Men who display in an obvious way the typical characteristics associated with masculinity are silly, if not immature and childish. This is about being overly competitive, aggressive, dangerous, violent, insensitive, abusive, selfish, unemotional, hyperrational, or ambitious. It is true that many of these traits are culturally determined— especially reinforced in the media—but our culture places far too much emphasis on the roles people are supposed to play based on their race, religion, and gender. If everyone just followed their hearts, kept it real, and didn’t do or be what others told them to do or be, the world would be a better place.
Men, in general—not all men—can be criticized for being too addicted to cultural definitions of masculinity and for lacking a critical perspective about those definitions.
A lot of men like sports, cars, motorcycles, beautiful women, sex, guns, gambling, tinkering and fixing, and electronic gadgets. These interests do not concern me in this essay. I think some of them are hardwired. My wife and I have had children of both sexes, and if you watch their natural inclinations—whether nurtured in one direction or the other—males and females are naturally, comfortably, and, I dare say, automatically drawn to different things.
The problem with the hard-wiring, higher levels of testosterone, and Y chromosome arguments often used to support the trite aphorism that “boys will be boys” (or “men will be men”) is that they offer a handy excuse for not doing the psychological and spiritual hard work that genuine growth and change require, especially when that change and growth contradicts socialization and cultural values.
From where did the current stereotypical view of the male gender come? The wide variety of masculine ideals of numerous past cultures have all but vanished. Whether hunter-gatherer, farmer, or craftsman, premodern men were steeped in family, land, community, and religion. The traditional masculine traits were generativity, stewardship generosity, teaching, husbandry, honor, and even adventure. All of these have been virtually ignored and replaced by ideals that have been supplied by the media. Author and media expert Jerry Mander reminds us that, “we evolve into the images we carry in our minds. We become what we see.”
An obvious question, however, is why should men addicted to the cultural definitions of masculinity even consider changing? It is because many of the traits associated with men or socialized into men are just plain stupid—as are, I might add, many of the traits of the conventional female gender role. For example, it is stupid not to ask for directions when lost, to show reluctance to go to a doctor, to thrive on violence, to work such long hours that one does not know his children, or to refuse to become relationally competent.
What we need to confront are the outdated beliefs that men are impregnable, that risking life and limb is okay, that avoiding medical check-ups, diets, and keep-fit regimes is praiseworthy, that a man’s job is done if he “brings home the bacon,” and that families don’t need them (fathers) as much as mothers. Men need to be reassured that the traditional women’s traits that include being nurturing, selfless, overtly sensitive, passive, emotional, and intuitive are important characteristics—just as important as the traditionally more “macho” characteristics—and that to nurture, encourage, and reveal these “feminine” traits is likely to yield a stronger, more well-rounded, acceptable, and complete human being.
Women should expect men to be a mixture of many qualities, even though some of those qualities may be polar opposites of each other. Sure they can retain the old qualities of masculinity such as being strong, aggressive, hard, tough, big, and powerful, but they should also possess the feminine qualities such as being compassionate, soft, sweet, gentle, and caring. What’s wrong with this combination of traits being the standard?
Men should be free to express a full range of emotions and creative urges. In this way they become both more humane and more sane.
Here is the point: it is very likely that men, on average, have more innate aggressiveness than do most women. But both men and women will be more tolerant of aggression and competitiveness in a culture that values these traits over gentleness and friendliness.
The problem is figuring out what techniques or practices would likely encourage such a change? Men, unfortunately, are the only ones who can do much of the work. For women to coach men in this undertaking would be both arrogant and inappropriate. If women can simply supply some of the challenge, a little encouragement, and a great deal of emotional support, of course, that will help. As with every significant cultural revolution, this tectonic cultural plate shift would happen only because of deep internal, psychological, moral, and spiritual changes, individual by individual.
One suggestion might be additionally helpful. Just as women studies and women’s groups worked so well for women, men studies and men’s groups should work for men. What is needed on college campuses across the nation are three closely interrelated, but distinctive, disciplines: men studies, women studies, and gender studies. It is only through such a development that we are likely to find something close to freedom from the prison of gender roles.
It is true that most men feel pressured to act masculine. Why can’t men, instead, emulate people like the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi—men who were both gentle and competent? These are male culture heroes and icons of highly accomplished masculinity. Why is it that most men hold as heroes athletes, lawyers, businessmen, and generals? The answer is: because we live in a speedy, competitive, hyper-masculine culture—a culture that focuses upon and idealizes the most problematic aspects of the male gender role. If I could give men just one message, it would be: Stop trying to be a man; start trying to be yourself. If that includes elements that are considered feminine, so be it.
-----
At the JacksonKatz.com website, the essay is entitled “Manhood on the Mat: The Problem is Not that Pro Wrestling Makes Boys Violent. The Real Lesson of the Wildly Popular Pseudo-Sport is More Insidious,” and written by Jackson Katz and Sut Jhally, suggests that the hyper-masculine pro-wrestling subculture promotes bullying, taunting, and other negative male features. “It is a lesson that resonates all too clearly in our schools: A recent survey of 6,000 children in grades 4 to 6 found that about 1 in 10 said they were bullied one or more times a week, and 1 in 5 admitted to being bullies themselves. And we know from the 1990s' series of school shootings that, all too often, guns become the great equalizer for boys who have been bullied, ridiculed, and verbally taunted.” This essay was first published in The Boston Globe on February 13, 2000, in the Sunday, Third Edition Focus Section; Pg. E1.
At the Gender Blender Blog, there is an excellent essay entitled, “Violent Masculinity as a Cultural Ideal: Both Men and Women are Victims,” in which students (problably Women’s Studies students at Tufts University) talk about the various effects of violent masculinity. It is an interesting and provocative essay.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Assholes at work
I’ve always assumed the best when encountering other people, and it takes me a long time to form an opinion so severe and critical that I could actually label someone “asshole.” Although I’ll admit the word is in my vocabulary, there are few instances when I use it, nor would want to use it. More often than not, my use of the word is in retrospect, a little like Monday-morning quarterbacking, when you look back on a situation, analyze it, and then realize that the negative consequences occurred simply because someone was acting like a total jerk.
I had a brother-in-law like that who always seemed to take a contrary position in discussions just to antagonize and provoke. He loved the verbal battle. I had a colleague like that as well who all faculty members tried to avoid. It seemed the faculty members of our small department would almost always see eye-to-eye, even agree to disagree at times, but got along with each other famously except when this one person would become involved. It was as if a discordant ingredient was put into a recipe that seemed to spoil the overall flavor, texture, or appearance. Without it, no problem; with it, yuck!
It seems as if this world is more full of assholes today than in the past. I’m talking here about people who quickly, and often thoughtlessly, throw out personal insults, invade our personal space, make uninvited physical contact, use verbal and nonverbal means to threaten and intimidate, use unwanted sarcastic jokes, offer-up withering e-mail flames, inject rude interruptions into conversations, appear two-faced—one face cordial and accommodating, the other face condemning, vilifying, and attacking—ready to give dirty looks (in Hawaii they call it “stink-eye”) at a moment’s displeasure, and treating others as if they are invisible.
For this list, and for stimulating this essay, I am indebted to Robert I. Sutton and his book, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t (Warner Business Books, 2007). My list of characteristics, above, comes from his list of “Common Everyday Actions That Assholes Use” (p. 10). I have avoided using quotation marks throughout most of this essay for ease of reading, but I acknowledge my dependence on this terrific book that is well worth reading.
The best way I have found to successfully deal with assholes is to avoid them, or, in a business, get rid of them. Sometimes it is a matter of proceeding with the first approach— avoidance—until the second takes place—departure. Looking back, in all cases that I can recall, this was exactly the procedure that took place.
In talking with my father-in-law, a former department chairperson, one faculty member was not only an asshole, continued to provoke and display his negative personality on a daily basis, affected everyone’s demeanor and morale, became known throughout the profession and university for just what he was, and — to everyone’s delight and amusement — ended up taking a faculty position at a university in Australia. Out of sight, out of mind! (The trail of negative memories and stories, however, paved a muddy and treacherous course of recollections well beyond his presence in this country.)
My problem with Sutton’s top ten steps, “Enforcing the No Asshole Rule,” is simple. It is difficult to detect assholes, because they are so good at disguising themselves before people who do not know them. So often, when you meet for the first time a person who has been labeled an asshole, recognized as an asshole, and roundly supported as an asshole by people you respect and admire, you are astounded at what you discover. Here, you think, is one of the most cordial, friendly, warm, genial, affable, amiable, pleasant, polite, warmhearted, and good-natured people on the face of the earth! The critics must be wrong!
The key, I’m afraid, is to base your judgment on that of those who are credible and whom you trust and respect. What other recourse do you have? In an organization, Sutton claims, assholes hire other assholes, so get rid of them fast. Treat them as incompetent employees. Remember power breeds nastiness. “Beware that giving people — even seemingly nice and sensitive people — even a little power can turn them into big jerks” (p. 90), says Sutton. In dealing with them, you must develop a culture in which people know how to argue and when to stop fighting. Often, it means gathering more evidence, listening to other people, and implementing decisions even when the asshole disagrees with them.
Although it is important to emphasize — in business, education, or even in small meetings — that treating people with respect rather than contempt makes good sense, it doesn’t always register with those for whom the words should resonate the loudest. The resonation falls on deaf ears — or rebounds with no purpose or direction within an empty head, if it makes it that far — especially when things are going badly!
When you have to hunker down and take it, here are some of the suggestions Sutton makes for surviving nasty people. First, reframe the situation to escape the source of stress and reduce the damage being done to you. Above all, avoid self-blame, hope for the best while expecting the worst, and develop indifference and emotional detachment. Second, look for and celebrate small wins. “The advantage of taking small actions is that they bring about noticeable and typically successful changes” (p. 140), says Sutton. “Using a small-wins strategy can enhance your feelings of control, make things around you a little better, and maybe — just maybe — chip away at the vile and vicious culture in which you are trapped and start making it a bit better” (p. 147). Third, limit your exposure to dampen the damage that assholes do. Fourth, build pockets of safety, support, and sanity. When you can hide, hangout with decent people, or engage supportive family and friends in constructive, positive, and helpful conversations, often these social networks can buffer you against the stress of working with an asshole.
One problem with assholes is the residual effect they can have on your mind, mentality, and memory. Just writing this essay, for example, brings back memories I would rather not entertain. Forgiving and forgetting is a great thought, but sometimes doesn’t serve to purge such experiences. Although Sutton discusses both revenge and calling their bluff, I have seldom seen these tactics work well. There are some tactics that work and that are discussed above, and they may be all you have. Fortunately, assholes make up a small percentage of the population!
----
At the HuffingtonPost.com, Robert Sutton writes, “The No Asshole Rule: Part 1,” where, in his own words, “I thought it would be fun to introduce the book to Huffington Post readers by sharing 13 of the most fascinating and funny things that have happened so far [since his book was published]. The first six are in this post the other seven in my next post.”
At Bob Sutton’s own website, he offers an essay, “Updated Tips for Victims of Workplace Assholes,” which he introduces with the paragraph, “I’ve talked a lot here about methods for enduring abusive bosses and co-workers. Some of these tips come from your comments and e-mails, some from the No Asshole Rule, and some from academic research. I thought it would be useful to list some of the most effective methods in one place. I update this list every few months, so please keep your suggestions coming!” He gives six or seven tips then includes numerous comments from messages he receives at the website.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
I had a brother-in-law like that who always seemed to take a contrary position in discussions just to antagonize and provoke. He loved the verbal battle. I had a colleague like that as well who all faculty members tried to avoid. It seemed the faculty members of our small department would almost always see eye-to-eye, even agree to disagree at times, but got along with each other famously except when this one person would become involved. It was as if a discordant ingredient was put into a recipe that seemed to spoil the overall flavor, texture, or appearance. Without it, no problem; with it, yuck!
It seems as if this world is more full of assholes today than in the past. I’m talking here about people who quickly, and often thoughtlessly, throw out personal insults, invade our personal space, make uninvited physical contact, use verbal and nonverbal means to threaten and intimidate, use unwanted sarcastic jokes, offer-up withering e-mail flames, inject rude interruptions into conversations, appear two-faced—one face cordial and accommodating, the other face condemning, vilifying, and attacking—ready to give dirty looks (in Hawaii they call it “stink-eye”) at a moment’s displeasure, and treating others as if they are invisible.
For this list, and for stimulating this essay, I am indebted to Robert I. Sutton and his book, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t (Warner Business Books, 2007). My list of characteristics, above, comes from his list of “Common Everyday Actions That Assholes Use” (p. 10). I have avoided using quotation marks throughout most of this essay for ease of reading, but I acknowledge my dependence on this terrific book that is well worth reading.
