older people are far less right-wing than the mainstream (both left and right) seem to think.

 

[Nebula]

This may seem obvious but anyway.

Does anyone think that maybe there is a correlation between being overly-sensitive / easily-offended and stress metabolisers?

I’ve noticed that as I’ve healed from Veganism I’m way less sensitive and things just don’t offend me anymore?

Big generalisation, but I’ve noticed that a lot of gay people are either really over weight or really skinny. Do you think maybe that’s why that culture is so sensitive?

I’m just noticing a lot of snowflake personalities in the new age cultures and it doesn’t seem healthy.
Whereas, there’s a lot more mental stability in the more traditional cultures.

Please don’t get offended by me. I just want an open dialogue to discuss off centre topics.
Really open to debate and healthy disagreement.
I just want to learn.

Partially at least. Definitely noticed myself getting easily angry over unrelated things when chronically under eating, not getting enough positive metabolic stimuli (sun, right amount of movement, sleep). Another large part of it seems to be the quality of secure bonds and early life experiences. Lack of secure attachment bonding in early childhood seems to ingrain a habitual state of distress. Then getting disordered attachment to technology to cope. Some pop culture itself absorbed through technology seems to imprint states of distress.

In some ways the soft pampered childhood combined with lack of secure emotional bonds can be the worst situation for healthy development, setting you up to be very hypersensitive. Which seems common in affluent tech abundant societies. To some degree this was my childhood, nothing severe, but can definitely see how it can create these tendencies.

Spending a lot of time in nature, learning some mind body practices, eating enough, learning how to develop secure bonds with family and friends, not exercising too much or too little and becoming more conscious of how metabolism effects me has all helped me to chill out a lot, even though my metabolic health isn’t optimal.

 

[inthedark]

I like the idea that resilience to stress, whether what we divide into physiological or mental/emotional stress has to do with having enough energy to maintain integrity and structure at cellular level. I think Peat talks about this in various writings, and discusses progesterone as one substance that can provides structure. Estrogens and serotonin disrupt cellular integrity, which makes it difficult for cells to maintain balance of water and water modulating substances. This shows up in various ways among various body systems, but most obviously in variations of edema.

I think that maintaining this cellular integrity is not only important to what we consider physical states, but also mental states. Maintaining boundaries and barriers -and knowing when to remove them- is essential for every body system and is likewise essential for mental and emotional health. As above, so below; having healthy differentiation and barriers ensures healthy physiological processes, allowing us enough energy to maintain appropriate mental and emotional barriers with the “outside” world.

I also think this can go in both directions. Learning ways to modulate external stressors can allow our internal environment to be able to shift into a restful state conducive to repair.

 

[inthedark]

Partially at least. Definitely noticed myself getting easily angry over unrelated things when chronically under eating, not getting enough positive metabolic stimuli (sun, right amount of movement, sleep). Another large part of it seems to be the quality of secure bonds and early life experiences. Lack of secure attachment bonding in early childhood seems to ingrain a habitual state of distress. Then getting disordered attachment to technology to cope. Some pop culture itself absorbed through technology seems to imprint states of distress.

In some ways the soft pampered childhood combined with lack of secure emotional bonds can be the worst situation for healthy development, setting you up to be very hypersensitive. Which seems common in affluent tech abundant societies. To some degree this was my childhood, nothing severe, but can definitely see how it can create these tendencies.

Spending a lot of time in nature, learning some mind body practices, eating enough, not exercising too much or too little and becoming more conscious of how metabolism effects me has helped me to chill out a lot, even though my metabolic health isn’t optimal. Minimizing gut inflammation had a huge impact in particular.

THIS. Many people without those secure bonds were put in front of a TV/computer/phone instead. They’ve also learned to tune out their signs of emotion, especially signals from the body, in order to survive without acute distress or burden on caregivers who for whatever reason can not offer the proper nurturing. This ignoring or rejecting of real emotional/physical needs sets us up for health issues. I think the work of Gabor Mate is really good for understanding this stuff.

 

[inthedark]

Unpopular opinion, but I personally think the preponderance of "snowflake phenotypes" is vastly overstated, either due to deliberate ignorance of reality, or brainwashing by right-wing media.

The reality is that "snowflakes" are at least as prevalent, if not more prevalent among the right-wing than among the left. Unbiased people may think otherwise because they've been taught an arbitrary and politicized model of this phenotype.

