You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Beliefs’ category.

I’ve learned over the years that sometimes the more enthusiasm someone expresses for something, the more likely they are to lose that enthusiasm when they get what it is they wanted. It reminds me of a dog chasing a car, catching it, and discovering that they really can’t drive the thing so what was all that fuss about.

I have seen it in taijiquan over the years, both with my teacher and with me. People say they have wanted for a long time to learn taijiquan and are eager to get going. But maybe they show up and if they do, maybe they last one or two lessons. I think there is good reason that a Chinese teacher may tell would-be students they have to show up to check in everyday for months before they will even consider taking on a person as a student. In counseling, people decide they want to change and discover change can be very difficult and takes energy, and they lose desire. Thermodynamics applies to behavior, too. Behaviors in motion tend to continue and those not happening tend to stay that way – unless a force acts upon them. When that force has to be you over time, procrastination and the status quo can be very attractive. I think of someone I knew long ago who constantly talked about a dream vacation. She went on and on about it but time went by, and that vacation never happened. The idea of something often is more desirable than the thing itself. The examples are almost endless.

There is something to that cliché that it’s the journey, not the destination. The journey can become monotonous. It’s like a Louis CK punch line – the guy spends so much time out in the yard by himself because he is just running out the clock. And telling your goal to others so you can liven up the journey makes you less likely to actually accomplish that goal. Derek Sivers explains why.

It makes me wonder a bit about treatment planning in therapy. Make the goals specific, measurable, and positive (“I will do something” versus “I will not do something” which activates that part of your brain associated with what you don’t want to do making you more likely to do it guaranteeing failure). There is an online program to help you accomplish a goal that has been around for a number of years at https://www.stickk.com/. They make it interesting by having you put your money on the outcome. Achieve your goal and an organization you support will get your donation. Don’t achieve it and an organization you don’t like gets your money. You have a referee ensuring the integrity of the outcome, and you can form a support network.

The transtheoretical model of change helps. Realize that change may not continue upwards in a straight line. People start and stop. They have set backs; they recover. Sometimes they take a break.  It may take many starts to finally continue something. And realize that the destination is not the end point. A good example is that sense of loss after completing a marathon or a degree or some other big goal. What next? Keep on the journey. Don’t retire in place. Keep moving. Daydreams are nice, but are not a place to live like Walter Mitty – unless perhaps you are just running out the clock. Life is ongoing change. Adapt and learn and be open to what comes next. But maybe don’t get overly enthusiastic about it. Remember the middle way and wu wei. Wu wei, similar to flow in western psychology, is that paradoxical Chinese concept of effortless effort or not trying. Don’t try so hard. You just make things more difficult for yourself. Relax and flow into it.

A Dream Within a Dream

Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow-
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand-
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep- while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

This has always been one of my favorite Edgar Allan Poe poems. It goes well with questioning the nature of reality, the nature of the self, the passage of time in that reality, of life. We structure all these in our perceptions from our own nature. We have a beginning and an end (at least in this plane of existence) and a structure that we feel we perceive accurately based on our existence in our reality. But even our concept of time in everyday life -for example linear time or sequential time or synchronous time – comes to us from our culture and beliefs.

amelia-island-march-2011-049Some philosophies see no beginning or end of time, no boundary to the universe. Infinity is a difficult thing for our minds to conceptualize and comprehend. A few weeks ago, Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s “Star Talk” discussed “Is Our Universe a Stimulation?” Perhaps we are all just part of a computer program similar to “The Matrix,” except it is just a machine with a programmer somewhere writing the code. We would have no way of proving of disproving the assumption. There could even be an infinity of universes or multi-verses. Whenever any decision is made, a timeline is created. That would theoretically make time travel a possibility since new timelines would create the logical possibility for paradoxes. I love reading counterfactual history. The speculation is always intriguing. What if Churchill had died when hit by a car in New York City in 1931? In some timelines, he would have.

An interview with Donald Hoffman called “The Case Against Reality” is a very interesting read. He uses physics to argue that the world is not hereas we see it. You can read it here or here. Even the concept of universal mind and the oneness of eastern philosophy is possible in his model.

I will end with these words from Alan Watts in his “Taoism: Way Beyond Seeking“: – “The world that we see is a creation of eidetic imagery. We select the human concerns as the significant areas. In a way, this is our answer to the cosmic Rorschach test. So, in that manner we have performed maya, the world illusion. But maya also means “art,” and it also means “magic.” Therefore, the magical evocation of the world of things from the formless world – which means from the world of pure Tao that simply wiggles – that is the real creation of the world.”