The best way I have found to successfully deal with assholes is to avoid them, or, in a business, get rid of them. Sometimes it is a matter of proceeding with the first approach— avoidance—until the second takes place—departure. Looking back, in all cases that I can recall, this was exactly the procedure that took place.
In talking with my father-in-law, a former department chairperson, one faculty member was not only an asshole, continued to provoke and display his negative personality on a daily basis, affected everyone’s demeanor and morale, became known throughout the profession and university for just what he was, and — to everyone’s delight and amusement — ended up taking a faculty position at a university in Australia. Out of sight, out of mind! (The trail of negative memories and stories, however, paved a muddy and treacherous course of recollections well beyond his presence in this country.)
My problem with Sutton’s top ten steps, “Enforcing the No Asshole Rule,” is simple. It is difficult to detect assholes, because they are so good at disguising themselves before people who do not know them. So often, when you meet for the first time a person who has been labeled an asshole, recognized as an asshole, and roundly supported as an asshole by people you respect and admire, you are astounded at what you discover. Here, you think, is one of the most cordial, friendly, warm, genial, affable, amiable, pleasant, polite, warmhearted, and good-natured people on the face of the earth! The critics must be wrong!
The key, I’m afraid, is to base your judgment on that of those who are credible and whom you trust and respect. What other recourse do you have? In an organization, Sutton claims, assholes hire other assholes, so get rid of them fast. Treat them as incompetent employees. Remember power breeds nastiness. “Beware that giving people — even seemingly nice and sensitive people — even a little power can turn them into big jerks” (p. 90), says Sutton. In dealing with them, you must develop a culture in which people know how to argue and when to stop fighting. Often, it means gathering more evidence, listening to other people, and implementing decisions even when the asshole disagrees with them.
Although it is important to emphasize — in business, education, or even in small meetings — that treating people with respect rather than contempt makes good sense, it doesn’t always register with those for whom the words should resonate the loudest. The resonation falls on deaf ears — or rebounds with no purpose or direction within an empty head, if it makes it that far — especially when things are going badly!
When you have to hunker down and take it, here are some of the suggestions Sutton makes for surviving nasty people. First, reframe the situation to escape the source of stress and reduce the damage being done to you. Above all, avoid self-blame, hope for the best while expecting the worst, and develop indifference and emotional detachment. Second, look for and celebrate small wins. “The advantage of taking small actions is that they bring about noticeable and typically successful changes” (p. 140), says Sutton. “Using a small-wins strategy can enhance your feelings of control, make things around you a little better, and maybe — just maybe — chip away at the vile and vicious culture in which you are trapped and start making it a bit better” (p. 147). Third, limit your exposure to dampen the damage that assholes do. Fourth, build pockets of safety, support, and sanity. When you can hide, hangout with decent people, or engage supportive family and friends in constructive, positive, and helpful conversations, often these social networks can buffer you against the stress of working with an asshole.
One problem with assholes is the residual effect they can have on your mind, mentality, and memory. Just writing this essay, for example, brings back memories I would rather not entertain. Forgiving and forgetting is a great thought, but sometimes doesn’t serve to purge such experiences. Although Sutton discusses both revenge and calling their bluff, I have seldom seen these tactics work well. There are some tactics that work and that are discussed above, and they may be all you have. Fortunately, assholes make up a small percentage of the population!
----
At the HuffingtonPost.com, Robert Sutton writes, “The No Asshole Rule: Part 1,” where, in his own words, “I thought it would be fun to introduce the book to Huffington Post readers by sharing 13 of the most fascinating and funny things that have happened so far [since his book was published]. The first six are in this post the other seven in my next post.”
At Bob Sutton’s own website, he offers an essay, “Updated Tips for Victims of Workplace Assholes,” which he introduces with the paragraph, “I’ve talked a lot here about methods for enduring abusive bosses and co-workers. Some of these tips come from your comments and e-mails, some from the No Asshole Rule, and some from academic research. I thought it would be useful to list some of the most effective methods in one place. I update this list every few months, so please keep your suggestions coming!” He gives six or seven tips then includes numerous comments from messages he receives at the website.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Romantic notions help us maintain balance—a stable, steady footing—in our lives
All my life I have held a romantic notion about living in a remote location with my computer along with a subsistence level of survival—just enjoying the wilderness, a “green” existence, and the essentials of survival and nothing more. After all, I am a writer. It is a lonely profession in which I need solitude, great chunks of solitary confinement, and license to exist by myself out of reach of civilization.
A recent cruise to the Inside Passage of Alaska began to shake some of my romantic notions. I talked, for example, to some of the residents of Skagway, Alaska, just to see why they choose to live there year round. Skagway was once Alaska’s most populous town. Now only four blocks wide and just over twenty long, it is nestled into a cozy and picturesque setting between the 7,000-foot Coast Mountains (Canadian boundary). Many summer residents, of course, only live there during the tourist season when as many as eight cruise ships at a time, may add from 15-20,000 people to a permanent village population of only about 841 people.
One employee of a small tourist shop said he had chosen to live in Skagway year round because it is a great place to bring up your children. He said he had three kids. The schools were great, with lots of individual attention for students, the atmosphere is clean and healthy, and, he said, you can leave your kids outside all day to play without supervision. He said the crime rate in Skagway is negligible. (He suspected that whatever crime rate there is, is a direct result of the tourist industry, but it disappears as quickly as the ships slipping away from their dockside ports after only several hours of being in town.)
Interestingly, the shop employee said that the only time he and his wife had to be outside with the kids was at dusk and after dark. That is the time the black bears come into town from the surrounding forests. He said it wasn’t unusual to see one right in the middle of the road outside his shop. They scavage for food in the town’s outside garbage containers, but they are as scared of humans as humans are scared of them; they are just more imposing.
Our female guide on our Skagway shore excursion, an extroverted, humorous, single writer for the local Skagway newspaper published with local news only every-other-week, and who looked and sounded like Barbra Streisand, had stayed in Skagway for three years and had an interesting view of life there. She was waiting for her boyfriend to come home from Iraq and, originally, had decided to give Skagway but six months as a live-in trial.
She said that life there was definitely unique. Everything in town (including cars) had to be shipped in by barge. When the barge arrived (usually once a month), the townspeople would flood the local supermarkets for the freshest fruits and vegetables they could find. What the food barge brought in was what was available for the next month or so.
There was no doctor, dentist, health-care professional, or hospital in town. Those with serious health problems had to be flown to another town.
During the six months of winter, it was dark most of the time. At the height of the winter months, there was a mere twenty minutes of sun, and that was like dusk. Also, being part of a massive temperate rain forest system, during the summer it rained almost every day, and if it was not raining, it was overcast much of the time. Talk about gloomy weather! Alaska, and Skagway contributes its fair share, has the highest suicide rate of any state in the nation, and one can easily see why that is true.
There is a third feature of the weather in Skagway that makes that location unusual. During three weeks in January there is an intense, non-stop wind. Skagway is located just on the other side of a long mountain range that separates the town from Canada and the inland. During the winter, air pressure accumulates on the Canadian side of the mountains, and as it builds it pushes the clouds up vertically toward the top of the mountain range. Our guide said that when the clouds begin drifting over the mountains in January, that is the sign that everyone in Skagway must go out and purchase provisions to supply themselves for three weeks and then go home and batten down the hatches.
Located in a large U-shaped groove between the 7,000-foot mountains, fashioned thousands of years ago by a massive glacier, Skagway provides a conduit for the air from the buildup on the Canadian side of the mountains to reach the water—the glacier-carved Lynn Canal fjord. Our guide reported that winds maintain a constant speed of 60-70 miles per hour, nonstop, for three solid weeks when you can’t even open an exterior door to your house.
It isn’t any single factor—the dependency on the barges, the lack of medical-service personnel, or the weather—that made me second-guess my romantic desire for isolation. It is the total picture. When you’re accustomed to having many choices—fresh fruits and vegetables, meats and poultry, and all brands and kinds of products—it is difficult to make a decision to give all of that up.
When we were in Australia for 6 months, our choices were limited, but we discovered that it doesn’t take long to become accustomed to it. When we returned home, we even discussed the possibility of limiting what we needed to live comfortably, but it isn’t long until the supply catches up with what you want—not what you need, but what you want. Soon, once again, you begin to appreciate all that you have and all the choices you have in order to have more!
I still retain some of my romantic notions regarding living in a remote location; however, I now know for certain it won’t be in Alaska—specifically, Skagway. It is like many places we have visited throughout our travels. It is a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
So often, I think, the romantic notions we have about how we would like to live are just that—romantic notions. There is no need to prove them, live them out, or fulfill them in any direct manner. They are pleasant, comforting, and adequately soothe our idyllic, picturesque, fairy-tale side. They offer, too, more than just a reason for living; they are, indeed, a placid, warm, snug, and cozy place where our thoughts can reside in a calm and peaceful manner without agitation, distress, or upset. We need romantic notions to maintain a balance—a stable, steady footing—in our lives.
-----
At Askville.com (sponsored by Amazon.com) , the question posed is: “Have you ever thought about becoming a hermit/recluse?” The readers responses are varied, interesting, and worth a read.
At Success From the Nest , there is a post called, “Are you becoming a home-based hermit?” by Jon Morrow, that offers a number of useful tips. The 24 reader comments on Morrow’s post are also fun to read.
-----
Copyright September, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
A recent cruise to the Inside Passage of Alaska began to shake some of my romantic notions. I talked, for example, to some of the residents of Skagway, Alaska, just to see why they choose to live there year round. Skagway was once Alaska’s most populous town. Now only four blocks wide and just over twenty long, it is nestled into a cozy and picturesque setting between the 7,000-foot Coast Mountains (Canadian boundary). Many summer residents, of course, only live there during the tourist season when as many as eight cruise ships at a time, may add from 15-20,000 people to a permanent village population of only about 841 people.
One employee of a small tourist shop said he had chosen to live in Skagway year round because it is a great place to bring up your children. He said he had three kids. The schools were great, with lots of individual attention for students, the atmosphere is clean and healthy, and, he said, you can leave your kids outside all day to play without supervision. He said the crime rate in Skagway is negligible. (He suspected that whatever crime rate there is, is a direct result of the tourist industry, but it disappears as quickly as the ships slipping away from their dockside ports after only several hours of being in town.)
Interestingly, the shop employee said that the only time he and his wife had to be outside with the kids was at dusk and after dark. That is the time the black bears come into town from the surrounding forests. He said it wasn’t unusual to see one right in the middle of the road outside his shop. They scavage for food in the town’s outside garbage containers, but they are as scared of humans as humans are scared of them; they are just more imposing.
Our female guide on our Skagway shore excursion, an extroverted, humorous, single writer for the local Skagway newspaper published with local news only every-other-week, and who looked and sounded like Barbra Streisand, had stayed in Skagway for three years and had an interesting view of life there. She was waiting for her boyfriend to come home from Iraq and, originally, had decided to give Skagway but six months as a live-in trial.
She said that life there was definitely unique. Everything in town (including cars) had to be shipped in by barge. When the barge arrived (usually once a month), the townspeople would flood the local supermarkets for the freshest fruits and vegetables they could find. What the food barge brought in was what was available for the next month or so.
There was no doctor, dentist, health-care professional, or hospital in town. Those with serious health problems had to be flown to another town.
During the six months of winter, it was dark most of the time. At the height of the winter months, there was a mere twenty minutes of sun, and that was like dusk. Also, being part of a massive temperate rain forest system, during the summer it rained almost every day, and if it was not raining, it was overcast much of the time. Talk about gloomy weather! Alaska, and Skagway contributes its fair share, has the highest suicide rate of any state in the nation, and one can easily see why that is true.
There is a third feature of the weather in Skagway that makes that location unusual. During three weeks in January there is an intense, non-stop wind. Skagway is located just on the other side of a long mountain range that separates the town from Canada and the inland. During the winter, air pressure accumulates on the Canadian side of the mountains, and as it builds it pushes the clouds up vertically toward the top of the mountain range. Our guide said that when the clouds begin drifting over the mountains in January, that is the sign that everyone in Skagway must go out and purchase provisions to supply themselves for three weeks and then go home and batten down the hatches.
Located in a large U-shaped groove between the 7,000-foot mountains, fashioned thousands of years ago by a massive glacier, Skagway provides a conduit for the air from the buildup on the Canadian side of the mountains to reach the water—the glacier-carved Lynn Canal fjord. Our guide reported that winds maintain a constant speed of 60-70 miles per hour, nonstop, for three solid weeks when you can’t even open an exterior door to your house.
