HSPs (Highly Sensitive Person) are next generation of Human Being (Hypotehesis of Next Homo Sapien Generation)

HSPs (Highly Sensitive Person) are probably the next generation personality of Human Being with high intelligence, empathy, resonsiblity,sensitive,intutive and respectful opposite to ADHD, Psychotic, Bioplar and Psyhopath and even routine-like behavior, bold,first act without thinking personalities. A HSP never behaves like "early bird catches the worm" personality which is related to collector, hunter genome mapped humans. HSP refuses any kind of violence and malignant behaviour. 

HSPs have started to be evolved around 11K years ago with the civilization of agriculture according to comparison to agiriculture civilized human and hunter human behaviors. With simple evolution math. calculation 40K-50K years will be needed 90-95% for the ratio of the global population.

Today, according to the HSP model, highly sensitive persons, who comprise about 15-20% of the population, process sensory data more deeply due to the biological nature of their nervous systems.According to the model, this depth of processing underlies HSPs' greater proclivity to overstimulation, emotional reactivity and empathy, and sensitivity to stimuli.

Neural foundations

To study the neural foundations of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology was used to determine whether stronger neural activity would be found in predicted brain regions in response to both positive and negative social stimuli.Greater activity was found in HSPs' brain regions involved in attention, empathy, higher order cognitive processing, action planning in response to "close others" (non-strangers; particularly to their positive emotions), integration of sensory information, emotional meaning making, self-other processing, the mirror neuron system, and self-awareness.

These positive findings for neural responses to social stimuli paralleled results of the first (2011) fMRI neural investigation of SPS, which found SPS to correlate with both increased response time and increased brain-region activation in response to subtle changes in non-social stimuli (specifically, a change-detection task involving landscape photographs).Still other fMRI testing confirmed greater regional brain activation during culturally non-preferred tasks, with higher-SPS subjects showing little cultural difference, indicating HSPs' judgments are based on more thorough processing of actual stimuli and less by cultural context.

Genetic foundations and innateness

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) has been indicated to be substantially innate (of genetic origin) as opposed to learned (of environmental origin). For example, studies show SPS' association with polymorphisms of a variant of the 5-HTTLPR (serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region), and relate contributions to SPS from polymorphisms in dopamine neurotransmitter genes (accounting for 15% of the variance in HSP measurement, compared to 2% for the tested environmental factor, stressful life events). Separately, subjects with the norepinephrine-related deletion variant of the ADRA2b gene were found, both subjectively and in fMRI testing, to have greater sensitivity to emotionally salient images, with the more sensitive subjects perceiving the images more vividly.

İmplications for individuals

High sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) has been found to increase the influence of environment on affective (emotional) outcomes, for both negative and positive influences and outcomes.
HSPs' deeper processing of and greater responsiveness to both positive and negative stimuli motivates learning, and often leads to more successful responses in similar situations in the future. However, this deeper processing does not clearly manifest as an outwardly observable behavior, contributing to both laymen and health professionals wrongly misattributing SPS to traits thought to be undesirable, such as neuroticism, shyness, inhibition, unlikeability and lack of intelligence.
Though much attention has been given to undesirable sensitivity to negative influences (such as more highly negative responses to environmental adversity), greater benefits and advantages of higher sensitivity to positive influences have also been recognized, both for society (e.g., increased responsiveness to others’ needs, thus stabilizing cooperative relationships and trust) and for the individual (e.g., security of attachment derived from sensitive parenting, academic achievement resulting from high-quality child care, prosocial behavior in response to supportive friendship networks, and life satisfaction stemming from positive life events).

Like other socially reticent behavior with which it is often confused, sensitivity has been linked to lack of peer acceptance and has even been associated with deviance, at least in Western culture. This social and cultural unacceptability adds to fear of social evaluation and other environmental stressors, and can result in lower self-esteem for HSPs. In particular, the stress of an adverse childhood environment is thought to lead to greater negative affectivity for adult HSPs than for non-HSPs of similar backgrounds.

In a medical setting, HSPs may appear more anxious than non-HSPs, and may have a lower pain threshold, better response from subclinical dosages of medications, or more side effects—all parts of physiological sensitivity.

As students, HSPs tend to pick up on subtle elements in a learning situation, and students who watch without participating may be wrongly labeled shy or afraid. HSPs are more easily physiologically aroused, and perform less well if overaroused such as through the pressure of being watched.^[24]
In a work environment, HSPs are typically conscientious, loyal, quality- and detail-oriented, intuitive, and are often gifted. However, HSPs, generally preferring less external stimulation, may be less social with co-workers, dislike aggressive self-promotion, and perform less well when being observed for evaluation—all of which may place the HSP at an unwarranted disadvantage during performance appraisals.