Chiune Sugihara, his wife Yukiko and children

Chiune Sugihara, his wife Yukiko and children

A few decades ago, I attended a wedding reception on Long Island and had a conversation with a person that has stayed with me all these years. I only had that one short talk with her and don’t remember her name, but she was very engaging and quite fascinating. She was Jewish and was born in Poland. She was a young girl when Germany invaded her country and systematically began to exterminate her people. Her life was saved by the actions of a Japanese diplomat, Chiune Sugihara, who provided exit visas to Jews in Poland and Lithuania. The woman and her father made their way across the Soviet Union via the Trans Siberian Railway to Japan to Canada and eventually to New York. I was fascinated by her story but the part that has stuck with me all these years was her wisdom of perspective. She said that we tend to focus on the present and forget to put things into perspective. She would catch herself complaining about the cold New York winters, but then she would remember crossing Siberia and the bitter cold. New York was not so cold after all. When I hear someone say, “this is the worst ever” or even “this is the best ever” I think of her. She saw both the worst and the best in people. And when I hear people judge others as different and as outsiders to be rejected, as we in the US did to the people on the SS St. Louis fleeing certain death, I think of the compassion and bravery of Chiune Sugihara and his family. Too few of us have their integrity.

All we have is the current moment, and how we view and live in that moment ripples through time in ways we can barely imagine.

zhuangzi

Zhuangzi

 

Many years ago, I was facilitating a group for folks who had been referred by the courts for drunk driving and had been evaluated as having a problem with alcohol. I came down to the group room early one afternoon, and one of the guys had gotten there early, too, and we just sat at the table and talked for a while before anyone else arrived. He was concerned that his son, who was about 12 years old, did not respect him as he had respected his dad. I asked him to tell me about his relationship with his son. They went fishing together, they talked, and his son could confide in him, and he could correct his son with words. What he did not do was hit his son. I asked him how did he see respect. “When I did something wrong, daddy didn’t talk, he just flailed us.” It became clear fairly quickly that what he had with his son sounded like a healthy loving relationship that included respect , but he saw respect as lacking. The relationship did not have fear in it. His son was not afraid to talk to him. As an adult, the man I was talking with was still afraid to confide in his father. He still felt fear of his father, and thought that was respect.

So what is respect? In a culture of western religion, we are taught we have a loving God, but that we should also fear that God. Politicians preach that for other countries to respect us, they must fear us. That same belief comes to permeate relationships among those in the community to those in the family and to friends.  In personal relationships, some come to believe that if they are not feared they are not respected.

How well does that work? A child cannot be honest with a parent. Western religions have the concept of original sin and being redeemed by being forgiven by the loving but feared God. Over the millennia, some believers, from various religious traditions, have chosen to kill those they deem nonbelievers in order to save them and to serve their God and spread their belief. Some mix their chosen economic system and put it into their religion, regardless of how incompatible they may be, and again hate and try to destroy those nonbelievers and  forcibly spread what they believe is truth. Nations, and individuals, may lie to each other, try to intimidate each other, and try to be at least one up on all others. Being on top means being the most feared in the hierarchy. Fear doesn’t plant the seeds of honesty very well. Fear kills honesty. For all the television and movie action stories that rely on fear and torture to get the truth, the reality is that those methods don’t work very well, and are often counterproductive. Meeting anger and hatred with anger and hatred just intensifies and increases and spreads the anger and hatred and fear. You reap what you sow in an endless feedback loop.

More and more, neuroscience focuses on the attachment style we acquire as infants and that style affects every relationship we have in life including relationships with addictive behaviors. Here is Allan Schore talking briefly about the effects of abuse and neglect on attachment.

Chinese philosophy doesn’t have the concept of original sin nor an eternal afterlife nor the need for the supernatural to save you from sin and eternal damnation. It is based in nature. The philosophers, who lived during the Warring States period, tried to teach a way that would help people treat each other decently, and the way of each philosopher was directed by their view of whether people are inherently good or evil or born with the capability for both with the outcome based on how they were raised. Confucius taught the need for ritual to be able to act and react in the right way with “de” or virtue. Mencius had us develop our “moral sprouts.” Laozi taught the need to get back to our original nature, which he felt was inherently good. Mozi taught the need to measure the utility of everything and direct behaviors based on outcomes. He also said that maybe it was better that people believe in ghosts and spirits for then they would behave better. Modern psychology does find that people tend to behave more ethically when they feel they are being watched. A poster of a drawing of eyes on the wall in a break room can increase the contributions to the honor collection for coffee. Mozi, however, never indicated that he believed in such beings.