It isn’t any single factor—the dependency on the barges, the lack of medical-service personnel, or the weather—that made me second-guess my romantic desire for isolation. It is the total picture. When you’re accustomed to having many choices—fresh fruits and vegetables, meats and poultry, and all brands and kinds of products—it is difficult to make a decision to give all of that up.
When we were in Australia for 6 months, our choices were limited, but we discovered that it doesn’t take long to become accustomed to it. When we returned home, we even discussed the possibility of limiting what we needed to live comfortably, but it isn’t long until the supply catches up with what you want—not what you need, but what you want. Soon, once again, you begin to appreciate all that you have and all the choices you have in order to have more!
I still retain some of my romantic notions regarding living in a remote location; however, I now know for certain it won’t be in Alaska—specifically, Skagway. It is like many places we have visited throughout our travels. It is a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
So often, I think, the romantic notions we have about how we would like to live are just that—romantic notions. There is no need to prove them, live them out, or fulfill them in any direct manner. They are pleasant, comforting, and adequately soothe our idyllic, picturesque, fairy-tale side. They offer, too, more than just a reason for living; they are, indeed, a placid, warm, snug, and cozy place where our thoughts can reside in a calm and peaceful manner without agitation, distress, or upset. We need romantic notions to maintain a balance—a stable, steady footing—in our lives.
-----
At Askville.com (sponsored by Amazon.com) , the question posed is: “Have you ever thought about becoming a hermit/recluse?” The readers responses are varied, interesting, and worth a read.
At Success From the Nest , there is a post called, “Are you becoming a home-based hermit?” by Jon Morrow, that offers a number of useful tips. The 24 reader comments on Morrow’s post are also fun to read.
-----
Copyright September, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
It is our sanctuary, our special place, an area of safety, solitude, and serenity
When a friend of one of our children, led by our older son, followed the sidewalk from the front of our house around and through the gate into our backyard, his first reaction coming upon our pond, gazebo, and round brick patio in front of both was to exclaim, “Wow, this is a real sanctuary!” It was clear to him—having seen our backyard for the first time—that this was, indeed, a special place.
We have lived in our house for over thirty years, and for every one of those years, we have done something—mostly add plants, bushes, or trees—to our yard.
Our three-fourths of an acre was but a field when we moved in, and we were the second or third house constructed when the rear plat to our subdivision was built. Because we were among the first, we selected the largest piece of property on a cull-de-sac so that our children would have a large, safe area in which to play. Being on a cull-de-sac, the front of our property is only about 50-feet wide, but the rear lot line covers a full two properties plus it touches a drainage ditch in one far corner—a lot line somewhere between 250 and 300 feet in length.
There were no trees, so our first goal was to plant them. Our intention was to frame our property in trees rather than use fences, and in the beginning that worked well. A couple of problems, however, developed. First, the right of way behind our house which contained all the electric, telephone, and cables for television was a drainage area for all the houses built behind us and at least a half dozen others. The excess rain from all of those properties came through our right of way—part of our property—to reach that drainage ditch. When it rains, it fills.
That has never been a major problem, however, when we tried growing blue spruce trees on the inside of the right-of-way, they were dying quickly from too much water, and we immediately moved them to both of the edges of our yard that lead to the right-of-way. Then we tried lilacs, and the same thing happened, and we had to move them to another portion of the side of the yard leading to the ditch. When we tried forsythia, the same thing happened a third time, and we had to pull them all out before they died. Our final effort was to put in 50 or 60 Russian Olive saplings, and that worked. The saplings have grown into large trees along the inside of the right-of-way, and nearly every year of the 30 here, we have had to trim or remove them.
All of our early efforts were designed to provide shade as well as some privacy from the four homes that border ours. In the back, our property is now enclosed by blue spruce, 20-foot high lilac bushes, and Russian olives. Inside the Russian olives we have planted arbor vitae to add to the privacy along the back right-of-way.
In addition to the quest for privacy, we have always had a large garden. The garden was enclosed by landscaping ties, and we used chicken wire to keep out the rabbits and woodchucks.
We have always used annuals to add color and variety to our other plantings. What has happened—and it is particularly evident this year—is that because of our early interest in shade trees, we now have an enormous amount of shade provided by oak, maple, and pine trees as well as an enormous bradford pear tree.
For many years, my goal has always been to reduce the amount of grass I have had to mow. So, using cypress mulch, I have continued to mulch in areas and build hosta gardens or areas for our birdbaths or other bushes and plants. Along the back right-of-way, I used mulch around all the Russian olives and arbor vitae so I would never have to weed-whack. Then we added lamb’s ear as well as Japanese spurge (pachysandra) as ground cover.
All of the people occupying the homes surrounding our property have added fences around their yards. To fence in our yard meant that we would simply have to add to their fences, include a small one along the rear ditch, and then, from their fences we could add one that came up to the sides of our house. We made the final one a white picket fence, and I added a small cover over the gate, so that when you enter our yard on either side, you have to come under this small portico. Thus, our backyard is now fully enclosed by fences with gates on either side.
Because of the shade from the trees we planted early on, it has been difficult to keep grass growing in many areas. On one side, under a silver maple tree, we made a large hosta garden with over 30 different kinds of hosta as well as ferns and other ground covers.
One of our sons found a brick pile, and we brought home two large loads of bricks in our truck. From those, we fashioned brick walkways from the front of our house to the backyard (under the porticos), and around the two front blue spruce trees (one on each side of our lot), we built a small brick wall to enclose circular hosta gardens around those spruce trees.
We have added a rear barn that measures 10' w x 20' l x 14' h, and we bought an 8-foot in diameter gazebo from the Amish who came in and installed it.
When I put in the patio in front of our pond, which my son and I built and which includes three small waterfalls, I buried the dirt from the patio foundation in the garden, so I changed the landscaping ties to 6" x 6" treated timbers to box in our two 10' x 15' plots. Then around the patio, I used our annual accumulation of leaf mulch to landscape the area and added hydranga, sweet William, and viburnum to fill out those areas.
This year (it was yesterday as I am writing this), the friend of one of our family members who called our backyard a sanctuary, gave us four flats of Impatiens and begonias in reds, oranges, and pinks. Today, I planted all of those plants which has added a great deal of additional color to our yard. We had three double hanging metal plant holders that already had full baskets of pink Impatiens plants, and then with the other blooming plants—yellow snap dragons, white hydrangas, and pink blossoms on several other bushes—our place has truly taken on the feel of a sanctuary.
Our yard is and always has been a “work-in-progress.” It was never planned; we are never finished with it; and we never stop purchasing more plants—some that we have no place for—every year. But when you enter the backyard now, with the songs of the many birds, the sounds of the water from our pond, and the incredible smell of fresh air, it is truly a joy to behold. It is our sanctuary, our special place, an area of safety, solitude, and serenity.
-----
At LearningMeditation, there is a fun, short essay, “Sanctuary-Safe,” on how to build a sanctuary within your home. It is similar to what we have done in our backyard, however, it is inside. Just a short, pleasant read.
At About.com, under the subheading, “Interior Decorating,” there is another brief essay, “Create Your Own Private Retreat in Your Home---Escape to a Comforting Space You Really Love.” Here, Coral Nafie writes about all the essentials needed to create that special place. It is a longer essay, but it certainly discusses the importance, the needs, and the requirements for an interior space.
At @zinearticles.com, the essay is entitled, “Creating a Personal Sanctuary - To Moat, Or NOT to Moat,” in which DeAnna Radaj discusses a number of requirements (and possible elements) for an outside sanctuary. This is, by far, the best essay I have discovered on creating an outdoor sanctuary.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
We have lived in our house for over thirty years, and for every one of those years, we have done something—mostly add plants, bushes, or trees—to our yard.
Our three-fourths of an acre was but a field when we moved in, and we were the second or third house constructed when the rear plat to our subdivision was built. Because we were among the first, we selected the largest piece of property on a cull-de-sac so that our children would have a large, safe area in which to play. Being on a cull-de-sac, the front of our property is only about 50-feet wide, but the rear lot line covers a full two properties plus it touches a drainage ditch in one far corner—a lot line somewhere between 250 and 300 feet in length.
There were no trees, so our first goal was to plant them. Our intention was to frame our property in trees rather than use fences, and in the beginning that worked well. A couple of problems, however, developed. First, the right of way behind our house which contained all the electric, telephone, and cables for television was a drainage area for all the houses built behind us and at least a half dozen others. The excess rain from all of those properties came through our right of way—part of our property—to reach that drainage ditch. When it rains, it fills.
That has never been a major problem, however, when we tried growing blue spruce trees on the inside of the right-of-way, they were dying quickly from too much water, and we immediately moved them to both of the edges of our yard that lead to the right-of-way. Then we tried lilacs, and the same thing happened, and we had to move them to another portion of the side of the yard leading to the ditch. When we tried forsythia, the same thing happened a third time, and we had to pull them all out before they died. Our final effort was to put in 50 or 60 Russian Olive saplings, and that worked. The saplings have grown into large trees along the inside of the right-of-way, and nearly every year of the 30 here, we have had to trim or remove them.
All of our early efforts were designed to provide shade as well as some privacy from the four homes that border ours. In the back, our property is now enclosed by blue spruce, 20-foot high lilac bushes, and Russian olives. Inside the Russian olives we have planted arbor vitae to add to the privacy along the back right-of-way.
In addition to the quest for privacy, we have always had a large garden. The garden was enclosed by landscaping ties, and we used chicken wire to keep out the rabbits and woodchucks.
We have always used annuals to add color and variety to our other plantings. What has happened—and it is particularly evident this year—is that because of our early interest in shade trees, we now have an enormous amount of shade provided by oak, maple, and pine trees as well as an enormous bradford pear tree.
For many years, my goal has always been to reduce the amount of grass I have had to mow. So, using cypress mulch, I have continued to mulch in areas and build hosta gardens or areas for our birdbaths or other bushes and plants. Along the back right-of-way, I used mulch around all the Russian olives and arbor vitae so I would never have to weed-whack. Then we added lamb’s ear as well as Japanese spurge (pachysandra) as ground cover.
All of the people occupying the homes surrounding our property have added fences around their yards. To fence in our yard meant that we would simply have to add to their fences, include a small one along the rear ditch, and then, from their fences we could add one that came up to the sides of our house. We made the final one a white picket fence, and I added a small cover over the gate, so that when you enter our yard on either side, you have to come under this small portico. Thus, our backyard is now fully enclosed by fences with gates on either side.
Because of the shade from the trees we planted early on, it has been difficult to keep grass growing in many areas. On one side, under a silver maple tree, we made a large hosta garden with over 30 different kinds of hosta as well as ferns and other ground covers.
One of our sons found a brick pile, and we brought home two large loads of bricks in our truck. From those, we fashioned brick walkways from the front of our house to the backyard (under the porticos), and around the two front blue spruce trees (one on each side of our lot), we built a small brick wall to enclose circular hosta gardens around those spruce trees.
We have added a rear barn that measures 10' w x 20' l x 14' h, and we bought an 8-foot in diameter gazebo from the Amish who came in and installed it.
When I put in the patio in front of our pond, which my son and I built and which includes three small waterfalls, I buried the dirt from the patio foundation in the garden, so I changed the landscaping ties to 6" x 6" treated timbers to box in our two 10' x 15' plots. Then around the patio, I used our annual accumulation of leaf mulch to landscape the area and added hydranga, sweet William, and viburnum to fill out those areas.
This year (it was yesterday as I am writing this), the friend of one of our family members who called our backyard a sanctuary, gave us four flats of Impatiens and begonias in reds, oranges, and pinks. Today, I planted all of those plants which has added a great deal of additional color to our yard. We had three double hanging metal plant holders that already had full baskets of pink Impatiens plants, and then with the other blooming plants—yellow snap dragons, white hydrangas, and pink blossoms on several other bushes—our place has truly taken on the feel of a sanctuary.
Our yard is and always has been a “work-in-progress.” It was never planned; we are never finished with it; and we never stop purchasing more plants—some that we have no place for—every year. But when you enter the backyard now, with the songs of the many birds, the sounds of the water from our pond, and the incredible smell of fresh air, it is truly a joy to behold. It is our sanctuary, our special place, an area of safety, solitude, and serenity.
-----
At LearningMeditation, there is a fun, short essay, “Sanctuary-Safe,” on how to build a sanctuary within your home. It is similar to what we have done in our backyard, however, it is inside. Just a short, pleasant read.
At About.com, under the subheading, “Interior Decorating,” there is another brief essay, “Create Your Own Private Retreat in Your Home---Escape to a Comforting Space You Really Love.” Here, Coral Nafie writes about all the essentials needed to create that special place. It is a longer essay, but it certainly discusses the importance, the needs, and the requirements for an interior space.