Conclusion

High responsibility and high empathy are the main keys of the hypothesis of next homo sapien generation to lead the society to be evolved to able to live in coherent and peace with all species living on earth (plants, animals, mamels, insects, human etc.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20160225-HSP-SPS-strategies.png

The highly sensitive brain: an fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and response to others' emotions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086365/

Abstract

Background

Theory and research suggest that sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), found in roughly 20% of humans and over 100 other species, is a trait associated with greater sensitivity and responsiveness to the environment and to social stimuli. Self-report studies have shown that high-SPS individuals are strongly affected by others' moods, but no previous study has examined neural systems engaged in response to others' emotions.

Methods

This study examined the neural correlates of SPS (measured by the standard short-form Highly Sensitive Person [HSP] scale) among 18 participants (10 females) while viewing photos of their romantic partners and of strangers displaying positive, negative, or neutral facial expressions. One year apart, 13 of the 18 participants were scanned twice.

Results

Across all conditions, HSP scores were associated with increased brain activation of regions involved in attention and action planning (in the cingulate and premotor area [PMA]). For happy and sad photo conditions, SPS was associated with activation of brain regions involved in awareness, integration of sensory information, empathy, and action planning (e.g., cingulate, insula, inferior frontal gyrus [IFG], middle temporal gyrus [MTG], and PMA).

Conclusions

As predicted, for partner images and for happy facial photos, HSP scores were associated with stronger activation of brain regions involved in awareness, empathy, and self-other processing. These results provide evidence that awareness and responsiveness are fundamental features of SPS, and show how the brain may mediate these traits.

References
QUESTIONNAIRE (HSP Scale), Copyright, Elaine N. Aron, 1996, Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS), developed by Elaine Aron.
http://hsperson.com/pdf/HSPSCALE_2007_research.pdf

High Sensitive Person
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person#Neural_foundations


The highly sensitive brain: an fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and response to others' emotions Bianca P Acevedo,1 Elaine N Aron,2 Arthur Aron,2 Matthew-Donald Sangster,3 Nancy Collins,1 and Lucy L Brown4http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086365/

Sensory Processing Sensitivity: A Review in the Light of the Evolution of Biological Responsivity Elaine N. Aron1 , Arthur Aron1 , and Jadzia Jagiellowicz1
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Pers-Soc-Psychol-Rev-2012-Aron-1088868311434213.pdf

Highly sensitive people: latent inhibition and creativityhttp://highlysensitive.org/64/highly-sensitive-people-latent-inhibition-and-creativity/

A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”
Kathy A. Smolewska, ,
Scott B. McCabe,
Erik Z. Woodyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905003909

Understanding the Highly Sensitive Person - Elaine N. Aron Ph.D.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attending-the-undervalued-self/201107/understanding-the-highly-sensitive-person

The Highly Sensitive Person in Love By Elaine Aron
http://drbeckywahkinney.vpweb.com/upload/The%20Highly%20Sensitive%20Person%20in%20Love.pdf

The Highly Sensitive Person: Stress and physical symptom reports
Grant Benhamhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905004228

Psychotherapy and the Highly Sensitive Person: Improving Outcomes for That Minority of People Who Are the Majority of Clients - Elaine N. Aronhttps://books.google.com.tr/books?id=6FqSAgAAQBAJ&dq=high+sensitive+person+evolved+behaviors&hl=tr

Agriculturehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

Theory of Mind With No Boundries

Human can only think on anything if have knowledge; Which means human can not think on any subject if do not have any information or knowlegde. Let's start with a brief of human history. I hope this may give an understanding how believes and inheritance of knowledge has been created and affected of today's natural boundries of the minds.

First human beings have no knowledge about environment and itself. Only chance was to identify all by sense organs. Which means, they had no posibility to describe the things in cognitive way. Let's try to develop empathy. You see a mysterious a big sphere above yourself in every night, shining, shape changing and disapearing every morning. Even a bigger and shiny one in the morning. You can not look at it because of the pain in your eyes. What are you going to think? What is it? Is it good? or Is it bad? Enviroment is wild. Big animals eat each other. A food war is on place. You feel hungry. It is not good and nice feeling. You feel anxiety to be eaten suddenly. If the weather is warm than it is ok but if it is not than you feel pain again all around your body because it is cold. Food war is much more difficult.

I am using the words, moon, sun etc today. May be they were using different words or even some kind of sounds to describe these objects. May be animal was "anyy", moon was "mooo", sun was "ssss", pain was "paii" etc. So may be they were speaking to each other with only primitive sounds, and dramatically not so different than today in terms of sounds; if you try just to hear just the music/sound of the words. Who knows?