Zhuangzi taught that no matter what path you take, you focus on the path and do your best. There are many ways to strive to get to the top of the mountain. Virtually every philosophy/religion has some version of the golden rule or categorical imperative – treat others as you would like to be treated. Love one another as you love yourself. The only life long relationship you have is with yourself, and the relationship you have with yourself affects your relationship with and attachment to others. Which gains more respect – treating yourself and others with honesty, a desire for understanding, empathy, compassion, and loving kindness, or in ways that invoke fear? How would you like to be treated? And how do you treat yourself and others?

How The Police Generate False Confessions, by James L. Trainum

Review of “How The Police Generate False Confessions,” by James L. Trainum

There is an old adage that confession is good for the soul. But what if the confession is false and the result of coercion and the stakes are your life? In his book, “How the Police Generate False Confessions: An Inside Look at the Interrogation Room“, James L. Trainum tells us just how that can happen. He follows the case of the Norfolk Four, and in particular the case of Danial Willams, throughout the book as he guides us through the investigative process that is commonly used by police and prosecutors in the US. The case was also featured in a Frontline documentary in 2010 called “Why Would Anyone Confess to a Crime They Didn’t Commit?”

The reason is because of the investigative techniques used in trying to close the case, which doesn’t necessarily mean solving the crime. Trainum is now a consultant but was a police officer and detective for many years and said that by using the techniques generally employed by police, he also caused a false confession. There is no standardized investigative method in the US. There may be training or it may be on the job or some combination. Typically you receive a lot more firearms training than you do investigative training. Court decisions and cultural changes have taken out the “third-degree”, though “enhanced interrogation” and torture still finds its way in at varying levels and has been reinforced in pop culture in television series such as 24 and Hawaii Five-O. It makes for marketable drama but is lousy for finding accurate information and evidence. Shane O’Mara published his work, “Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation” last year that laid out the evidence. That can be a hard sell, though, with pop culture driving home the storyline that it does work and enables the “hero” to get to the bottom of the case in roughly 48 minutes of air time.

Trainum says that just as many police mourned the loss of the third-degree and felt it would make their jobs impossible, they felt the same after the Miranda ruling. Police quickly evolved to find creative ways to get around that decision, though, and again you can see that in books such as “Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets” by David Simon (which is an excellent book) and pretty much any current police procedural program.

One source of training that Trainum discusses throughout the book is The Reid Insititue. Reid provides training on interviewing and interrogation. One problem that seems to typically occur in investigations is that the focus is on closing the case quickly which leads to investigators in good conscience making a quick decision as to guilt or innocence and moving from the interviewing and gathering evidence stage straight to the interrogation phase. The sole goal of the interrogation phase is to get a confession of guilt. Methods include lying to the person, sometimes procedurally questionable line ups, tag teaming during the interrogation so the questioners are fresh but the suspect is continually worn down, jail house snitches, deal making, and when the physical evidence doesn’t match the hypothesis of guilt, rather than looking for a different suspect who is the actual guilty one, the hypothesis is changed. That is what happened in the Norfolk Four case when the DNA did not match Williams. Rather than looking at another person (who had been named by a witness early on and who later was found to be the actual perpetrator), the police decided that there must have been accomplices. I suppose it is difficult for anyone to admit they may have been mistaken. People do get wedded to their theory. Years ago, I was trained to investigate client rights allegations of abuse, and one of the techniques taught was having the person be able to save face. It would be nice if investigators and prosecutors could admit they were wrong and have some way to save face. I also remember one person who was receiving the training had a big smile when he said substance abuse counselors would be great at these types of investigations. I thought of that as I read this book. I never felt comfortable with the old style denial busting heavy confrontation of traditional substance abuse counseling.   The person had to admit they were an addict, and confess that they had a problem. Otherwise they would never get better. Talk about a Catch-22. If you go along, you are labeled an addict. If you say you are not, you are in denial and the confrontation goes on. It is the same style here. Whether the allegation is true or not, sometimes people just get worn down and confess and are not always aware of the consequences.