At @zinearticles.com, the essay is entitled, “Creating a Personal Sanctuary - To Moat, Or NOT to Moat,” in which DeAnna Radaj discusses a number of requirements (and possible elements) for an outside sanctuary. This is, by far, the best essay I have discovered on creating an outdoor sanctuary.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Following the rules
Those of you familiar with my essays and especially my books know that I am a rules-based person. After my first collection of essays, And Then Some: Essays to Entertain, Motivate, and Inspire, I immediately wrote the book, Public Speaking Rules: All You Need for a Great Speech. I followed that rules-based book with a book entitled, SMOERs: Self-Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules. As if that wasn’t enough, I wrote an additional rules-based book entitled, Relationship Rules: For Long-term Happiness, Security, and Commitment. With all of this as a preface, it is little wonder that I would be attracted to a New York Times article by Jane E. Brody entitled, “Rules Worth Following, for Everyone’s Sake” (“Personal Health,” 02-02-10, p. D7).
Now, I am familiar with Brody’s essays in the science section of the Times every Tuesday, and I have cited her numerous times in my textbooks, because she often writes about aspects of interpersonal relationships, verbal and nonverbal communication, and other facets of human behavior—all topics I discuss in my textbooks.
In this essay I want to cover the same topics she covers in her essay. I am deeply indebted to her for the ideas in this essay, and I give her full credit for them.
Brody’s column is based on “a slender, easy-to-digest new book called Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual (137 pages, $11 retail, $5.50 at Amazon) by Michael Pollan.” Pollan is a professor of science journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. Kristine Hale, in her four-star review of Pollan’s book at Amazon.com, writes, “Pollan takes the essential and fascinating information that he wrote about in his previous book [In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto (256 pages, $7.50 at Amazon)] and simmers it down into a succinct (the book is basically 70 half pages long) ‘manual’ of rules for eating. While this book retains some of the bones of its predecessor, it is by no means a Cliff's Notes version. This manual is essential reading all on its own.”
In her review of the book, Norma Lehmeierhartie tells how the Pollan book is organized: “The book is divided into three parts and has 64 chapters or rules. The following will give you a good idea of what the book is about: Part I, What should I eat? Includes such chapters as ‘Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food,’ ‘avoid food products that contain more than five ingredients,’ and ‘avoid foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup.’
Part II, What kind of food should I eat? includes, ‘Eat mostly plants, especially leaves,’ ‘eat your colors,’ and ‘the whiter the bread, the sooner you will be dead.’ Part III, How should I eat? includes: ‘pay more, eat less,’ ‘eat less,’ and ‘limit your snacks to unprocessed plant food.’”
Jesse Kornbluth, in his review of Pollan’s book, offers samples of some of his rules: “What does Pollan tell you in these pages? Here's a sample:
--- ‘Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.’
--- ‘Don't eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.’
---- ‘Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot...There are exceptions --- honey --- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food.’
--- ‘Always leave the table a little hungry.'
--- ‘Eat meals together, at regular meal times.’
--- ‘Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.’
There are three types of people who will not appreciate Pollan’s book. First, those who have read his previous books will find this one redundant. More than that, it is simply a distillation of and recycled verbatim from his previous book, In Defense of Food, referred to above. Second, if you are already into food and nutrition, you will find much of what Pollan says, common sense—maybe even, elementary. The third type of person who can skip this book and his previous one are those who simply adopt Pollan’s approach, which he summarized in just seven words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Obesity solved! Diet-related ailments eliminated!
There is only one reason I have provided these quotations from reviews of Pollan’s book. I have not read it myself, and I am dependent on the Amazon reviews and Brody for their interpretations and insights.
Quoting from Brody’s column, “The new book provides the practical steps [for following his approach], starting with advice to avoid ‘processed concoctions,’ no matter what the label may claim (‘no trans fats,’ ‘low cholesterol,’ ‘less sugar,’ ‘reduced sodium,’ ‘high in antioxidants,’ and so forth).” If you read his book, you will become accustomed to his cute way of phrasing his ideas. For example, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”
“Avoid foods advertised on television.. . . Those who sell the most healthful foods—vegetables, fruits and whole grains—rarely have a budget to support national advertising.” If you shop in a supermarket, “shop only the periphery of the store and avoid the center aisles laden with processed foods”. . . and “Never get your fuel from the same place your car does,” Pollan writes.
Other valuable rules include, “If you’re not paying attention to what you’re eating, you’re likely to eat more than you realize,” or“Stop eating before you’re full,” “There is nothing wrong with special occasion foods, as long as every day is not a special occasion,” and the rule I love the best is Pollan’s “S policy”: “No snacks, no seconds, no sweets—except on days that begin with the letter S.” There is clearly a reason why I’m rules-oriented—don’t you wish everyone was?
-----
If you think following rules is a new concept, or if you think rules are a modern idea, or if you think old rules do not apply, check out this web site: PlugInID.com, and the essay there entitled “21 Rules to Live Your Life - Dokkodo.” “Dokkodo” is a small book written by Miyamoto Musashi a week before he died in 1645. 1645!!!!! Read these 21 rules. They are terrific guidelines by which to form a very good life. Just the first two examples: 1. Accept everything just the way it is, and 2. Do not seek pleasure for its own sake. Also, this is not a simple listing; all rules are explained and discussed as well.
If you want an entertaining, delightful, and challenging adventure, look at: “Life’s Rules of Thumb (and other quotes)” and you will discover an array of over 85 great quotations. Some of the quotations (to offer but a mere sampling) that I liked include, “If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children.” Confucius. Or, “People are basically honest. And they're even more honest when you watch them.” Alan C. "Ace" Greenberg. Or, “Life at work is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different limbs at different levels. Some monkeys are climbing up, some down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but arseholes.” Anonymous.
You get just a fraction of the pleasure here that you will get by going to this web site.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Now, I am familiar with Brody’s essays in the science section of the Times every Tuesday, and I have cited her numerous times in my textbooks, because she often writes about aspects of interpersonal relationships, verbal and nonverbal communication, and other facets of human behavior—all topics I discuss in my textbooks.
In this essay I want to cover the same topics she covers in her essay. I am deeply indebted to her for the ideas in this essay, and I give her full credit for them.
Brody’s column is based on “a slender, easy-to-digest new book called Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual (137 pages, $11 retail, $5.50 at Amazon) by Michael Pollan.” Pollan is a professor of science journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. Kristine Hale, in her four-star review of Pollan’s book at Amazon.com, writes, “Pollan takes the essential and fascinating information that he wrote about in his previous book [In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto (256 pages, $7.50 at Amazon)] and simmers it down into a succinct (the book is basically 70 half pages long) ‘manual’ of rules for eating. While this book retains some of the bones of its predecessor, it is by no means a Cliff's Notes version. This manual is essential reading all on its own.”
In her review of the book, Norma Lehmeierhartie tells how the Pollan book is organized: “The book is divided into three parts and has 64 chapters or rules. The following will give you a good idea of what the book is about: Part I, What should I eat? Includes such chapters as ‘Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food,’ ‘avoid food products that contain more than five ingredients,’ and ‘avoid foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup.’
Part II, What kind of food should I eat? includes, ‘Eat mostly plants, especially leaves,’ ‘eat your colors,’ and ‘the whiter the bread, the sooner you will be dead.’ Part III, How should I eat? includes: ‘pay more, eat less,’ ‘eat less,’ and ‘limit your snacks to unprocessed plant food.’”
Jesse Kornbluth, in his review of Pollan’s book, offers samples of some of his rules: “What does Pollan tell you in these pages? Here's a sample:
--- ‘Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.’
--- ‘Don't eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.’
---- ‘Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot...There are exceptions --- honey --- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food.’
--- ‘Always leave the table a little hungry.'
--- ‘Eat meals together, at regular meal times.’
--- ‘Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.’
There are three types of people who will not appreciate Pollan’s book. First, those who have read his previous books will find this one redundant. More than that, it is simply a distillation of and recycled verbatim from his previous book, In Defense of Food, referred to above. Second, if you are already into food and nutrition, you will find much of what Pollan says, common sense—maybe even, elementary. The third type of person who can skip this book and his previous one are those who simply adopt Pollan’s approach, which he summarized in just seven words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Obesity solved! Diet-related ailments eliminated!
There is only one reason I have provided these quotations from reviews of Pollan’s book. I have not read it myself, and I am dependent on the Amazon reviews and Brody for their interpretations and insights.
Quoting from Brody’s column, “The new book provides the practical steps [for following his approach], starting with advice to avoid ‘processed concoctions,’ no matter what the label may claim (‘no trans fats,’ ‘low cholesterol,’ ‘less sugar,’ ‘reduced sodium,’ ‘high in antioxidants,’ and so forth).” If you read his book, you will become accustomed to his cute way of phrasing his ideas. For example, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”
“Avoid foods advertised on television.. . . Those who sell the most healthful foods—vegetables, fruits and whole grains—rarely have a budget to support national advertising.” If you shop in a supermarket, “shop only the periphery of the store and avoid the center aisles laden with processed foods”. . . and “Never get your fuel from the same place your car does,” Pollan writes.
Other valuable rules include, “If you’re not paying attention to what you’re eating, you’re likely to eat more than you realize,” or“Stop eating before you’re full,” “There is nothing wrong with special occasion foods, as long as every day is not a special occasion,” and the rule I love the best is Pollan’s “S policy”: “No snacks, no seconds, no sweets—except on days that begin with the letter S.” There is clearly a reason why I’m rules-oriented—don’t you wish everyone was?
-----
If you think following rules is a new concept, or if you think rules are a modern idea, or if you think old rules do not apply, check out this web site: PlugInID.com, and the essay there entitled “21 Rules to Live Your Life - Dokkodo.” “Dokkodo” is a small book written by Miyamoto Musashi a week before he died in 1645. 1645!!!!! Read these 21 rules. They are terrific guidelines by which to form a very good life. Just the first two examples: 1. Accept everything just the way it is, and 2. Do not seek pleasure for its own sake. Also, this is not a simple listing; all rules are explained and discussed as well.
If you want an entertaining, delightful, and challenging adventure, look at: “Life’s Rules of Thumb (and other quotes)” and you will discover an array of over 85 great quotations. Some of the quotations (to offer but a mere sampling) that I liked include, “If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children.” Confucius. Or, “People are basically honest. And they're even more honest when you watch them.” Alan C. "Ace" Greenberg. Or, “Life at work is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different limbs at different levels. Some monkeys are climbing up, some down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but arseholes.” Anonymous.
You get just a fraction of the pleasure here that you will get by going to this web site.
-----
Copyright July, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Self-identity is a base for everything else you do in life
Early in the basic-communication course we used two activities in the small performance sections specifically designed to awaken students to themselves—a confirmation of their life and existence. The first had them sit in the middle of a circle with the rest of their small group of 15 to 20 students sitting around them. They were to remain silent as they turned their chair to face each of the surrounding students while each one, separately, “reflected” their impression of the student in the center. Although occasionally a student would say something that could be interpreted negatively by the student in the center, most comments were not only positive but encouraging even flattering as well. Student reports of this exercise were always positive, and as a result, use of the activity was continued for more than twenty years.
The second activity was labeled the “Interview-Introduction-Name Exercise.” Students were first labeled A or B moving clockwise in a large circle around the room. To begin the interviews, A’s were to interview B’s who were seated to their left to find out as much information as they could so that they could introduce this student to the class. Then, all students were to turn fully around in their seats to form new dyads (groups of two). Now, B’s were to interview a new A with the same goal in mind—so they could introduce A to the class. In this way, once the process was complete, all students would be able to introduce the student on their left, and we could proceed around the circle learning the names of all students----repeated by everyone as introductions continued. These interviews gave students an identity, made them stand out as unique, and put some distance between them and the others in the class. It is an outstanding and effective means for learning the names of all students. (I had teaching assistants—especially those who taught two or three sections of the course—take notes as the sequence proceeded, so they could review the names before coming to class the next time.)
Now, you must understand that these two activities occurred within the context of a basic, required, speech-communication course. I say that because in such circumstances, some students could be inclined not to take the course seriously; thus, whatever activities engaged in might not be perceived as significant, worthwhile, valuable, or relevant. The overall design and purpose of these two activities—along with what followed in the course---served as a metaphor for life.
The point of the activities—beyond simply beginning the course with a couple of startling exercises—has to do with identity. Both exercises are designed to be confirming: offering students proof or verification that they are valuable, appreciated, respected, and important. Experiencing this confirmation of life—whether in class or other places—is a prelude to everything else they will learn and do. Once they have found this feeling, they will then not only be ready to discover but express their uniqueness as individuals.