Now let's ask one more question. What are you going to teach to your children? The answer shouldn't be so complicated. Fight to survive paradox, find food. Pain and cold is bad. Eating is good. Love is fun. Feeding children is hard. And don't look at the sun, moon is good etc. Just survive. If you keep continue to predict learning and teaching methodlogy than we can reach to a simple human theory.

Generations after generations this knowledge will be significantly dominant belief and meaning of life. It does not matter whether human beings would have been subdivided to kingdoms or regions. The main source of the knowledge will be spread out to whole humanity (diffused to all minds). If we eliminate the scientific researches and knowledge the rest of the whole human culture stands on that simple human theory. If this is the case than how can we think and describe all from the begining with no boundries. Or nothing has changed from the begining for human ?

What is consciousness if all human progress stands on simple human theory? If we remember (MSR) mirror self recognition test (rouge test - Gordon Gallup) than we can say just for human that we can not recognize ourselves before 20-24 months years old. Which means we don't have consciousness before 2 years old but we can not compare Neanderthals or even Bronze Age homo sapiens with today world's human with around 100billion neuron cells in our brains.

So the main question is that "Can anyone cognitively perceieve the world without stands on simple human theory and instead only with scientific knowledge even in our daily lifes ?" We will start to perceive the life and think with no boundries when it is possible to teach our brains to think only with the scientific evidences and knowledge.Otherwise we will comtinıe living with beliefs and habita only.

How the brain produces consciousness in 'time slices'

Date:

April 12, 2016

Source:

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Summary:

Scientists propose a new way of understanding of how the brain processes unconscious information into our consciousness. According to the model, consciousness arises only in time intervals of up to 400 milliseconds, with gaps of unconsciousness in between.

EPFL scientists propose a new way of understanding of how the brain processes unconscious information into our consciousness. According to the model, consciousness arises only in time intervals of up to 400 milliseconds, with gaps of unconsciousness in between.

The driver ahead suddenly stops, and you find yourself stomping on your breaks before you even realize what is going on. We would call this a reflex, but the underlying reality is much more complex, forming a debate that goes back centuries: Is consciousness a constant, uninterrupted stream or a series of discrete bits -- like the 24 frames-per-second of a movie reel? Scientists from EPFL and the universities of Ulm and Zurich, now put forward a new model of how the brain processes unconscious information, suggesting that consciousness arises only in intervals up to 400 milliseconds, with no consciousness in between. The work is published in PLOS Biology.

Continuous or discrete?

Consciousness seems to work as continuous stream: one image or sound or smell or touch smoothly follows the other, providing us with a continuous image of the world around us. As far as we are concerned, it seems that sensory information is continuously translated into conscious perception: we see objects move smoothly, we hear sounds continuously, and we smell and feel without interruption. However, another school of thought argues that our brain collects sensory information only at discrete time-points, like a camera taking snapshots. Even though there is a growing body of evidence against "continuous" consciousness, it also looks like that the "discrete" theory of snapshots is too simple to be true.

A two-stage model

Michael Herzog at EPFL, working with Frank Scharnowski at the University of Zurich, have now developed a new paradigm, or "conceptual framework," of how consciousness might actually work. They did this by reviewing data from previously published psychological and behavioral experiments that aim to determine if consciousness is continuous or discrete. Such experiments can involve showing a person two images in rapid succession and asking them to distinguish between them while monitoring their brain activity.

The new model proposes a two-stage processing of information. First comes the unconscious stage: The brain processes specific features of objects, e.g. color or shape, and analyzes them quasi-continuously and unconsciously with a very high time-resolution. However, the model suggests that there is no perception of time during this unconscious processing. Even time features, such as duration or color change, are not perceived during this period. Instead, the brain represents its duration as a kind of "number," just as it does for color and shape.

Then comes the conscious stage: Unconscious processing is completed, and the brain simultaneously renders all the features conscious. This produces the final "picture," which the brain finally presents to our consciousness, making us aware of the stimulus.

The whole process, from stimulus to conscious perception, can last up to 400 milliseconds, which is a considerable delay from a physiological point of view. "The reason is that the brain wants to give you the best, clearest information it can, and this demands a substantial amount of time," explains Michael Herzog. "There is no advantage in making you aware of its unconscious processing, because that would be immensely confusing." This model focuses on visual perception, but the time delay might be different for other sensory information, e.g. auditory or olfactory.

This is the first two-stage model of how consciousness arises, and it provides a more complete picture of how the brain manages consciousness than the "continuous versus discrete" debate envisages. But it especially provides useful insights about the way the brain processes time and relates it to our perception of the world.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materialsprovided by Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. The original item was written by Nik Papageorgiou. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Michael H. Herzog, Thomas Kammer, Frank Scharnowski. Time Slices: What Is the Duration of a Percept? PLOS Biology, 2016; 14 (4): e1002433 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433