Trainum does an excellent job of showing just what can go wrong with our current system. He even mentioned a case from Vermont in which a person confessed to murder and was condemned to death even though a body was not found. Fortunately, the person supposedly murdered was found alive before the execution. You can read about that case and other similar ones in “Wilkie Collins’s The Dead Alive: The Novel, The Case, and Wrongful Convictions “by Rob Warden of Northwestern’s Center on Wrongful Convictions. This book is also a worthwhile read and reviews many cases of wrongful convictions, including a death penalty case in Virginia in which the person was put to death – the case of Joseph O’Dell. A case was brought by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond afterwards to re-examine the DNA evidence and the court ordered the evidence destroyed. According to Warden, the “prosecution argued that if the requested testing turned out to be exculpatory, ‘it would be shouted from the rooftops that the Commonwealth of Virginia executed an innocent man.'” Warden also mentions the case of Roger Coleman who was executed. When DNA testing had advanced enough to be able to tell whether the now executed man was innocent, the court did not allow the testing. Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, one thing that cannot be argued is that the dead who turn out to be innocent cannot be brought back from the grave, and the guilty are still out there. The death penalty is also a good tool to get a confession, including a false confession. “Do as we say and confess, and we let you live. Go to trial, and we will seek the death penalty. This is a time limited offer. Choose now.”

One technique often used is lying by the police and prosecutors to suspects in order to obtain a confession. Trainum points out that in the US, “we justify the use of lying to suspects by saying that they are on a ‘lower moral plain’ than the rest of us. This is a dangerous mentality that has been used to justify all sorts of abuses, including but not limited to the use of third-degree tactics. Lying not only increases the risk of false or unreliable confessions and statements, it damages the reputation of law enforcement in the eyes of the public.” So even before a person is charged, he or she is considered to be of a “lower moral plain.” With stereotyping and profiling, some people are automatically put into that category without having done anything. Perhaps those who like to point out that all lives matter could take into consideration that engrained cultural prejudices (conscious and unconscious) can produce situations in which some of our lives are treated as less than equal in mattering and as being worthy of justice. Some folks, whether because of race or gender or economic status or beliefs, are automatically classed as being in that “lower moral plain” because of history and culture and the time in which we live. Fortunately there is training to help counter unconscious biases in the use of force by officers. Hopefully training also includes addressing judgments and biases in the techniques of questioning and mitigating quick decisions on guilt. The justice system is not the only part of our culture with unconscious biases. We all have them. You can check out your own attitudes at Project Implicit. Project Implicit is a “non-profit organization and international collaboration between researchers who are interested in implicit social cognition – thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control. The goal of the organization is to educate the public about hidden biases and to provide a ‘virtual laboratory’ for collecting data on the Internet.” You can also examine your beliefs at Understanding Prejudice. You will become more informed by the information on the site.

Trainum’s goal is to see that the right people are convicted. That can be very difficult to do in highly charged emotional circumstances. We can be so repelled by the viciousness of a crime that we want justice and vengeance as soon as possible. Tunnel vision takes over.

Trainum does discuss a way of investigating that is very different than the US model. The investigative mindset in the UK is Assume nothing; Believe nothing; and Challenge everything. It is the UK model he recommends and which he describes using the acronym PEACE.

  • P – Planning and Preparation
  • E – Engage and Explain
  • A – Account Clarification and Challenge
  • C – Closure
  • E – Evaluation.

Trainum does of good job of explaining the model and the rationale for it. He provides US objections and the UK response to each of the parts. PEACE is a model of seeking the truth and of accountability. It is a model of critical thinking and evaluation. It has oversight and maintaining a trail of the investigation including videotaping of interviews. Investigators and prosecutors do not lie and manipulate. The oversight also allows investigators to change theories and save face. Our current model can not only contaminant the memories of the suspect but also of the witnesses. This model seeks to rectify that problem. A detailed outline of the model can be found here. All members of the criminal justice system that are looking to seek the truth in cases and find justice by arresting and prosecuting the correct perpetrator would do well to consider looking at Trainum’s arguments and his rationale for change. It would do us all good to read this book to see just how justice can work, or sometimes not work. Trainum opens the book with a scenario showing how easily a person can quickly become a suspect and almost immediately be subject to an interrogation with the sole purpose of getting a confession. As for the Norfolk Four, according to Trainum they are out of prison but have not been able to get a full pardon despite the evidence and the subsequent legal and ethical issues of the investigator who got the confessions. “One has been released from prison, having served his full term. The others are out, granted conditional parole by a governor who, though admitting the existence of the evidence pointing to their innocence, does not feel that he can grant a full exoneration because they ‘confessed.’ It is true – the power of a confession can trump all reason.” Trainum devotes chapter 12 of the book to recommended safeguards and reforms. His closing paragraph is powerful:

