Who do you blame when things go wrong? Yourself? Someone else? The world in general? Whatever your answer, don't fret. Despite what we've all been told about not blaming, we all do it at times. The thing is, most of the blaming we do we don't even intend to do. It just comes out of us. Moreover, there's even a time when choosing to blame someone can make things better. Can you imagine? This then will be our topic in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy. Blame. What it is. Why we do it. And what is good about it. Do you think you already know? You may. Just the same, let's see.

"The Blame Game"
Blame. It's everywhere. So much so, we could almost say it's the universal American pastime. And while we often tell young children that they shouldn't blame anyone, as adults, we blame everyone from the pope to the post office. So what makes us do this? And why can't we stop? This is what we're about to talk about.

Why talk about blame in a book on talk therapy? Because no other topic takes up more space and time in talk therapy than who you blame. Not sex. Not money. Not children. Not parents. In fact, of all the things we talk about in therapy, who you blame may be at the top of the list.

So am I saying everyone blames? Yes I am. In fact, we even at times refer to blaming as a "game," this despite the fact that being blamed hurts like hell. By the way, have you any idea where this phrase came from? It came from a presidential speech. In 1982. October 14th to be exact. Oddly this phrase became one of this president's more lasting contributions. The president? Ronald Reagan. Who first used these words in a speech it which he blamed those who blamed him for the failing economy; "In recent weeks, a lot of people have been playing the blame game."

Blaming people for blaming people. We get taught that we shouldn't blame anyone. Yet even presidents do it.

What makes me see what President Reagan said as blame? And wasn't what he said justified? Good questions. I'll answer them both at some point during this chapter. For now, I'd like to just focus on the nature of blame itself. Especially on how blame affects our chances to succeed in talk therapy. Simply put, it hurts our chances. A lot. At the same time, it is not the sign of personal malfunctioning some folks would have us believe it to be either. You see, while we all feel urges to blame at times, many times, these urges are followed by secondary urges to forgive.

Why mention these two things together? Because blaming and forgiving both refer to the same part of our nature. The fault finding part. Moreover, while most of us see these two things as being totally different; one good, the other bad, in reality, they are not all that different. In fact, the biggest difference between them lies in when they occur. Blame occurs the front end. And forgiveness on the back end. In effect then, blame and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin, and if we didn't feel so many urges to blame, we wouldn't have anything to forgive.

How about just sucking it up and pretending we feel fine? Isn't this better than hurting people? The truth? Not really. In fact pretending we don't feel these urges to blame is sort of like repairing the cracked Ming vase by smearing shoe polish into the crack. Something's just not right there even if we cannot see what.

Why do we need to blame anyway? And why don't we simply bypass these urges and go directly to the real source of the problem? Or directly to forgiveness for that matter?

Well consider what the philosophers tell us about blame; that to err is human and to forgive divine. Here then is a clue as to what makes people think it is so normal to blame and so hard to forgive. If you believe in a punishing god (and we all pretty much do at least in part), then screwing up is the human part and forgiveness is the God part. And both are just the way it is. On the other hand, if this is true, then are we doomed? And how should talk therapy handle all this?

Let's start with this. All talk therapy makes assumptions about human nature. It has to in order to know how to help people. Thus I think we need to look at the nature of blame itself. For instance, what does Emergence Personality Theory have to tell us about blame?

To start with, Emergence Personality Theory sees blame as the focus of three out of the ten layers of personality. At the least then, blame accounts for a full thirty percent of who we are as people if fact. No small thing, this blame. And in a moment, where going to delve deeper into what this theory has to say about blame. Before we do though, let's look at what the average person thinks about why we blame.

What makes us blame?

Actually, there are several reasons. The main one being that, as the philosophers infer, there is an error built into the human mind; the idea that suffering is optional and so, results from something we mistakenly or wrongly do. In effect then, no matter how we label our suffering; as evil, disease, mental illness, neglect, abuse, done on purpose, whatever; if suffering happens, we believe someone caused it by making an error or worse by purposely doing something wrong.

