Engrams: Triggers of Automated Annoyance?

[stochastic]

If one sees something that instantly annoys them (without conscious thought put into making themselves annoyed), would this programmed habit of being annoyed be called an engram?

e.g.

One comes upon something left where it "shouldn't" be, for the 100th time (and becomes annoyed).

 

[zoobyshoe]

IIRC the term "engram" comes from Scientology and was pretty much invented by L. Ron Hubbard. You might want to google it, though to be sure. There is probably a better term for the phenomenon somewhere in more accepted psychological literature.

 

[stochastic]

IIRC the term "engram" comes from Scientology and was pretty much invented by L. Ron Hubbard. You might want to google it, though to be sure. There is probably a better term for the phenomenon somewhere in more accepted psychological literature.

On an educational forum, know the topic and the answer to the question if you are going to post a reply. Assumptions and vague recollections confuse the issue, and sometimes spread misconceptions.

 

[lisab]

Zooby is right, the word "engram" is used in Scientology; how exactly are you using that term, stocastic?

 

[stochastic]

Zooby is right, the word "engram" is used in Scientology; how exactly are you using that term, stocastic?

Who said he was wrong?

When did I make any reference to Scientology in my question or example?

Have I mistakenly posted in the Scientology section?

Is it strange that the two people, which responded thus far, have heard the term 'engram' attributed to Scientology but not neuro-psychology?

Engram:

–noun
a presumed encoding in neural tissue that provides a physical basis for the persistence of memory; a memory trace.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Who said he was wrong?

You did. The text of original, unedited posts is sent in the e-mail from PF informing us there's been a reply to the thread, you know. You called my post "wildly inaccurate".

When did I make any reference to Scientology in my question or example?

More importantly, when did you disambiguate between Scientology and neuro-psychology in the OP? People try to open discussions of fringe and crackpot notions on these forums pretty frequently.

Is it strange that the two people, which responded thus far, have heard the term 'engram' attributed to Scientology but not neuro-psychology?

What's so strange about it? It's pretty much meaningless.

Engram:

–noun
a presumed encoding in neural tissue that provides a physical basis for the persistence of memory; a memory trace.

Reasoning forward from the definition you offer, the example you gave:

"If one sees something that instantly annoys them (without conscious thought put into making themselves annoyed), would this programmed habit of being annoyed be called an engram?

e.g.

One comes upon something left where it "shouldn't" be, for the 100th time (and becomes annoyed). "

does not describe an engram, but the behavioral result of the engram. The engram would be described if, for example, someone could point to specific chemical changes in a population of neurons ("...encoding in neural tissue that provides a physical basis..."), which changes are directly responsible for the retention of a memory. Apparently, no one has been able to do that so such encoding remains "presumed".

I can't resist commenting that using the subject of annoyance in your example does not seem random given the attitude in your posts.

 

[stochastic]

1. When I called your post "wildly inaccurate", that was because you said: "the term 'engram' comes from Scientology and was pretty much invented by L. Ron Hubbard." which is wildly inaccurate. Scientology hijacking the word does not equate to L. Ron Hubbard inventing it.

a) When I said: "On an educational forum, know the topic and the answer to the question if you are going to post a reply. Assumptions and vague recollections confuse the issue, and sometimes spread misconceptions." -- This was referring to your misconception. Imagine someone without any idea of what an engram is, reads this topic; if they stopped reading after your first post, they come away with your misconception. Or if they continue reading, they don't receive an answer, but a needless dose of semantics, which could have been prevented had you looked up the word before satisfying your compulsion to answer the topic with nothing more than your vague recollection.

2. You said:
"when did you disambiguate between Scientology and neuro-psychology in the OP?"
Pardon me, I mistakenly assumed that the question would be regarded as having to do with neurology or psychology; rather than, scientology, being that this is the Medical Sciences section on the "Physics Forums".

3. I appreciate you trying to analyze the definition of engram I provided; however, I posted hoping someone with knowledge on the topic would post the proper name for this engramatic habitual response.

4. You said: "I can't resist commenting that using the subject of annoyance in your example does not seem random given the attitude in your posts."
I am aware that you are unable to resist your compulsions.

 

[stochastic]

Let me now conclude with my understanding of this occurrence.

For me it was an affirmation of: anything that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood.

My mistake, in the original post, was phrasing it in a way that could be interpreted as an inquiry to the meaning of engram; rather than, a question using engram as a rough guess for the possible answer.

Thank you for helping me remember this, as it is more valuable than me receiving the answer to my original question.