“Change and reform begins with you. As evidenced in the 2015 public responses to police shootings of unarmed African American men, the criminal justice system (and law enforcement agencies in particular) will respond to adverse public opinion. One good thing remains: As resistant as law enforcement agencies are to change, deep down, most individual investigators want to get it right. They need the right tools, the right training, and the right mindset. With your voice, and the reforms suggested in chapter 12, they can get it. Then we can all sleep better.”

Kona Hawaii 2013 116Recently a friend mentioned how different he felt while on prednisone, and as a Buddhist it helped bring home the tenuousness of the concept of self. Alan Watts wrote extensively about the concept of self in Daoist and Buddhist philosophy, with one example here.

I get to listen to about 10 or 15 minutes of Radio Lab on NPR during my Wednesday commute and recently there was a piece on the element lithium. Lithium is used as a psychotropic, but they also mentioned that towns which have an incredibly small amount of lithium naturally occurring in their water supplies also have lower suicide rates than towns with even smaller amounts. It reminded me that when lead was removed from gasoline and paint, crime rates went down. Transcranial magnetic stimulation not only helps with relieving depression, but in at least one study, people changed a decision after the stimulation. They didn’t realize the stimulation had occurred and had a rational explanation as to why they changed their minds, and the explanation went along with our concept of self and free will. So much of what we do and who we are occurs below our conscious level.

One theory in neuroscience I have come across is that the construct of “other” evolved first followed by the construct of “self.” These came about so that we could communicate and get along in this world. Music also evolved for our social and emotional well being, and it can have a very big impact on emotion. Think about the use of music in the soundtracks of movies, television and radio and how that affects your experience of the story. Athletes use music to change their performance. You can even use a soundtrack in your mind to change your mood and to change your self-talk. In Negotiating the Nonnegotiable, Daniel Shapiro tells how at his workshops he uses a soundtrack of drums to increase the sense of tribe for workshop participants who have to negotiate bringing their separate tribes into one tribe or else the world will end. The world almost always ends in the exercise. I wonder if that would change without the beat of the tribal drums during the cohesion of the tribes.

Shapiro devotes an entire chapter to the self – the “dual nature of identity.” He refers to our sense of self as the “fixed-identity problem.” Identity is not static, and includes our beliefs, rituals, allegiances, values, and emotionally meaningful experiences. We have various mindsets of the self. There is the fundamentalist who sees identity as fixed and governed by forces outside our control. There is the constructivist who sees identity as an “ever-evolving social construction.”   There is the anattist who sees us as having no permanent identity and transcending “the material world of attachment, experiencing identity as shifting waves within the ocean of life.” Lastly, there is the quantumist who sees identity as “a combination of nature and nurture” with identity both fixed and fluid and there are many possible selves. And we may change that perspective over time. They are not fixed either. With these different perspectives, how do we get along with each other? We change our relationships in that space between us. You can learn more by listening to Shapiro here.

A few years ago, I was cleaning out the attic in the home where I grew up. I found the speech I gave at my high school graduation. The last line was “we are all in this together.” All these years later, I still believe that. Shapiro’s work gives us good guidance on how to get along with each other in this world, and some different perspective on just what the “self” is.

When you hurt another, you may ask forgiveness from them. The Pope has asked forgiveness of those molested by priests and for the treatment of indigenous people in the New World. People convicted in court may ask forgiveness just before sentencing. Preachers and politicians ask forgiveness when caught in sin and then enter rehab to prove just how sincere they are. All of us do wrong at some time. Forgiveness is an issue that comes up often in life and in counseling. What does that word mean?

It does not mean saying that the wrong is now okay. “Sure you hurt me, but I forgive you, now it is okay.” That definition makes forgiveness extremely difficult if not impossible. It is giving a gift of dispensation to the one who harmed you. There is another view. Forgiveness can mean, “I don’t like what you did, and it is not okay but I will let it go. It doesn’t mean I want to have anything to do with you again, but I am not going to let anger and resentment devour me.” A quote attributed to the Buddha is that holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal. The one who gets burned is you.