This then is a good starting point in our discussion. We, by nature, blame because we frame our suffering as either mistakes or wrong doings. And this idea is apparent even in dictionaries. Even in my twenty three volume OED, the world's largest tome on the English language.

So what does the OED say about blame?

As it turns out, the word, "blame" originates from a Greek word which roughly translates to the word, "blasphemy." Hmmmm. The OED then goes on to tell us that blame is an "impious irreverence." As well as a slander, an evil speaking, and a defamation. It also means to charge with, to accuse, to discredit, to chide, to scold, to rebuke, and to reproach. Finally, this whole heap of human dung slinging gets summarized as "the things we say against someone."

Sure sounds complicated, doesn't it? And yet, if blame accounts for a full thirty percent of human nature, it seems only right then that its definition would be this complex. Even in it's original form.

Why refer to what I've just said as the word "blame" in it's original form?

Because we who live in modern times get to enjoy the new and expanded version of the word blame. The one in which the meaning changes from "the dung slung" to "the wrong doer is the dung."

In essence then, for a long time, blame referred to the things we say against someone. Oh, if it had only remained this simple. Unfortunately, in modern times, we have somehow enlarged the scope of this word by combining its original meaning; the things we say against someone, with that this someone caused these things. In other words, while the word blame originally meant to say bad things against another, when we blame people now, we see both what they do (the original meaning) and who they are (the modern meaning) as bad. Along with the idea that they are also the cause of this badness and the one responsible for fixing it.

Holy smokes, Batman. Are you beginning to see what makes this word such a complicated mess! And why it takes up so much space and time in talk therapy.

In a sense then, when we blame people, we see them as both the devil and the redeemer. Or as the idiot who did it and the genius who must find the cure. All of which makes blame just about the worst mindfuck in all of human personality. Certainly, in the top five to be sure.

How then can we possibly deal in talk therapy with something as complex as blame? My initial thoughts? Perhaps by finding it's literal converse. Blame's alter ego. And lest you see this alter ego as "forgiveness," consider what I said a moment ago; that if we did not see people as having done something wrong, then we would have nothing to forgive. Hence, my idea that blame and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin.

What is the converse of blame then?

The OED says the converse of the word "blame" is "to praise."

To praise?

If you then look up the origin of the word "to praise," you find that it originated from an Old French word which meant, "to prize."

Sounds logical.

It then goes on to say that to praise is to value, honor, esteem, laud, eulogize, value, commend, and extol.

Here again though, in modern times, we've expanded the scope of this word and added some dung. Thus the word praise, which started out life as a way to heap good onto things can now also mean to "judge the good in things." As in when we use this word in it's expanded modern form; "to appraise."

Dung slinging aside, here then is a starting point from which to talk about blame in talk therapy. By seeing these two words; to "blame" and to "praise," as two end of a single continuum within personality, we begin to get a sense of what this part of human nature is truly like. Arguably this idea may be one of the more important concepts a therapist could ever teach a client. Why? Because people who go to therapy mainly go there in order to find a way to end their suffering. And because suffering people by nature look for someone or something to blame. This makes addressing blame one of the main things we do in talk therapy.

Where then does the remedy lie? Here I think the answer lies in what Eastern philosophy says about suffering; the idea that what you resist persists. This implies that the remedy we seek lies more in finding the good in blaming than in not doing it. Not just in mere rationalizations, mind you. We already do too much of that. No. Rather, we need to find the beauty in blaming people. Personally. Authentically. And sincerely.

Does what I am suggesting sound crazy to you? And if not, does it seem impossible? It's not. In fact, my whole point for writing this chapter on blame is to show you where to look for just such a beauty. At least, the place in which to start looking for this beauty. And lest I not be saying this idea clearly enough, let me say this once more.

I think the best way for a talk therapy to address blame is to first honestly honor these feelings in people and then to look for the good in it. The beauty hidden within these feelings which people normally cannot see.

If we can learn to do this then blame becomes something wonderful; a genuinely spiritual healing agent.