A left-wing snowflake may complain about male sexuality, "transphobic" comments, and want a total defunding of the police.
A right-wing snowflake may complain about female independence, non-white characters in media, and may want a European ethnostate (AKA a safe space).

It's similar to the hypocritical term of "identity politics", which has been the central phenomena for many dozens of millennia by now, but only takes on a new terminology when the old version of identity politics (AKA white/first world/US/Christian/male) starts being challenged.

I think that traditional cultures, regardless of origin, have much more stable behavior--and the western far right is not a traditional culture by any means. This includes the fact that older women (age 65+) are more likely to describe themselves as feminist than 30+ year olds--older people are far less right-wing than the mainstream (both left and right) seem to think.

this is terrific, thank you!

 

[inthedark]

This may seem obvious but anyway.

Does anyone think that maybe there is a correlation between being overly-sensitive / easily-offended and stress metabolisers?

I’ve noticed that as I’ve healed from Veganism I’m way less sensitive and things just don’t offend me anymore?

Big generalisation, but I’ve noticed that a lot of gay people are either really over weight or really skinny. Do you think maybe that’s why that culture is so sensitive?

I’m just noticing a lot of snowflake personalities in the new age cultures and it doesn’t seem healthy.
Whereas, there’s a lot more mental stability in the more traditional cultures.

Please don’t get offended by me. I just want an open dialogue to discuss off centre topics.
Really open to debate and healthy disagreement.
I just want to learn.

I’m curious to what you mean by “traditional cultures”? This phrase needs context for us to talk about it meaningfully.

 

[Nebula]

THIS. Many people without those secure bonds were put in front of a TV/computer/phone instead. They’ve also learned to tune out their signs of emotion, especially signals from the body, in order to survive without acute distress or burden on caregivers who for whatever reason can not offer the proper nurturing. This ignoring or rejecting of real emotional/physical needs sets us up for health issues. I think the work of Gabor Mate is really good for understanding this stuff.

Actually when I think about it becoming disconnected from pop culture and MSM trends was probably the most impactful thing I ever did for my mental wellness. Not an extreme dogmatic avoidance, but just becoming emotionally unattached to it. Polished media is just a little too good at implanting itself into your mind.

 

[TheSir]

A left-wing snowflake may complain about male sexuality, "transphobic" comments, and want a total defunding of the police.
A right-wing snowflake may complain about female independence, non-white characters in media, and may want a European ethnostate (AKA a safe space).

The term 'snowflake' describes an attitude the prime driving force of which could be summed as: "I am x therefore others have to accept x". That is, in essence, what the 'unique snowflake' implies: specialness to which others have to cater. The examples you list do not necessarily have anything to do with snowflakeism, and moreso belong under the term you brought forth later, 'identity politics'. Furthermore, consider that there is a difference between complaining about heteronormative culture because you are gay, and complaining about attacks against the prevailing culture due to the prevailing culture enabling the society to exist. One determines as the justification of their argument their own identity, the other a non-personal factor, such as cohesion of the surrounding society. While the former could be rightly called snowflakeism, the latter could not, for it is diametrically opposite to snoflakeism: a value judgement in which the justification lies beyond one's identity.

It's similar to the hypocritical term of "identity politics", which has been the central phenomena for many dozens of millennia by now, but only takes on a new terminology when the old version of identity politics (AKA white/first world/US/Christian/male) starts being challenged.

There can, of course, be no identity politics when there is only one dominant identity. In order for an identity to convey any meaning, there has to be something to contrast the identity against. In other words, identity does not become an issue until a competing identity emerges. Until it does, identity only exists as a subconscious factor within the minds of the society.

This includes the fact that older women (age 65+) are more likely to describe themselves as feminist than 30+ year olds

When the term in question constitutes of at least three separate waves each with distinct agendas spanning through half a century, it matters little what people describe themselves as. Feminism as elder women know it has only vague resemblance to feminism as modern academia knows it.

 

[lvysaur]

Furthermore, consider that there is a difference between complaining about heteronormative culture because you are gay, and complaining about attacks against the prevailing culture due to the prevailing culture enabling the society to exist.

This argument falsely creates a distinction of "attacks" where there is none.
There is no "attack" against "dominant and prevailing" cultures that are not overcompensated for by attacks in the opposite direction--attacks which the dominant culture made in order to become dominant, and is continually making in order to maintain dominance.

prevailing culture enabling the society to exist

Culture doesn't enable anything to exist. Food/resources enable existence.