Many years ago I was having a conversation with a person who was working on recovery in AA and was doing step work. The eighth step is making a list of people you have harmed and you become willing to make amends to them. The ninth step is to make direct amends to those you have harmed except when to do so would injure them or others. It became quickly obvious that the person’s goal was to seek forgiveness even though in that case it would cause pain to the person wounded and to others. There was no talk about making amends. One universal principle throughout cultures and spiritual traditions (including secular ones) is to give without thought of return. When the Bodhidharma met with the Emperor Wu, one of the questions Wu asked was how much merit he had earned for all the monasteries he had built and all the other good deeds he had done in the name of the Buddha. “None,” said Bodhidharma. According to the story, the conversation was a short one. There are times when asking forgiveness is a manipulative act. We are asking forgiveness of the one we have already harmed with the sole purpose of making ourselves feel better. What is the merit of that? None. You are just doing more harm.

This is a place where the steps give good guidance. Look into your heart. It may be better to seek how you can make amends to those you hurt rather than ask forgiveness. Forgiveness belongs to the one harmed, and it is for them and within them that forgiveness occurs. If you are going to ask anything, ask how you can make amends and even then, only ask when doing so causes no further harm. Making amends with no expectations (including the expectation of forgiveness) may be a better way and work better at allowing yourself forgiveness with time.

For further thoughts on working on reconciliation and the process of forgiveness I strongly recommend “Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts,” by Daniel Shapiro. Shapiro is the founder and director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program. As a psychologist and negotiation specialist, he has worked with families as well as corporate and governmental groups including conflicting parties in the Middle East. He provides a very thoughtful and guided method for the process of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Setting goals is important, and how you frame them is critical to succeding. A goal can be as broad as “I want to live a life of integrity” to as specific as “I want to run a four minute mile.” With the former you need to define just what integrity is – how will you know when you are living that life and when are you veering off course. How do you get back on course? For the latter, you need training, a workout schedule and a sense of just how realistic that goal is. Whether your motivation is internal or external also has an effect on succeeding. You are less likely to burn out if you are focused on getting better for you.

One thing both those goals have in common is that they are positive goals. Positive goals are “I am going to do something.” They are action oriented in that something will happen and you will know it. It gives you a place to move towards. All too often we define our goals in a negative fashion – “I am not going to do something.” There are many problems with that. First off, you are activating your brain to think about what you don’t want to do. Do not picture a blue jay in your mind at this moment. What picture just appeared in your mind? I spoke with someone recently whose goal was, “I don’t want to be lonely.” “Well, what do you want to be?” I asked. How will you know you are not lonely? Focusing on loneliness tends to leave one lonely. So we began to look at how she wants to connect with people, what kinds of relationships does she want, and first off, what kind of relationship does she want with herself. It is much easier to be in the company of someone who is comfortable and secure with themselves. Negative goals too often become self fulfilling prophecies. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone say, “I didn’t want to be like my parent.” And then they realized that in focusing on what they didn’t want to become, they took on those qualities and became what they vowed they would not be.

A negative goal is inactive. Tough to prove a negative. So when you are setting goals, make them positive, something you will know is present. Put in as much detail as you can. It is like writing a good story of what you want to do or become. You can even use a 10 scale to track your progress. A ten is you have achieved the goal.  A zero is you haven’t even begun. Where are you now? Track your progress up the scale. That gives you some flexibility, too. Stuck at five? Reevaluate and redefine and see what you need to do to move up even to a 5.1. Edit your story.  One of my favorite exercises is “start-stop-continue” from Jerry Lynch and Chungliang Al Huang. What do I need to start doing, stop doing and continue doing to function at a higher level? And remember the concept of wu wei or effortless effort. Sometimes when you push too hard, you push yourself into the ground and get stuck. Have a plan but relax into it and have fun. It is hard to stick with a goal when the process is something you hate or find punishing. That is why so many resolutions for diets and exercise programs fail. Flow and adapt, and make your goals positive.