Can't be, right? Please know it is. Although I admit, learning to use blame as a healing agent can take some time and effort. This said, if you really put your mind to it, you can learn to do this.

Where do we start? We start by taking a blameless look at the nature of blame. Which is to say, with Emergence Personality Theory's take on blame. Are you ready to begin the adventure? Here we go.

[to read the rest of this week's article, Should Therapy Encourage People to Blame?, click here.]

When serious therapists mention about the mind - body connection, they usually end up being seen as less credible. Andrew Weil? An M.D.? Well okay. But talk therapists? Not really. The thing is, of all the concepts a talk therapist could possibly explore, the mind - body connection turns out to be the most important of all. Why? This is what we'll be exploring in the next few chapters; what makes the connection between the body and the mind so potent and why do so many experts disdain this idea. Do you think you already know why? We're about to take our a look, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

Main Streamers - 400, New Agers - 0
A war has been silently raging on now for hundreds of years. Do you know the one I mean? Rene Descartes inadvertently started it, early in the Seventeenth Century, when he proclaimed that the body and mind are separate. Even today then, this war continues, as knighted warriors dressed in alphabet soup armor and traditional deference do all they can to ruin the careers and lives of the unknighted, less deferential warriors all the while claiming they are doing this to protect the lives of innocent people.

Doesn't sound familiar to you yet? Not sure who is fighting? It's simple really. Main stream science is out to discredit anyone they pejoratively designate, "new agers." And while these designations; the main streamers and the new agers, are not really official, the war itself is beyond official. It's been going on for almost four hundred years.

What have these two factions been arguing about? Main stream science believes it is imperative to stop anyone who makes helping people more important than explaining how they help people. Incredible really. Central to this belief is the idea that if you cannot see something, it does not exist. Granted, science has finally progressed past the point wherein it limits this proof to what we can see with the naked eye. Still, if you can't prove what you claim is happening with repeatable reliable data, then science sees your ideas as nonsense and you as a charlatan or worse; as a madman or a thief.

What amazes me here is that even when the methods in question help people, science still does not consider this to be proof. No numbers. No proof.

Where does Rene Descartes come in?

Rene Descartes spent much of his adult life doing all he could to learn about what to him was his most amazing discovery; that the experiences of the body and the experiences of the mind are two totally separate yet interactive experiences. And he was right. They are. The thing is, these two separate experiences are at the same time also the experiences of one individual. Which makes them also two parts of a single experience. The experience of being alive.

That both of these experiences (the two separate and the one whole) are equally valid and true is easily tested. Unfortunately what Descartes inadvertently did is he logically dissected the experiences of the mind and body but never got around to holistically reassembling them. At least in science's eyes. And when I say inadvertently, I say this because I'm sure he never intended to destroy the credibility of everything other than physically logical, visible evidence. Unfortunately, other than the numerous philosophical arguments ongoing since then, for the most part, this is exactly what his ideas have accomplished. Until the late twentieth century that is, at which point a few of the less deferential scientists and M.D.s began to openly challenge Descartes and his love of this separateness. Some of them even going so far as to say that the mind body connection is the whole key to understanding heath, healing, and human nature.

So is it?

Before I answer, I want to make it clear to you that I can see the value in science's point of view here; that if you cannot understand a device then you should not trust what it is doing. At the same time I can also see the value in the so called New Age mind set wherein helping people matters more than measurements and math. In effect, if it works, then who cares how? Right? After all, isn't helping people the main point?

Who is right then? And why bring up this war in a book about talk therapy?

I bring it up because talk therapists fall squarely in the midst of this battlefield. Partly because insurance companies demand that therapists prove their progress; efficiently and with nice neat numbers no less. Partly because science has a point about how some new age folks can be way off base. And partly because the main stream, good old deferential science boys continue to punish and berate anyone who does not kneel in deference to the god of linearity.

Where do I stand?