There can, of course, be no identity politics when there is only one dominant identity.

This is false. There is always a dominant identity, simply because most things are never equal. And there is still always identity politics.
Today, identity politics are primarily on racial/gender/sexuality lines.
100 years ago in the US, they were along religious and intraracial ethnic lines (Italian/Irish/etc) and also interracial lines (Black/White)
In Iraq it's Sunni/Shia lines, and in Rwanda it's Hutu/Tutsi lines. Most of these societies had dominant identities, and yet they still had identity politics that devolved into open warfare.

Feminism as elder women know it has only vague resemblance to feminism as modern academia knows it.

Except that the elder women are still alive, and have access to the information about what feminism currently is and was for the last 20 years--and still chose to identify themselves as such despite this.

Also, it's actually 50-65 yo women who are the least likely to identify as such: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ft_2020.07.07_feminism_01.png?resize=310,566
So if we apply your same logic, then feminism today must actually be much more reasonable than the feminism of the 1970s/80s.

 

[Jib]

Chicken or the egg.

Over-sensitivity from past trauma can shift the organism to stress dominance. I would not be surprised at all if truly resolving trauma resulted in an increase in metabolic rate. And then it could appear the increased metabolism caused the decrease in sensitivity, but I'd argue it's an effect, not a cause.

Imagine that replaying traumatic memories in your head is like taking a poisonous, anti-metabolic supplement pill every single day. Other people's negative comments only trigger you if you're holding onto traumatic memories and harmful beliefs about yourself. There's an old Zen story. I won't retell the whole thing here but the moral is:

If someone comes to you with a gift and you don't accept it, who does it belong to?

If you have a high opinion of yourself and are at peace, other people's slander/insults will not register as true for you, and will not cause an emotional reaction. Every time someone's comments have gotten to me, it's because they slipped through the cracks in my armor and hit a nerve, something I was insecure about. One of the best things you can do is make peace with yourself within your own mind.

 

[TheSir]

This argument falsely creates a distinction of "attacks" where there is none.

But of course, any culture that exists is, by necessity, under a constant bombardment from internal and external influences. Culture is a living entity, ceaselessly morphing in accordance to the influences it is subjected to. It is this same quality of malleability that opens the doors to cultural advancement and decay alike: with increased progress comes increased vulnerability. As such, there is no snowflakeism in wanting to guard your culture against haphazard progressivism, for it is, in certain sense, an objectively sensible thing to do (though not necessarily the only sensible thing), as it, at the very least, prevents the culture from decaying further, should progressivism fail to integrate the hard-earned progress into the existing culture (which is well possible, and has to some extent already happened!).

Culture doesn't enable anything to exist. Food/resources enable existence.

Resources enable existence, yes, but we are talking about existence of society, which is enabled by culture, for without a shared culture, there can be no cohesive society.

There is no "attack" against "dominant and prevailing" cultures that are not overcompensated for by attacks in the opposite direction--attacks which the dominant culture made in order to become dominant, and is continually making in order to maintain dominance.

If only. A culture, upon establishing its dominance, quickly loses its ability to maintain dominance -- unless such ability is concsiously cultivated... which has not been the case for the West for a long, long time. The West, in its modern form, is completely incapable of asserting itself, as is seen on daily basis. The cultural west hardly even exists anymore. What is left is post-cultural confusion and mindless infighting amongst the ruins of fallen structures.

This is false. There is always a dominant identity, simply because most things are never equal. And there is still always identity politics.

There is always a dominant identity -- yet there are not always competing identities. 'Identity politics' naturally emerge from the presence of competing identities. Until so, it is just 'politics'. As you say, the US and the middle-east have a long history of identity politics. Yet many European and Nordic countries had not had their internal dominant identities challenged for decades, if not longer, until very recently.

Except that the elder women are still alive, and have access to the information about what feminism currently is and was for the last 20 years--and still chose to identify themselves as such despite this.

It is very naive to equate presence of information to assimilation of information. How much do you know about the world just because all the knowledge in the world is at your fingertips? Shamefully little, like me, I bet.

The research you link to is the exact point I was making: anyone can identify as feminist. It means very little, since there is no guarantee that young feminists and old feminists are in agreement with each other (and from what I have read, they often aren't).