today in "well, that explains a lot"

[kaberett]

via star-anise, this post:

TIL there are nerve endings that exist only to recognize a gentle stroking touch. Their activation decreases the heart rate and activates the smile muscle. Their optimal speed is 3-5 cm/s, which means we are genetically wired to cuddle and caress each other at predetermined velocities.

[Pawling et al., 2017.]

Comments

[recessional]

I love being both extremely touch averse and extremely touch starved. It's so much fun!

[khronos_keeper]

God, same so much. :(

[recessional]

It is the Worst combination, I stg.

[kaberett]

I HAVE SO MANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS (as it relates to me personally) that I'll write up... at some point... but I feel so so lucky to have, well, lucked into an A.

(I've been shorthanding it as "light moving touch = bad" for probably at least a decade at this point, so I am interested/relieved/etc that this is a thing with recognised broader biological basis.)

[recessional]

I'd be interested!

My thoughts mostly centre around unfortunately the last Person Who Is Not My Mother that touch was okay from was when I was seventeen and the relationship implosion-explosion was. . . . very bad . . . and now it is basically off-limits unless my brain is in a space to be contented pretending I'm six and letting my mom pet my hair. :P

I can get some approximation from specific formal contexts like hair-salon appts or massage appts, which in and of itself I know puts me ahead of A LOT of people with ASD/other touch aversions, but this is because in those contexts it has a Purpose and is generally slightly firmer pressure.

[kaberett]

Ha, yes, "formal contexts that give me The Thing" are also something I'm mulling over. (Massage works for me, hair really doesn't in most contexts.)

Let's see if I can work some words out, eh.

[vass]

I'd be interested too.

(My immediate reaction is "but they can't think that's universal, can they? Humans don't work that way! Even if that's the way it's supposed to work (and they haven't demonstrated that yet!) for any, any bodily function, there will be people who don't or can't perform it as expected, right down to "breathing in and out" and "sticking out your tongue and keeping it out" and "falling asleep", with consequences ranging from "nothing, they just don't fit your model" to "and now they're dead." I am not about to buy that "calms down when stroked at 3-5cm/s is an exception to that.

And my follow-up reactions are:
- also, their sample is small and WEIRD.
- wow am I defensive about my own touch issues. Funny, that.
- the original psychological term for touch starvation was "skin hunger". Which sounds gross, like eating skin, but made the point that it was believed to be skin-on-skin touch in particular that was needed. I know from kangaroo care that there's a thing (at least in infants and adults?) about changing skin temperature in response, which suggests that skin itself does some things that a brush (or a wrap, or an incubator) can't do. I notice that they use a brush in this study, and I'm curious what effect, if any, using a hand instead might have had.
- mainly I just think this is a really worthwhile topic for research and needs many more studies, this one is good enough to suggest MORE RESEARCH INDICATED
- apparently my brain thinks 'glabrous' is one of those words that only appears in H.P. Lovecraft's works, like 'rugose'. So I'm primed to expect something very squicky, and then they... discuss stroking people's palms.
- #nsfw in the radch)

[kaberett]

I AM VERY HERE FOR YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS

Because I have yet to actually read the paper in detail, but:
- I assume they don't think it's universal, I certainly don't, etc (and How I Feel About Touch is something I'm thinking about a lot in the context of vulnerability & Daring Greatly)
- hurrah for your further thoughts
- it was an Interesting Experience at the beginning of my relationship with A to find myself going "okay, you're anxious, do you want some skin contact" and having him go "that??? couldn't possibly help??? why would that help???" and THEN going "............... why,,, did that help,,," repeatedly until he got used to the idea that This Is A Thing Brains Do
and bonus:
- right see I still haven't really read any Lovecraft AND I had to do a bit of palaeontology so my primary association with rugose is the type of coral (with subsidiary "oh yeah I guess it's a botanical thing too")

[vass]

Another thought I have is that if actual skin on skin does something that brushes etc don't, then sometimes that's a bad thing, because general principle, if a thing is effective at all then the effect is sometimes adverse (I'm not sure who I want to Firmly Impress with that principle more, doctors or alternative health people.)