Join or Die FlagThe Gadsen Flag seems pretty popular these days – the flag with a coiled snake and the “don’t tread on me” caption. It has become the symbol of the individual, the independent “me.” There was another flag with a snake on it during the American Revolution, one with the snake divided and the caption, “join or die.” Ben Franklin even said, “We must all hang together or assuredly we shall hang separately.” The individual as a separate self is a distinctly Western concept. But how does it stand up to empirical evidence? Aristotle once postulated that men had more teeth than women, but he did not look in people’s mouths to count to see if his hypothesis actually was correct. In Zen, there is an exercise in which you look deeply into your plate of food and you are able to see all the interconnections back to before the beginning. I use a sheet of plain paper when I do that exercise with people. You could even do it with the screen you are looking at. What is there? There are letters and words, but also whatever the surface is made from, whatever is powering it, all the people who made, sold, shipped, mined material, assembled parts and more to make it, those who worked to feed them, those who grew the food, and on and on back to star dust. Nothing and no one exists independently and all and everything are connected to some degree. Any action you take ripples out like the waves from a pebble tossed into a pond for better or worse with consequences intended and unintended.

Louis Cozolino’s book, The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain, is an extensive and remarkable overview of how our brains work, particularly with attachments. Within the first few pages he says, “individual neurons or single human brains do not exist in nature. Without mutually stimulating interactions, people and neurons wither and die.” He goes on to discuss psychopathy in chapter 20 and includes the following:

Think about the characteristics that make for a “good citizen.” We expect each member of society to be aware of and adjust to the needs of others, recognize and conform to shared values, and live by the rules. In most instances, the needs of individuals are weighed against the needs of others and negotiations are established to create the most good for the most people. Antisocial individuals, on the other hand, are a society of one who adhere to the more primitive mandate of individual survival. It is as if they have passed over the eons of social evolution that have selected cooperation, emotional attunement, and being part of a group mind. While thinkers such as Nietsche, Machiavelli, and Rand have extolled the virtues of the Ubermensch (superman) and society even lionizes those who gain prominence and success, selfish behavior has not proved to be a successful overall strategy for group survival. For humans and other social animals, noncooperation and a sole focus on personal survival does not correlate with evolutionary success. (page 339)

I think a more positive and constructive way to function is by showing respect for ourselves and also respect for others and the relationships we all share, and respect for our responsibilities. And unlike Aristotle, we need to count the teeth. We need to look for the empirical evidence and not rely on a paid pundit whether from talk TV, radio, Internet or elsewhere. Researchers found after 9/11 that those who watched less cable news were more resilient and less depressed. Do yourself a favor and turn off those playing to emotions to increase ratings to make sales. You can read about it here and here.

Cozolino’s work is a well researched and well written book that I hope will be widely read. It speaks to all of us on our relationships in this world. [It is also an excellent resource on how attachment theory works on a neurological level, and how we develop secure and insecure attachments.] One concept I have struggled with is the Buddhist concept of “no self.” Mark Epstein’s talk about the spatial versus the temporal self makes a lot of sense to me. We experience ourselves as spatial beings even though we are moving through time and the “self  I was a moment ago is different from the self in this moment. We are constantly changing.  Cozolino takes it further. In order to function in the world, first our brains constructed the concept of “other” and then the concept of “self.” Those constructs enable cooperation, but also competition and egos that fight for supremacy when we lose sight that we all are one and that the “self” is a constructed illusion.  I remember coming across studies in graduate school about how resources last much longer when people cooperate, but when they compete, resources are much more rapidly depleted. One person competing destroys group cooperation, and all are forced to compete to survive, but ultimately, the survival of all is jeopardized and ultimately doomed by that self-centered competition for resources. There is an inherent paradox in those concepts of self and other. We cooperate with those in our tribe and those we perceive to be like us, and compete with those we deem to be different and of another tribe. We tend to forget we are all one tribe and are all in this together. Sensei Corky Quakenbush has written an interesting post on facing conflict with love using the principles of aikido. You can read it here.

The American Medical Association voted not long ago to classify obesity as a disease.  The intentions were good, for obesity and the associated health problems, do need attention. There are problems with this, for example if one uses only body mass index to diagnose, then an individual with heavy musculature could conceivably be diagnosed as “obese” when clearly that is not the case. Some, such as National Review, write that this is another attempt to lessen personal responsibility and allow government to enter into our lives and our bodies.

Physicians’ attempts to change what were at one time called “conditions” or “failings” or other terms into “disease” is nothing new.   You can read an excellent summary on the evolution of the term “schizophrenia” in the November 2011 Schizophrenia Bulletin.  The article quotes Berrios, “… schizophrenia research can be described as a set of research programs running in parallel, each based on different concepts of disease, mental symptom, and human mind.” For an overall critique of schizophrenia as a disease, Models of Madness is a good start. Alcohol dependency has been defined as a disease for decades. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a founding father of the United States, is credited with declaring that alcoholism is a disease. The research of E. M. Jellinek aoubt 60 years ago is credited with giving this diagnosis credence. David J. Hanson, PhD, of SUNY-Potsdam, gives a thoughtful critique of the disease model at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/Is-Alcoholism-a-Disease.html.