The comments that follow on identity come from a book called The Identity Code (Random House, 2005). In that book, Laurence Ackerman explains the various ways in which identity is the foundation of our lives and how, with it as the foundation, it can be a better and more productive world. The basic purpose of the book is to convince readers they have value in the world simply as a result of being who they are.
When students have a sense of who they are, they begin to discover why they are here. It is as if they have found a natural gyroscope that guides them to a place or position from which to take charge of their lives. It is on the strength of that gyroscope that their decisions will be wise, and the outcomes—no matter what challenges and hardships they face—will be the right ones.
All the activities that follow from these first two give students real opportunities to make important decisions and derive solutions. The lectures are designed not just to underscore, reinforce, and buttress what goes on in the performance sections but empower students by revealing their potential, It is, indeed, these decisions and solutions which provide clear separation between themselves and other students in the class. Because they can observe the decisions and solutions of other classmates, all students are able to step back and see, really see, themselves in relationship to others. How are they different? How are they the same? It is the answers to these questions that allow them to set the boundaries that mark out turf belonging to them.
What the basic course is designed to give students—and as a corollary, what they truly need in life—is independence. Independence is the ability to think and act on their own and in their own best interests, despite what others may expect of them. By defining themselves as separate from others, they find their own integrity as individuals. It gives them a place to begin forming ideas, framing beliefs, and discerning attitudes that are uniquely their own. In moments of great intensity like when they are under the pressure of deadlines, experiencing conflicting demands from various courses, trying to deal with the competing demands of family, friends, relationship partners, and their classes, it allows them to make the necessary decisions based on who they are and who they are not.
Standing alone strengthens students. There will always be unfamiliar emotions, misgivings, and resistance, but when students make their decisions and follow through with solutions, there will also be exhilaration and hope. Facing up to initial discomfort, even aloneness, is a definite and specific sign of progress. When students stay with it, it is their passage to discovery. It is part of the development of their powers as individuals in their own right.
Life offers many opportunities for making decisions and deriving solutions, but it doesn’t often offer the similar opportunities to others of our same age and status. When we can compare our decisions and solutions with relevant, immediate others and even embrace, adapt, and adopt strategies and use them as our own in a helpful, positive, encouraging, and hopeful environment, the rewards are often instantaneous and valuable.
There is no easy path when it comes to unleashing the remarkable energy that one’s identity contains. Finding it, however, is just a start. As people understand their unique capacities and live according to them, they become happy being who they are. As Ackerman writes in the final chapter of his book, “A Framework for Living,” “Consider your identity your source of life. It makes you vibrant, wise, agile, powerful, even playful. It is the sun within you, whose energy need never die.”
-----
Yes, it’s an advertisement for a course. That said, the essay by Karl Perera, “Personal Identity,” at the website, More-Self-esteem.com is a very good one because he not only outlines the seven components of self-esteem, but he carefully shows “How . . . your personal identity [can] help you improve your self esteem.” Great specifics here.
“Self Identity and Memory” is the title of this very long, highly technical, heavily documented, well-written (but academic) paper that explains exactly why self identity is so important. You can access this paper by John F. Kihlstrom, Jennifer S. Beer of the University of California at Berkeley, and Stanley B. Klein of the University of California at Santa Barbara at their website---accessed by clicking on their names (above). Their research was supported by a number of research grants, and an edited version of this chapter appeared in M.R. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
The second activity was labeled the “Interview-Introduction-Name Exercise.” Students were first labeled A or B moving clockwise in a large circle around the room. To begin the interviews, A’s were to interview B’s who were seated to their left to find out as much information as they could so that they could introduce this student to the class. Then, all students were to turn fully around in their seats to form new dyads (groups of two). Now, B’s were to interview a new A with the same goal in mind—so they could introduce A to the class. In this way, once the process was complete, all students would be able to introduce the student on their left, and we could proceed around the circle learning the names of all students----repeated by everyone as introductions continued. These interviews gave students an identity, made them stand out as unique, and put some distance between them and the others in the class. It is an outstanding and effective means for learning the names of all students. (I had teaching assistants—especially those who taught two or three sections of the course—take notes as the sequence proceeded, so they could review the names before coming to class the next time.)
Now, you must understand that these two activities occurred within the context of a basic, required, speech-communication course. I say that because in such circumstances, some students could be inclined not to take the course seriously; thus, whatever activities engaged in might not be perceived as significant, worthwhile, valuable, or relevant. The overall design and purpose of these two activities—along with what followed in the course---served as a metaphor for life.
The point of the activities—beyond simply beginning the course with a couple of startling exercises—has to do with identity. Both exercises are designed to be confirming: offering students proof or verification that they are valuable, appreciated, respected, and important. Experiencing this confirmation of life—whether in class or other places—is a prelude to everything else they will learn and do. Once they have found this feeling, they will then not only be ready to discover but express their uniqueness as individuals.
The comments that follow on identity come from a book called The Identity Code (Random House, 2005). In that book, Laurence Ackerman explains the various ways in which identity is the foundation of our lives and how, with it as the foundation, it can be a better and more productive world. The basic purpose of the book is to convince readers they have value in the world simply as a result of being who they are.
When students have a sense of who they are, they begin to discover why they are here. It is as if they have found a natural gyroscope that guides them to a place or position from which to take charge of their lives. It is on the strength of that gyroscope that their decisions will be wise, and the outcomes—no matter what challenges and hardships they face—will be the right ones.
All the activities that follow from these first two give students real opportunities to make important decisions and derive solutions. The lectures are designed not just to underscore, reinforce, and buttress what goes on in the performance sections but empower students by revealing their potential, It is, indeed, these decisions and solutions which provide clear separation between themselves and other students in the class. Because they can observe the decisions and solutions of other classmates, all students are able to step back and see, really see, themselves in relationship to others. How are they different? How are they the same? It is the answers to these questions that allow them to set the boundaries that mark out turf belonging to them.
What the basic course is designed to give students—and as a corollary, what they truly need in life—is independence. Independence is the ability to think and act on their own and in their own best interests, despite what others may expect of them. By defining themselves as separate from others, they find their own integrity as individuals. It gives them a place to begin forming ideas, framing beliefs, and discerning attitudes that are uniquely their own. In moments of great intensity like when they are under the pressure of deadlines, experiencing conflicting demands from various courses, trying to deal with the competing demands of family, friends, relationship partners, and their classes, it allows them to make the necessary decisions based on who they are and who they are not.
Standing alone strengthens students. There will always be unfamiliar emotions, misgivings, and resistance, but when students make their decisions and follow through with solutions, there will also be exhilaration and hope. Facing up to initial discomfort, even aloneness, is a definite and specific sign of progress. When students stay with it, it is their passage to discovery. It is part of the development of their powers as individuals in their own right.
Life offers many opportunities for making decisions and deriving solutions, but it doesn’t often offer the similar opportunities to others of our same age and status. When we can compare our decisions and solutions with relevant, immediate others and even embrace, adapt, and adopt strategies and use them as our own in a helpful, positive, encouraging, and hopeful environment, the rewards are often instantaneous and valuable.
There is no easy path when it comes to unleashing the remarkable energy that one’s identity contains. Finding it, however, is just a start. As people understand their unique capacities and live according to them, they become happy being who they are. As Ackerman writes in the final chapter of his book, “A Framework for Living,” “Consider your identity your source of life. It makes you vibrant, wise, agile, powerful, even playful. It is the sun within you, whose energy need never die.”
-----
Yes, it’s an advertisement for a course. That said, the essay by Karl Perera, “Personal Identity,” at the website, More-Self-esteem.com is a very good one because he not only outlines the seven components of self-esteem, but he carefully shows “How . . . your personal identity [can] help you improve your self esteem.” Great specifics here.
“Self Identity and Memory” is the title of this very long, highly technical, heavily documented, well-written (but academic) paper that explains exactly why self identity is so important. You can access this paper by John F. Kihlstrom, Jennifer S. Beer of the University of California at Berkeley, and Stanley B. Klein of the University of California at Santa Barbara at their website---accessed by clicking on their names (above). Their research was supported by a number of research grants, and an edited version of this chapter appeared in M.R. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Having a remote control to get us through our lives?
The first machines to be operated by remote control were for military use. For example, during World War I the Germans developed radio-controlled motorboats to ram enemy ships. During World War II there were remote-controlled bombs and other remote controlled weapons. When the wars were over, scientists experimented to find non-military uses for them. It was in the 1940s when automatic garage-door openers were invented, and it wasn’t until the 1950s that the first TV remote controls were used. Now I’m hoping scientists will develop a remote control to help get us through our lives.
There are too many areas of our lives where we don’t have as much control as we should, and it is in these areas where it would be helpful to have a remote control. For example, wouldn’t it be great to use the “mute” button on the remote to reduce the noise in an especially rowdy restaurant? Or, to calm those who were engaged in a turbulent and rapidly escalating argument? We could use the “mute” button to have peace and quiet wherever we found ourselves—just point and click!
In addition to our numerous uses of the “mute” button, think how great it would be to have “fast forward” opportunities? We see a problem approaching, we simply fast forward our way past it. Or, when we are feeling tired and stressed, we fast forward through the hard times to a well-rested and comfortable aftermath. Students could fast forward their way through exams, reports, speeches, and talks with their teachers. Workers could use the same button to escape deadlines, meetings with superiors, and difficult presentations. In relationships, the fast-forward button would help us avoid conflicts, disagreements, hostilities, and any potentially antagonistic confrontations. For men, they could fast forward their lives through boring, repetitious, monotonous work days to those spectacular and unforgettable evenings with their spouse, a favorite sporting event, surfing the Internet, or playing video games. And women could avoid tedious work days, times with whiny, crying children, or attendance at required meetings or school activities. Just watch neighbors mowing their lawns and washing their cars in fast forward.
In the same way as we would have “fast forward” opportunities, we would have a “reverse” button, too. Thus, we could go back and enjoy once again, some of the wonderful moments. How about re-living those times when you thought of exactly the right words to say, or enjoying again an earth-shaking instant of great importance or immense satisfaction (a car accident in which everyone escaped injury, when you asked a partner to marry you, the words you used to win-over a client)? A reverse button would allow us to go back and savor, once again, a great meal, a magnificent sunset, or a unique artwork or piece of music. Also, it would permit us to study situations to see how we could improve, refine, or enhance them—not just to become better people but so that we could build an arsenal of appropriate responses.
Wouldn’t it be great if the “reverse” button on our remote was actually a “do over” button so that not only would it take us back in time, but it would actually give us as many second chances as we needed? I wonder, given a chance to re-write our own personal histories, or maybe just specific situations, would we let the same things happen? Would we make the same mistakes? Are we so locked into our own realities that things never change?
Our remote has many different channel selections. When you notice that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, by pushing a different channel, you can actually experience life on the other side of that barrier? Is the grass actually greener, or was that just an illusion? By pushing a different channel, the answer will become clear. Or, how about walking a mile in another person’s moccasins? Pushing a different channel will grant you 100% empathy, because you will now be the other person with whom you were empathizing. And if the shoe doesn’t fit, push the “return” button, and come back to your own reality—refreshed, or perhaps disenchanted, but with a whole new perspective.
Our remote has a timer, too. Just as we can set a television to turn itself off at a certain time, we can put time limits on what we experience. “I can only take just so much of that!”—but now you’ll be able to judge just how much that is, set the timer, and when the timer goes off, whatever it is, comes to a sudden and abrupt end. I don’t like conflict, but I want to hear what other people have to say. Set the timer, and give them two minutes to make their case. I don’t like shopping, but I just want to see what’s available. Set the timer, and give yourself thirty seconds to survey what’s available—then the picture goes off. Saves money, too!
There are three other buttons I want on my remote. The first is a “slow motion” button. Life comes at us too quickly. Sometimes we get too much information too fast. So you drive into a gas station for directions, you press the slow-motion button to make certain you understand. You are experiencing a moment of intense pleasure, a moment you know is soon to disappear for some time, press the slow motion button to prolong the gratification. You want the laughter, joy, or excitement to last just a little longer, so you press the slow-motion button to prolong the carnival ride of contentment and delight.
Taking the lead from computers, our remote needs a delete button, too, so that we can expunge unfavorable, critical, adverse, hostile, unfriendly, or unflattering events or remarks. In that way, we never have to be haunted by past circumstances. Mistakes and errors could be deleted immediately so that our blunders, goofs, bloopers, flubs, and gaffes would never be associated with us or with our history. We could experiment with our behavior, and if the experiment failed, it would be edited out of our past with a simple “click” as if it never took place.
The final button we need—this time taken from our word processor—is the cut and paste button. In this way, we could carry good feelings from one situation to another, especially conditions in desperate need of joy, happiness, or amusement. We could build new relationships by cutting and pasting from former ones or, in the same way, construct the ideal job.
