Immune Elephant Experience and Reaction: Different Views

Immune Elephant Experience and Reaction: Different Views on the Physiology and Psychology of the Negative There are many different explanations for the way in which thoughts are formed, impressions are made, and perceptions are shaped, and though the modern era has provided an abundance of objective observation and experimentation in the area this has not settled the issue.

Far from it, in fact; if anything, the growth of reliable research and evidence in this area has contributed to a divergence of theories that, at least in some aspects, currently appear to be mutually exclusive. The theories of psychologists and neuroscientists at times seem especially opposed to each other, and it will require deeper investigations and the uncovering of more substantial evidence to truly bring many of these well-founded theories in line with each other.

An excellent case in point of the apparent divergence of psychology and neuroscience when it comes to explaining behavior can be found in the theories as to how negative events or outcomes are processed and dealt with. In "Immune to Reality," Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert explains how flexible the mind is when it comes to dealing with negatives, making the basic point that people are very good at convincing themselves that bad things were good, lessons were learned, etc.

New York Times journalist and essayist Charles Siebert, on the other hand, examined a recent rise in elephant aggression and the possible relationship between human and elephant neural development (and resultant behaviors), coming to the conclusion that trauma can have a profound and perhaps irreversible effect on development, behavior, and thus psychology. At first glance, it would appear that both men cannot be correct in their assertions, and indeed it is impossible to explain the conclusions of one line of investigation with the logic and mechanisms of another.

A closer examination, however, reveals that it is really a lack of understanding of the nuance involved in the different situations examined by these authors that leads to this seeming incompatibility, and that while the different conclusions of these theories do indicate distance in subject matter and investigation, they do not actually contain discrepancies.

Why Theories Won't Blend One major and immediate objection that might be raised to insist that Gilbert and Siebert's theories are completely incompatible is the fact that Gilbert is talking about humans, and Siebert is (primarily) talking about elephants, but as evident as this distance may seem it actually serves to strengthen the potential unity of the psychological and neurological theories of behavior presented by these authors.

As Siebert's interviews with practicing researchers shows, the elephant brain is remarkably similar to the human brain in certain features and proportions, especially those that have to do with memory, emotions, and other features of psychology and specifically of processing negative events.