Mosher et al in Models of Madness review the relationship of causal beliefs to attitudes.  While at times part of the motivation to define something as a disease is to lessen the stigma, often the reverse happens.  John Read and Nick Haslam wrote the chapter, “Public Opinion.” They cite numerous studies that find that when something is defined as a biological illness, the stigmatization increases. “A belief in categories that are discrete, immutable, and invariably rooted in a biological abnormality reflect the medical model’s essentialist view of mental disorders as ‘natural kinds’. Viewing mental disorders in this essentialist fashion is associated with prejudice along multiple pathways.  Believing in immutability may promote pessimism and avoidance. Believing in discreteness promotes the view that sufferers are categorically different, rather than sharing in our common humanity. These essentialist beliefs form a toxic ensemble.” This unintended consequence should be no surprise. It is rather common among diseases for which there actually are lab tests to diagnosis. Several members of my family, including my father, had tuberculosis. People, including family members, shied away for fear of catching the disease. Virginia mandated testing and x-rays for immediate family members (despite negative tests) from my earliest memories until about college age.  Susan Sontag wrote about cancer in Illness as Metaphor, and how there was an exception in confidentiality laws at the time for one disease due to stigma, and that was cancer. She later wrote about AIDS as well. I once visited Kalaupapa, which was a leper colony on Molokai. There were still people living there, now cured of Hansen’s disease. These folks also took you on the tour of the site. You got to hear stories about how people who were even suspected of having the illness were snatched off the street and taken here, banished from their lives, and isolated from friends, family, and home forever. Kalaupapa is a very moving place to visit. You can most likely think of other diseases with stigma, perhaps even some you fear. Based on our history as humans with a fear of disease, it is remarkable that anyone thought that defining a behavior, any behavior,  as a disease would make it less stigmatizing. In some ways, it is metaphorically throwing gasoline on a fire hoping this time a miracle will happen and the liquid will extinguish the blaze.

I think there are at least two issues at the foundation of this disease problem. And this excludes the political and economic and ego issues associated with the businesses of academia and treatment programs and medicine and pharmaceutical companies. That is a whole other thing. The first issue is thinking we know what a disease is, and that we all agree on what that means. But at the foundation of these troubles is deciding just what is a disease. That is how diagnoses got started – when we research and treat or even just talk about a condition, we need to know we are talking about the same thing. Let’s define it. Unfortunately in behavioral health, from the start egos and later egos and money were involved and muddied the good intentioned waters.  Berrios mentions the different concepts of disease above in the study of schizophrenia.  A quick web search gave me many definitions for disease, among them:

  • a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.
  • an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors
  •  A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
  • A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
  • Obsolete Lack of ease; trouble.

Pretty much anything out of the ordinary can be called a “disease.”  I remember folks going back 30 years who have justified the disease model in mental health and substance use by relying on the last – the obsolete – definition of dis-ease. These days, the term would be unease. So when people argue about what is a disease and whether something specific is a disease, they may be talking about very different concepts.

The second issue is, I think, with the problem of defining words and giving them great power. Steve deShazer was right, that words were originally magic.  But we use words to define words, and the definitions are circular. They have to be, and they are imperfect. The words defining an apple in the dictionary will never give you the experience of an apple.  Even experiencing one apple will not give you an idea of the taste and look and fragrance of all apples, or of the potential of apples or of the creation and life and death and return to the earth of an apple. Putting a label on an individual will not give you an experience of that individual. Being with that individual in one situation will not give you the experience of the whole ever changing person. Words have the power that we give them. We need to be careful.  I remember years ago in graduate school reading about a study in which individuals with no psychiatric problems gained admission to mental hospitals, and then just acted as themselves. Other patients caught on rather quickly that these folks were not mentally ill, but staff – not so much. The individuals took notes about their time in the hospitals, and nursing staff charted that they were exhibiting “writing behavior.”  David Rosenhan writes about the study here.

I will leave you with two quotes from Alan Watts, and also the remarkable story of Eleanor Longden in her own words.

“We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”

“Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth.”

Eleanor Longden: The voices in my head

Share This Blog

Facebook Twitter More...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Site Archive

RSS Psychology News Feeds