In this age of technology, scientists need not stop with remote-controlled garage-door openers and TVs, invent a remote to help me get through life. And while you’re at it, put on the remote a number of buttons for future use—so that I can program them whatever way I choose and whenever I need them. Maybe I’ll program one to make me a very wealthy man, another to bring me many new friends, and a third.....hmmmmmm.....maybe with the third I’ll program it to keep me forever young!
-----
At the SoberRecovery Community website, the classic Erma Bombeck (just after she learned she was dying of cancer) column, “If I had my life to do over,” is offered. It is a wonderful, short essay. Also, I is one that I quoted for more than 20 years in the college lectures I delivered. I have a copy of the original column for I loved it when I first read it. Read this one.
At the devpsy.orghttp://www.devpsy.org/nonscience/daisies.html website, there are two brief essays on the topic, “If I Had My Life Over - I'd Pick More Daisies.” One is by Nadine Star and the other by Don Herold. Both are interesting, fun, and provocative. They are worth a read.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
There are too many areas of our lives where we don’t have as much control as we should, and it is in these areas where it would be helpful to have a remote control. For example, wouldn’t it be great to use the “mute” button on the remote to reduce the noise in an especially rowdy restaurant? Or, to calm those who were engaged in a turbulent and rapidly escalating argument? We could use the “mute” button to have peace and quiet wherever we found ourselves—just point and click!
In addition to our numerous uses of the “mute” button, think how great it would be to have “fast forward” opportunities? We see a problem approaching, we simply fast forward our way past it. Or, when we are feeling tired and stressed, we fast forward through the hard times to a well-rested and comfortable aftermath. Students could fast forward their way through exams, reports, speeches, and talks with their teachers. Workers could use the same button to escape deadlines, meetings with superiors, and difficult presentations. In relationships, the fast-forward button would help us avoid conflicts, disagreements, hostilities, and any potentially antagonistic confrontations. For men, they could fast forward their lives through boring, repetitious, monotonous work days to those spectacular and unforgettable evenings with their spouse, a favorite sporting event, surfing the Internet, or playing video games. And women could avoid tedious work days, times with whiny, crying children, or attendance at required meetings or school activities. Just watch neighbors mowing their lawns and washing their cars in fast forward.
In the same way as we would have “fast forward” opportunities, we would have a “reverse” button, too. Thus, we could go back and enjoy once again, some of the wonderful moments. How about re-living those times when you thought of exactly the right words to say, or enjoying again an earth-shaking instant of great importance or immense satisfaction (a car accident in which everyone escaped injury, when you asked a partner to marry you, the words you used to win-over a client)? A reverse button would allow us to go back and savor, once again, a great meal, a magnificent sunset, or a unique artwork or piece of music. Also, it would permit us to study situations to see how we could improve, refine, or enhance them—not just to become better people but so that we could build an arsenal of appropriate responses.
Wouldn’t it be great if the “reverse” button on our remote was actually a “do over” button so that not only would it take us back in time, but it would actually give us as many second chances as we needed? I wonder, given a chance to re-write our own personal histories, or maybe just specific situations, would we let the same things happen? Would we make the same mistakes? Are we so locked into our own realities that things never change?
Our remote has many different channel selections. When you notice that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, by pushing a different channel, you can actually experience life on the other side of that barrier? Is the grass actually greener, or was that just an illusion? By pushing a different channel, the answer will become clear. Or, how about walking a mile in another person’s moccasins? Pushing a different channel will grant you 100% empathy, because you will now be the other person with whom you were empathizing. And if the shoe doesn’t fit, push the “return” button, and come back to your own reality—refreshed, or perhaps disenchanted, but with a whole new perspective.
Our remote has a timer, too. Just as we can set a television to turn itself off at a certain time, we can put time limits on what we experience. “I can only take just so much of that!”—but now you’ll be able to judge just how much that is, set the timer, and when the timer goes off, whatever it is, comes to a sudden and abrupt end. I don’t like conflict, but I want to hear what other people have to say. Set the timer, and give them two minutes to make their case. I don’t like shopping, but I just want to see what’s available. Set the timer, and give yourself thirty seconds to survey what’s available—then the picture goes off. Saves money, too!
There are three other buttons I want on my remote. The first is a “slow motion” button. Life comes at us too quickly. Sometimes we get too much information too fast. So you drive into a gas station for directions, you press the slow-motion button to make certain you understand. You are experiencing a moment of intense pleasure, a moment you know is soon to disappear for some time, press the slow motion button to prolong the gratification. You want the laughter, joy, or excitement to last just a little longer, so you press the slow-motion button to prolong the carnival ride of contentment and delight.
Taking the lead from computers, our remote needs a delete button, too, so that we can expunge unfavorable, critical, adverse, hostile, unfriendly, or unflattering events or remarks. In that way, we never have to be haunted by past circumstances. Mistakes and errors could be deleted immediately so that our blunders, goofs, bloopers, flubs, and gaffes would never be associated with us or with our history. We could experiment with our behavior, and if the experiment failed, it would be edited out of our past with a simple “click” as if it never took place.
The final button we need—this time taken from our word processor—is the cut and paste button. In this way, we could carry good feelings from one situation to another, especially conditions in desperate need of joy, happiness, or amusement. We could build new relationships by cutting and pasting from former ones or, in the same way, construct the ideal job.
In this age of technology, scientists need not stop with remote-controlled garage-door openers and TVs, invent a remote to help me get through life. And while you’re at it, put on the remote a number of buttons for future use—so that I can program them whatever way I choose and whenever I need them. Maybe I’ll program one to make me a very wealthy man, another to bring me many new friends, and a third.....hmmmmmm.....maybe with the third I’ll program it to keep me forever young!
-----
At the SoberRecovery Community website, the classic Erma Bombeck (just after she learned she was dying of cancer) column, “If I had my life to do over,” is offered. It is a wonderful, short essay. Also, I is one that I quoted for more than 20 years in the college lectures I delivered. I have a copy of the original column for I loved it when I first read it. Read this one.
At the devpsy.orghttp://www.devpsy.org/nonscience/daisies.html website, there are two brief essays on the topic, “If I Had My Life Over - I'd Pick More Daisies.” One is by Nadine Star and the other by Don Herold. Both are interesting, fun, and provocative. They are worth a read.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Examining the paranormal helps us understand how the world works
There are many paranormal and supernatural claims. Psychics, astrologers, alien abductions, alternative medicines, ghosts, and life after death are just a few of them. But when people have personal experiences with any of these, those occurrences offer them a powerful and persuasive reason to believe in them, especially if they can’t explain them.
“The need to believe in phony wonders,” writes The Reverend Canon William V. Rauscher, “sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.”
Many people have had psychic experiences or episodes with things that science cannot explain. Whether it is extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts of the spirits of dead people, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, communicating mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, or channeling, seventy-five percent of Americans profess at least one paranormal belief according to a recent Gallup survey. The most popular is extrasensory perception, mentioned by 41%, followed closely by a belief in haunted houses (37%). Only 27% of Americans, according to the same survey, believe in none of these.
The poll showed no statistically significant differences in beliefs among people by age, gender, education, race, and region of the country; however, Christians are a little more likely to hold some paranormal beliefs than non-Christians (75% versus 66% respectively), but both groups show a sizeable majority with such beliefs.
The main question is why do people believe in the paranormal? The first obvious answer, given above, is that so many people have had personal paranormal experiences. A second obvious reason has to do with magical thinking. For example, if an athlete wears a certain piece of clothing and wins a game, magical thinking has to do with believing that that certain piece of clothing will bring him or her luck in winning future games. Actually, this belief is based on the fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc or “after this, therefore because of this” and is a form of superstition.
The third answer to the question of why so many people believe in the paranormal and supernatural is captured in the expression, “true-believer syndrome,” which was coined in a book of the same name by M. Lamar Keene. Keene describes a cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events even after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that an event was fraudulently staged. Keene writes, “How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it’s exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it—indeed, clings to it all the harder?”
For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief.
Yet another explanation, described by Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer, is that the person’s belief in the paranormal or supernatural satisfies an emotional need that is stronger than the need for the truth. He writes, “This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength....He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life.”
There may be no single answer to the question of why so many people believe in the paranormal and supernatural, but Michael Shermer, in his book, Why People Believe in Weird Things (W.H. Freeman & Company, 1998), offers readers twenty-five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things. In Shermer’s opinion, “most believers in miracles, monsters, and mysteries are not hoaxers, flimflam artists, or lunatics. Most are normal people whose normal thinking has gone wrong in some way.”
Some of the ways that people’s thinking has gone wrong are first, accepting anecdotes as proof. Stories do not make science unless they are supported by a great deal of corroborative evidence from other sources or by physical proof of some sort. Ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are not better than ten. The problem with anecdotes is that they are told by fallible human storytellers.
Another way that people’s thinking goes wrong is accepting a belief based on the trappings of science. Scientific language and jargon means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability often gain it by looking and sounding “scientific.”
“If you want to do science,” Shermer writes, “you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.”
Another way that people’s thinking goes wrong is not understanding that the burden of proof falls on the one making an extraordinary new claim. They are the ones who have to prove to the experts and community at large that their belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts.
Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally. It takes training, experience, and effort. In his book, Logic for the Millions (Philosophical Library, 1947), Alfred Mander said, “Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically—without learning how, or without practicing. People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge players, or pianists” (p. vii).
The paranormal is bunk; however, the key for skeptics and critical thinkers is to try to understand how others have gone wrong and how science is subject to social control and cultural influences so they can improve their understanding of how the world works.
-----
There is a wonderful essay, “The Paranormal” by Remi which is well worth a read. The example used in the final paragraph is especially relevant.
At the website, LiveScience, the essay there, under the topic, “Culture,” called, “Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe,” by Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor, is informative and worthwhile. Britt says, “The bottom line, according to several interviews with people who study these things: People want to believe, and most simply can't help it.” There is a great deal of information in this essay, but it seems to boil down to one essential element: “‘Many people quite simply just want to believe,’ said Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University. ‘The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations.’
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
“The need to believe in phony wonders,” writes The Reverend Canon William V. Rauscher, “sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.”
Many people have had psychic experiences or episodes with things that science cannot explain. Whether it is extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts of the spirits of dead people, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, communicating mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, or channeling, seventy-five percent of Americans profess at least one paranormal belief according to a recent Gallup survey. The most popular is extrasensory perception, mentioned by 41%, followed closely by a belief in haunted houses (37%). Only 27% of Americans, according to the same survey, believe in none of these.
The poll showed no statistically significant differences in beliefs among people by age, gender, education, race, and region of the country; however, Christians are a little more likely to hold some paranormal beliefs than non-Christians (75% versus 66% respectively), but both groups show a sizeable majority with such beliefs.
The main question is why do people believe in the paranormal? The first obvious answer, given above, is that so many people have had personal paranormal experiences. A second obvious reason has to do with magical thinking. For example, if an athlete wears a certain piece of clothing and wins a game, magical thinking has to do with believing that that certain piece of clothing will bring him or her luck in winning future games. Actually, this belief is based on the fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc or “after this, therefore because of this” and is a form of superstition.
The third answer to the question of why so many people believe in the paranormal and supernatural is captured in the expression, “true-believer syndrome,” which was coined in a book of the same name by M. Lamar Keene. Keene describes a cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events even after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that an event was fraudulently staged. Keene writes, “How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it’s exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it—indeed, clings to it all the harder?”
For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief.
Yet another explanation, described by Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer, is that the person’s belief in the paranormal or supernatural satisfies an emotional need that is stronger than the need for the truth. He writes, “This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength....He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life.”
There may be no single answer to the question of why so many people believe in the paranormal and supernatural, but Michael Shermer, in his book, Why People Believe in Weird Things (W.H. Freeman & Company, 1998), offers readers twenty-five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things. In Shermer’s opinion, “most believers in miracles, monsters, and mysteries are not hoaxers, flimflam artists, or lunatics. Most are normal people whose normal thinking has gone wrong in some way.”
Some of the ways that people’s thinking has gone wrong are first, accepting anecdotes as proof. Stories do not make science unless they are supported by a great deal of corroborative evidence from other sources or by physical proof of some sort. Ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are not better than ten. The problem with anecdotes is that they are told by fallible human storytellers.
Another way that people’s thinking goes wrong is accepting a belief based on the trappings of science. Scientific language and jargon means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability often gain it by looking and sounding “scientific.”
“If you want to do science,” Shermer writes, “you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.”
Another way that people’s thinking goes wrong is not understanding that the burden of proof falls on the one making an extraordinary new claim. They are the ones who have to prove to the experts and community at large that their belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts.
Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally. It takes training, experience, and effort. In his book, Logic for the Millions (Philosophical Library, 1947), Alfred Mander said, “Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically—without learning how, or without practicing. People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge players, or pianists” (p. vii).
The paranormal is bunk; however, the key for skeptics and critical thinkers is to try to understand how others have gone wrong and how science is subject to social control and cultural influences so they can improve their understanding of how the world works.
-----
There is a wonderful essay, “The Paranormal” by Remi which is well worth a read. The example used in the final paragraph is especially relevant.
At the website, LiveScience, the essay there, under the topic, “Culture,” called, “Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe,” by Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor, is informative and worthwhile. Britt says, “The bottom line, according to several interviews with people who study these things: People want to believe, and most simply can't help it.” There is a great deal of information in this essay, but it seems to boil down to one essential element: “‘Many people quite simply just want to believe,’ said Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University. ‘The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations.’
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Human limitations and then some!
Have you ever walked by a stockade-type fence, found a knothole in it, then looked at what’s taking place on the other side of the fence through that peephole? A great deal of our lives is framed by that example. That is, we obtain information about the world we live in through a very small antennae, mounted upon a tiny pedestal, and often pointed in a well-defined, carefully selected direction. And yet, despite these limitations, the way we view the world is dependent upon the information obtained through this single, small, and somewhat insignificant antennae. Knowing this puts all that we know and all that we think we know in proper perspective—and then some!
Through my many years of writing and teaching about public speaking, one of my goals has always been to impress upon students the limitations of much of their personal experience. A personal experience, although powerful in its ability to hold the attention of listeners (and this must be acknowledged), is rendered nearly meaningless in its ability to prove a point or as evidence to support a conclusion. For that, the opinions of credible people supported by facts and statistics are not just important but necessary. That is precisely what makes research and investigation so necessary.
Why is a student’s personal experience meaningless? Often, it is for the same reasons that one person’s point of view—eyewitness testimony—can matter so little in a court of law. In a court of law it counts for little and is often contradicted by other eyewitness testimony. It is just one person’s point of view and it is likely to be distorted.
How is it distorted? It is what we do with information that comes through our minuscule antennae that causes the problems. Most information comes to us in a random, unstructured manner. We must do something with it—modify it!—to make sense of it. First, we determine relationships: how does the new information relate to other information we are receiving and to information we already have? Look out the window where you are sitting right now. Can you view nature as if there were no structure? Our world, for us to understand it, requires organization, and when we get random, unstructured information from our world, as we do every waking moment, we organize it by perceiving relationships—relationships we form from things we already know and understand.
How do we organize the information from our meager antennae? First, because information often comes in small pieces, we try to put it into a larger context so that we can understand the pieces better. This is a process called enlarging in which we look for a frame of reference for the message or messages—a frame of reference from our perspective.
You can understand the process of enlarging, for example, when you notice a nonverbal expression emitted by someone with whom you are having a conversation. Suddenly, you detect an expression of sadness or grief. Immediately you start observing the whole nonverbal picture —the facial expressions, gestures, body movements, and vocal tones of the person sending the message—and trying to place the expression you have observed into that picture. The fewer the pieces of information you have received, the more enlargement must take place.
The second way we have of organizing the information we get from our very modest antennae is simplifying. Just as we search for a relationship between pieces of information and a larger framework into which we can place those pieces, we also look for ways to simplify complex or confusing stimuli. Complex stimuli are those we have difficulty understanding. We simplify information by finding patterns, an order (derived from all that we know or observe) that will help us make sense of the message.
For example, if you drive into a gas station to get directions, you might hear the attendant say something like, “You go up here to your first stoplight and turn left on Broadview. At your next light turn right. Then just after you pass Wiley High School, turn right, and the street you are looking for will be your next left.” As a simplifying response you might reply, “So, it’s a left, two rights, and a left.” We look for order in stimuli that will help us remember the essential information. It is an order established by our brain from our experiences—based on all we know and understand.
Stereotyping, the process of assigning a fixed label or category to things or people we encounter, is one method we have of simplifying information. All human beings employ stereotypes to deal with the tremendous flow of events around them.
The third method of organizing information from your diminutive antennae is closing. It is the process of filling in gaps between pieces of information. Although we think in unified wholes, we get information in separate scraps; thus, we must put information together to make it complete rather than fragmented. It is like filling in the pieces of a puzzle we are missing; to do it, however, we draw from what we already know and understand.
We probably engage in closing (or closure) more often than we realize. For example, how often have you completed a sentence for the person you were talking to? The more you get to know people, the better you know how they think, and the more often you will think ahead and close their thoughts—or think for them. Very close friends can say a great deal to each other with few words; without realizing it, they may depend on closure for their messages to get through. Just remember, however, we are the ones filling in the gaps.
Another example of closing is when you overhear others talking but are able to pick up only fragments of their conversation. From the fragments you fill in the rest of the conversation. Have you ever sat in a bus station, airport, or next to a busy sidewalk and made up stories about the people you observed around you? From a minimum of cues you put together a fairly complete story, making sense of the available information by closure. Though it may make sense to you, it is unlikely to be correct. It is a figment of your imagination, but if you were to act, you would respond based on what you think or you believe or you feel.
Then, when you add proximity and role to the mix of enlarging, simplifying, and closing, you begin to see why a single personal example may be wildly inappropriate, inaccurate, or simply, unjustified. Proximity is simply your nearness to the event with respect to where you are located, the time that the event takes place, or your relationship to the event or people in it. If you are a distance away, it is early morning and you are barely awake, and you have no relationship to the people involved, your viewpoint is likely to be distorted. And your role relates to your expectations, needs, attitudes, and beliefs about the situation; your role restricts how you perceive situations whether it is a job role, family role, sex role, friendship role, or any of a number of others.
When people are offering a single, personal viewpoint of anything, it really caries very little meaning beyond what it is. It is an instance, anecdote, or singular example. In general, when it comes to viewing things, people are untrained, untaught, unschooled, unskilled, unpracticed, uninitiated, ill-equipped, ill-prepared, unqualified, nonprofessional, and inexperienced. They see what they see and nothing more. Much as you need to respect their point of view, and their willingness to share it, in the larger scheme of things, it is an example of our human limitations.
-----
At the website Cycleback.com there is a terrific essay that discusses perception entitled, “Movement Perception and Misperception,” by David Rudd Cycleback. Cycleback ends his first paragraph saying, “The human uses its complex mental template to make the final perception, or judgment of what is going on. The template was formed by experience, knowledge, genetic tendencies, physiological abilities (your visual template is literally blind to the ultraviolet light that birds see, and the infrared light snakes see), personal bias, aesthetics, etc. Often the final interpretation, or perception, is a correct representation of what is being viewed. Sometimes the perception is off."
At the Scientific American website, there is a terrific essay, “Limits of Perception,” by editor in chief, Mariette DiChristina. She begins her essay with a quotation by Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism : “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.” DiChristina goes on to discuss the interference of “noise” in the brain’s functioning. It is easy to conclude that all perceptions are affected by “noise,” and it is “noise” that, in part, limits our ability to perceive accurately.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Through my many years of writing and teaching about public speaking, one of my goals has always been to impress upon students the limitations of much of their personal experience. A personal experience, although powerful in its ability to hold the attention of listeners (and this must be acknowledged), is rendered nearly meaningless in its ability to prove a point or as evidence to support a conclusion. For that, the opinions of credible people supported by facts and statistics are not just important but necessary. That is precisely what makes research and investigation so necessary.
Why is a student’s personal experience meaningless? Often, it is for the same reasons that one person’s point of view—eyewitness testimony—can matter so little in a court of law. In a court of law it counts for little and is often contradicted by other eyewitness testimony. It is just one person’s point of view and it is likely to be distorted.
How is it distorted? It is what we do with information that comes through our minuscule antennae that causes the problems. Most information comes to us in a random, unstructured manner. We must do something with it—modify it!—to make sense of it. First, we determine relationships: how does the new information relate to other information we are receiving and to information we already have? Look out the window where you are sitting right now. Can you view nature as if there were no structure? Our world, for us to understand it, requires organization, and when we get random, unstructured information from our world, as we do every waking moment, we organize it by perceiving relationships—relationships we form from things we already know and understand.
How do we organize the information from our meager antennae? First, because information often comes in small pieces, we try to put it into a larger context so that we can understand the pieces better. This is a process called enlarging in which we look for a frame of reference for the message or messages—a frame of reference from our perspective.
You can understand the process of enlarging, for example, when you notice a nonverbal expression emitted by someone with whom you are having a conversation. Suddenly, you detect an expression of sadness or grief. Immediately you start observing the whole nonverbal picture —the facial expressions, gestures, body movements, and vocal tones of the person sending the message—and trying to place the expression you have observed into that picture. The fewer the pieces of information you have received, the more enlargement must take place.
The second way we have of organizing the information we get from our very modest antennae is simplifying. Just as we search for a relationship between pieces of information and a larger framework into which we can place those pieces, we also look for ways to simplify complex or confusing stimuli. Complex stimuli are those we have difficulty understanding. We simplify information by finding patterns, an order (derived from all that we know or observe) that will help us make sense of the message.
For example, if you drive into a gas station to get directions, you might hear the attendant say something like, “You go up here to your first stoplight and turn left on Broadview. At your next light turn right. Then just after you pass Wiley High School, turn right, and the street you are looking for will be your next left.” As a simplifying response you might reply, “So, it’s a left, two rights, and a left.” We look for order in stimuli that will help us remember the essential information. It is an order established by our brain from our experiences—based on all we know and understand.
Stereotyping, the process of assigning a fixed label or category to things or people we encounter, is one method we have of simplifying information. All human beings employ stereotypes to deal with the tremendous flow of events around them.
The third method of organizing information from your diminutive antennae is closing. It is the process of filling in gaps between pieces of information. Although we think in unified wholes, we get information in separate scraps; thus, we must put information together to make it complete rather than fragmented. It is like filling in the pieces of a puzzle we are missing; to do it, however, we draw from what we already know and understand.
We probably engage in closing (or closure) more often than we realize. For example, how often have you completed a sentence for the person you were talking to? The more you get to know people, the better you know how they think, and the more often you will think ahead and close their thoughts—or think for them. Very close friends can say a great deal to each other with few words; without realizing it, they may depend on closure for their messages to get through. Just remember, however, we are the ones filling in the gaps.
Another example of closing is when you overhear others talking but are able to pick up only fragments of their conversation. From the fragments you fill in the rest of the conversation. Have you ever sat in a bus station, airport, or next to a busy sidewalk and made up stories about the people you observed around you? From a minimum of cues you put together a fairly complete story, making sense of the available information by closure. Though it may make sense to you, it is unlikely to be correct. It is a figment of your imagination, but if you were to act, you would respond based on what you think or you believe or you feel.
Then, when you add proximity and role to the mix of enlarging, simplifying, and closing, you begin to see why a single personal example may be wildly inappropriate, inaccurate, or simply, unjustified. Proximity is simply your nearness to the event with respect to where you are located, the time that the event takes place, or your relationship to the event or people in it. If you are a distance away, it is early morning and you are barely awake, and you have no relationship to the people involved, your viewpoint is likely to be distorted. And your role relates to your expectations, needs, attitudes, and beliefs about the situation; your role restricts how you perceive situations whether it is a job role, family role, sex role, friendship role, or any of a number of others.
When people are offering a single, personal viewpoint of anything, it really caries very little meaning beyond what it is. It is an instance, anecdote, or singular example. In general, when it comes to viewing things, people are untrained, untaught, unschooled, unskilled, unpracticed, uninitiated, ill-equipped, ill-prepared, unqualified, nonprofessional, and inexperienced. They see what they see and nothing more. Much as you need to respect their point of view, and their willingness to share it, in the larger scheme of things, it is an example of our human limitations.
-----
At the website Cycleback.com there is a terrific essay that discusses perception entitled, “Movement Perception and Misperception,” by David Rudd Cycleback. Cycleback ends his first paragraph saying, “The human uses its complex mental template to make the final perception, or judgment of what is going on. The template was formed by experience, knowledge, genetic tendencies, physiological abilities (your visual template is literally blind to the ultraviolet light that birds see, and the infrared light snakes see), personal bias, aesthetics, etc. Often the final interpretation, or perception, is a correct representation of what is being viewed. Sometimes the perception is off."
At the Scientific American website, there is a terrific essay, “Limits of Perception,” by editor in chief, Mariette DiChristina. She begins her essay with a quotation by Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism : “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.” DiChristina goes on to discuss the interference of “noise” in the brain’s functioning. It is easy to conclude that all perceptions are affected by “noise,” and it is “noise” that, in part, limits our ability to perceive accurately.