- it was an Interesting Experience at the beginning of my relationship with A to find myself going "okay, you're anxious, do you want some skin contact" and having him go "that??? couldn't possibly help??? why would that help???" and THEN going "............... why,,, did that help,,," repeatedly until he got used to the idea that This Is A Thing Brains Do

That is such a Good.

- right see I still haven't really read any Lovecraft AND I had to do a bit of palaeontology so my primary association with rugose is the type of coral (with subsidiary "oh yeah I guess it's a botanical thing too")

I haven't really read him either, but I've seen quotes and read pastiches, and idk, I guess botanical terms are part of his distinctive voice, or else whoever I've read on him thinks they are, and I've formed the association. cf Stephen Donaldson and clench-chasing. (Side note: speaking of Lovecraft and the people trying to build on his themes without being racist and horrible: Ada Hoffmann's The Outside! I am not sure whether it would work for you or not, but I am very curious to find out! Betty's non-spoilery review here is a good summary of what to expect. I would add that the technological constraints (how much computing tech humans are allowed by their gods, and why) kind of reminded me of Dave Langford's BLIT stories, and also that Hoffmann walks a delicate line with the concept of "madness" in an ableism-sensitive story, and I think she does it well.)

[fyreharper]

I’d buy “this receptor pings when stroked at 3-5cm/s” and even “this receptor going ping seems to be a thing most people find pleasing [in controlled nonthreatening circumstances]” but of course there’s that context thing that just isn’t discussed.

[archangelbeth]

#nsfw in the radch

<3

[davidgillon]

I just misread the attribution as "Pawing", not "Pawling", that's almost Freudian in how not quite right it is.

[kaberett]

*g*

[fyreharper]

CUDDLE SCIENCE :D :D

[kaberett]

:D

[jedusor]

I've been vaguely meaning for like ten years to write up a post about mechanoreceptor types and how they relate to touch preference. I loved this shit in college, haven't thought about it in a while.

[kaberett]

oooooooooooooh

[fyreharper]

I would be interested in this!

[duckwhatduck]

oooohhhh that makes a lot of sense of "this is a very distinctive sensation which is either WANT or DO NOT WANT with no middle ground"

[kaberett]

Right! I tend to gloss it as "DON'T TOUCH ME LIKE THAT" for general consumption, because the thing is it's not exactly that it's inherently unpleasant but it does inherently hijack all my brain function, with the result that it's deeply the fuck unpleasant if I'm not in a situation where I feel safe for that to happen, so JUST DON'T* seems to be the best way to communicate about it...

* I'll let you know if this injunction doesn't apply to you

[duckwhatduck]

Yeah, it only hijacks about half of mine, but what that means is the other half is acutely aware that SOMETHING HAS GONE WEIRD and I DID NOT ASK FOR THIS STATE-ALTERATION, CEASE AND DESIST.

(Especially when someone's trying to be comforting, but has instead shut off/redirected half my brain and I WAS USING THAT FOR EMOTIONAL PROCESSING)

[kaberett]

Y U P

[sylvaine]

Oh, interesting. That maybe explains why my default when I'm upset is NO DO NOT TOUCH ME when I in general *do* like touch.

[sfred]

Yes!

[ewt]

Hmm.

This raises Questions, and also explains a lot.

[ewt]

(Like, that kind of contact from an abuser (or anyond is very Do Not Want but the *reason* it's so much worse than, say, someone bumping into me by accident is because neurology, not only because of the meaning I attach to it! Huh.)

[alexwlchan]

I don’t understand my sense of touch well enough to appreciate what this means, but it sounds like it’s useful for you, yay!

[silveradept]

That's an interesting thought and paper. I suspect there's a big heavy dose of context-dependence in there that will make it significant less universal, but I get what they're doing.