-----
Copyright June, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Cleanse your mind of these thoughts
There are many thoughts that are unnecessary and just take up space in our brains, space that could be better utilized for productive positive thoughts, dealing with everyday problems, planning for the future, and contemplating all the past good memories. It wasn’t until I read the wonderful book by Thomas Kida, Don’t believe everything you think: The 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking (Prometheus Books, 2006), and a book by Damian Thompson called Counterknowledge (W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), that I began thinking about this topic.
I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to Kida and Thompson for these thoughts and for their support. I have borrowed heavily from these books, and I have avoided quotation marks for ease of reading—but, be clear about this, these are their thoughts, not mine.
The first big time waster is any beliefs you may have in fortunetellers, palm readers, and astrologers. The last “big name” to give credence to astrology, of course, was Nancy Reagan, who consulted an astrologist whenever deciding President Reagan’s schedule. Beliefs in any of these is pure nonsense.
One trap that we fall into is believing in stories rather than in statistics. I am continually telling people that when you hear of an accident, shooting, robbery, baby’s death, or any other extraordinary event, there often follows a law, ruling, or mandate designed specifically to prevent other similar accidents, shootings, robberies, or deaths. So, you have one incident that makes the news—an anecdote—and people scurry to prevent other similar instances when, often, these examples are rare, exceptional, or unique. A teenager holds up a small grocery store, and suddenly you have a curfew in the neighborhood designed to keep teenagers at home after dark. Another good example is when you hear of a recall of a certain model because of problems incurred by a small number of people, and you avoid purchasing any car made by that company.
The second area where we can cleanse our mind is in any intention we may have regarding talking with the dead, facilitated communication, therapeutic touch, and dowsing (a technique in which an individual holds an object, like a Y-shaped tree branch and walks around the land in search of water. When the branch twitches, it’s taken as a sign that water is below.) A belief in any of these is ludicrous as well, and yet bright, capable, highly trained people hold extraordinary beliefs such as these that have little or no credible supporting evidence.
A third area where a significant number of people believe in something where there is little or no credible evidence to support their beliefs, and the beliefs are contradicted by hard evidence, is that there is such a thing as extrasensory perception, that houses can be haunted, that people are sometimes possessed by the devil, that there is such a thing as telepathy—or communication between minds without the five senses—that extraterrestrial beings have visited the earth, that there is such a thing as clairvoyance—or perceiving things not present to the senses—and that reincarnation exists.
Another area where you can cleanse your mind is any beliefs you have in graphology— analyzing a person’s handwriting to determine what kind of person he or she is. Research shows that graphology is totally useless, but you may have been denied a job if a graphologist said your handwriting indicated you are untrustworthy.
A fourth area where cleansing can take place is support of a large number of commonly held beliefs. For example, that humans use only 10 percent of their brains, the blind develop supersensitive hearing, crime and drugs are out of control in the United States, low self-esteem is a cause of aggression, religious people are more altruistic than less religious people, opposites attract, or if you’re happy in your job, you will be more productive. There is no research to support these ideas.
Also, you can cleanse your mind by removing beliefs you may have in such topics as Atlantis, bigfoot, UFOs, Bible prophecy, psychic powers, religious images or patterns seen in unrelated objects, near-death experiences, miracle diets, creationism, paranormal phenomena, or the existence of ghosts. Anytime you hear a comment from someone who has witnessed an event —whatever it is—and says, “I knew right away it was a ghost/miracle/fairy/or whatever, because there is no other way to explain it,” you can rest assured that the claim is bogus, and the speaker is naive. As I said earlier in this essay, we love stories. A discussion of the contribution the media make in fostering beliefs in the weird and bizarre would offer material for a whole book.
There are a number of other beliefs, too, that you can discard. Breast implants cause serious disease. It isn’t true now, and it never was true. All anecdotal evidence. Levitation is not supported by evidence. Not a single death or serious injury has occurred from kids eating Halloween candy received from strangers. No poisoned candy or apples containing razor blades. Classified under pseudoscience is a whole range of activities related to parapsychology (some mentioned previously) such as extrasensory perception, telepathy (reading other’s minds), clairvoyance (perceiving things not present to the senses), and precognition (seeing the future). None of it exists; none of it is true.
How can you deal with falsehoods, fabrications, half truths, and lies? Kida has some suggestions, and they fall under the heading, “Think like a scientist.” First, keep an open mind, and be skeptical of any unsubstantiated claims. Second, make sure a claim or belief can be tested. Third, evaluate the quality of the evidence for a belief. Fourth, try to falsify a claim or belief (e.g., look for disconfirming evidence). Fifth, consider alternative explanations (even chance or coincidence). Sixth, other things being equal, choose the claim or belief that is the simplest explanation for the phenomenon. Seventh, choose the claim or belief that doesn’t conflict with well-established knowledge. And, eighth, proportion your belief to the amount of evidence for or against that belief.
No, there is no way to totally cleanse your mind, of course, and we will always be guilty of holding some false beliefs. Sometimes it’s just fun to consider ideas you know are clearly false or outrageous. Sometimes they just make you feel good. Sometimes, too, you just wonder how in the world someone could believe something like that? At least you know now that there are about 30 beliefs you never have to think about again. It’s a start to a cleansed mind!
-----
Nick Arizza, a medical doctor, has written a delightful essay entitled, “All your problems are based in false beliefs at ezinearticles.com, in which he discusses all the cleansing that can occur when you are freed of your false beliefs: “a feeling of lightening (i.e. a sense of buoyancy and an inner sense of radiance), feelings of relief, feelings of joy and contentment, feelings of self confidence, self esteem and self confidence, feelings of grounded ness and feelings of being more present in one's physical body than ever before.” Now that’s cleansing!
At trans4mind.com, Peter Shepherd has written an essay on “False beliefs,” in which his main thesis is: “Just recognizing your own particular false beliefs is the first and most important step toward letting go of them, to de-programming yourself. Next you need to re-evaluate your deeply-held belief and see if you'd like to revise it.” Shepherd offers a number of suggestions for cleansing your mind.
A third essay, this one by Julie Jordan Scott, a Life Purpose coach, writer, and speaker, at the website topachievement.com, in an essay entitled, “Taking Action to Eliminate False Beliefs,” takes a similar tack as the two authors above, and after a number of recommendations for dealing with false beliefs, she concludes: “Choose today to eliminate false thinking from your mind's vocabulary. When you "hear" your thoughts walking that path of inertia, take the power away from them. Say STOP! Replace this false belief with a Truth. Take action on truth. Watch the amazing course that flow unfold before you.”
-----
Copyright May, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC
I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to Kida and Thompson for these thoughts and for their support. I have borrowed heavily from these books, and I have avoided quotation marks for ease of reading—but, be clear about this, these are their thoughts, not mine.
The first big time waster is any beliefs you may have in fortunetellers, palm readers, and astrologers. The last “big name” to give credence to astrology, of course, was Nancy Reagan, who consulted an astrologist whenever deciding President Reagan’s schedule. Beliefs in any of these is pure nonsense.
One trap that we fall into is believing in stories rather than in statistics. I am continually telling people that when you hear of an accident, shooting, robbery, baby’s death, or any other extraordinary event, there often follows a law, ruling, or mandate designed specifically to prevent other similar accidents, shootings, robberies, or deaths. So, you have one incident that makes the news—an anecdote—and people scurry to prevent other similar instances when, often, these examples are rare, exceptional, or unique. A teenager holds up a small grocery store, and suddenly you have a curfew in the neighborhood designed to keep teenagers at home after dark. Another good example is when you hear of a recall of a certain model because of problems incurred by a small number of people, and you avoid purchasing any car made by that company.
The second area where we can cleanse our mind is in any intention we may have regarding talking with the dead, facilitated communication, therapeutic touch, and dowsing (a technique in which an individual holds an object, like a Y-shaped tree branch and walks around the land in search of water. When the branch twitches, it’s taken as a sign that water is below.) A belief in any of these is ludicrous as well, and yet bright, capable, highly trained people hold extraordinary beliefs such as these that have little or no credible supporting evidence.
A third area where a significant number of people believe in something where there is little or no credible evidence to support their beliefs, and the beliefs are contradicted by hard evidence, is that there is such a thing as extrasensory perception, that houses can be haunted, that people are sometimes possessed by the devil, that there is such a thing as telepathy—or communication between minds without the five senses—that extraterrestrial beings have visited the earth, that there is such a thing as clairvoyance—or perceiving things not present to the senses—and that reincarnation exists.
Another area where you can cleanse your mind is any beliefs you have in graphology— analyzing a person’s handwriting to determine what kind of person he or she is. Research shows that graphology is totally useless, but you may have been denied a job if a graphologist said your handwriting indicated you are untrustworthy.
A fourth area where cleansing can take place is support of a large number of commonly held beliefs. For example, that humans use only 10 percent of their brains, the blind develop supersensitive hearing, crime and drugs are out of control in the United States, low self-esteem is a cause of aggression, religious people are more altruistic than less religious people, opposites attract, or if you’re happy in your job, you will be more productive. There is no research to support these ideas.
Also, you can cleanse your mind by removing beliefs you may have in such topics as Atlantis, bigfoot, UFOs, Bible prophecy, psychic powers, religious images or patterns seen in unrelated objects, near-death experiences, miracle diets, creationism, paranormal phenomena, or the existence of ghosts. Anytime you hear a comment from someone who has witnessed an event —whatever it is—and says, “I knew right away it was a ghost/miracle/fairy/or whatever, because there is no other way to explain it,” you can rest assured that the claim is bogus, and the speaker is naive. As I said earlier in this essay, we love stories. A discussion of the contribution the media make in fostering beliefs in the weird and bizarre would offer material for a whole book.
There are a number of other beliefs, too, that you can discard. Breast implants cause serious disease. It isn’t true now, and it never was true. All anecdotal evidence. Levitation is not supported by evidence. Not a single death or serious injury has occurred from kids eating Halloween candy received from strangers. No poisoned candy or apples containing razor blades. Classified under pseudoscience is a whole range of activities related to parapsychology (some mentioned previously) such as extrasensory perception, telepathy (reading other’s minds), clairvoyance (perceiving things not present to the senses), and precognition (seeing the future). None of it exists; none of it is true.
How can you deal with falsehoods, fabrications, half truths, and lies? Kida has some suggestions, and they fall under the heading, “Think like a scientist.” First, keep an open mind, and be skeptical of any unsubstantiated claims. Second, make sure a claim or belief can be tested. Third, evaluate the quality of the evidence for a belief. Fourth, try to falsify a claim or belief (e.g., look for disconfirming evidence). Fifth, consider alternative explanations (even chance or coincidence). Sixth, other things being equal, choose the claim or belief that is the simplest explanation for the phenomenon. Seventh, choose the claim or belief that doesn’t conflict with well-established knowledge. And, eighth, proportion your belief to the amount of evidence for or against that belief.
No, there is no way to totally cleanse your mind, of course, and we will always be guilty of holding some false beliefs. Sometimes it’s just fun to consider ideas you know are clearly false or outrageous. Sometimes they just make you feel good. Sometimes, too, you just wonder how in the world someone could believe something like that? At least you know now that there are about 30 beliefs you never have to think about again. It’s a start to a cleansed mind!
-----
Nick Arizza, a medical doctor, has written a delightful essay entitled, “All your problems are based in false beliefs at ezinearticles.com, in which he discusses all the cleansing that can occur when you are freed of your false beliefs: “a feeling of lightening (i.e. a sense of buoyancy and an inner sense of radiance), feelings of relief, feelings of joy and contentment, feelings of self confidence, self esteem and self confidence, feelings of grounded ness and feelings of being more present in one's physical body than ever before.” Now that’s cleansing!
At trans4mind.com, Peter Shepherd has written an essay on “False beliefs,” in which his main thesis is: “Just recognizing your own particular false beliefs is the first and most important step toward letting go of them, to de-programming yourself. Next you need to re-evaluate your deeply-held belief and see if you'd like to revise it.” Shepherd offers a number of suggestions for cleansing your mind.
A third essay, this one by Julie Jordan Scott, a Life Purpose coach, writer, and speaker, at the website topachievement.com, in an essay entitled, “Taking Action to Eliminate False Beliefs,” takes a similar tack as the two authors above, and after a number of recommendations for dealing with false beliefs, she concludes: “Choose today to eliminate false thinking from your mind's vocabulary. When you "hear" your thoughts walking that path of inertia, take the power away from them. Say STOP! Replace this false belief with a Truth. Take action on truth. Watch the amazing course that flow unfold before you.”
-----
Copyright May, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