I am a talk therapist. Thus I too stand smack in the midst of this battlefield. Fortunately for me though I am also a personality theorist, and during my searches, I made a discovery which for me at least puts this conflict to rest. I discovered what Rene Descartes somehow missed seeing, and what his fellow philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz later hinted at. I discovered the actual mechanism which connects our separate experiences of the body and the mind.

Not sure what I'm saying? I'm saying that despite the preponderance of people who believe a mind body connection exists, no one ever says what this connection is. The actual mechanism. They argue only that this connection does or does not exist, along with what it does and does not affect. In fact, if you do an online search for the mind body connection, while you'll find hundreds of references to that it exists, I doubt you'll find a single person, scientist or new ager, who even mentions the existence of such a mechanism let alone how it works. They argue only whether a mind body connection does or does not exist. This includes even the fascinating new work of the social neuroscientists who claim that neurology and social science is the connection. Yes. Of course. Neurology and social science are connected. But how? What is the mechanism?

Ironically, the one person who did mention this mechanism is the one who started the whole thing; Descartes himself. Thus, in addition to his theories on the causal nature of mind body interactionism, he also hypothesized that these interactions occurred within the only organ in the brain that does not exist bilaterally; the pineal gland.

My point? It seems that while many folks believe a mind body connection exists, no one seems to say what it is, scientifically or otherwise. And while helping people is and should be the talk therapist's first concern, helping people should not have to rely solely on something as nebulous as intuition. Granted, no therapist can or should ignore his or her intuition. But therapists should also want to know what happens in the moments wherein they help someone. What was it your gut sensed that your mind could not see?

How then are the mind and body connected? It's simple really. It turns out that the body and the mind each have their own sense of time. Their own sort of internal clocks so to speak. Moreover, when these two internal clocks are not running in sync, problems occur. Things like the troubles folks with ADD have with mentally focusing on the topic at hand. Or the troubles folks who over eat have with being aware their stomachs are full.

What is going on in these conditions? The best clue we have lies in how these conditions are being treated. And in what affects the symptoms the most. How are they being treated? With medications which either speed up or slow down the body or mind's sense of how fast life is going. To wit, folks who have trouble focusing mentally get medications which speed up their minds. Ritalin. Strattera. Adderall and such. And folks who have trouble sensing their bodies get medicines which speed up their bodies. Ephedrasil. Myoffeine. And the now banned prescription drug Phen-Fen.

Know that when I say, "speed up" their minds or bodies, I am not saying this happens separately, as in just the mind speeds up or just the body. What I am saying is that, whenever you take a medication which speeds up your sense of time, you will sense the change more in whichever of the two clocks is slower.

In effect what happens is, people perceive a larger change in whichever of the two clocks was slower. Why? Because this change is actually bigger when measured percentage wise. Which makes the previously less noticed clock the more noticed clock and visa versa. In effect, the bigger we perceive the change in a clock's speed, the larger we perceive the effect.

At this point, most folks would want to know what I am basing all this on. What am I basing it on? For one thing, on the easily observed and measured differences between these two clocks, reliably and empirically obtained. You can in fact test for these differences in people within minutes. Moreover, once people learn to see and monitor these differences in an ongoing way, their need for medication can decrease markedly, perhaps even to the point wherein they may no longer need it.

Does all this sound crazy? Well consider this. What I've just said about the meds we use to treat ADD and over eating is a fact. Nothing to argue about here. And yes, how these drugs alter peoples' perceptions of mind and body time differs. But that they both do this does not. This implies that the key to understanding at least a significant portion of the problem underlying ADD, and the key to understanding at least a sizeable portion of the problem underlying over eating, lies in exploring how we perceive time. Descartes style. Which is precisely what we are about to do in the next few chapters.

Okay. I can hear the crowd rumbling. But before you brand me with the scarlet letters, NA (new age) though, consider the gist of what I have been saying to you. I am saying that regardless of who has been right; the inquisitors of main stream science or the weirdoes of the new age, to some degree, whoever is right no longer matters. We now have a way to observe and measure the connection between the body and the mind. Easily and reliably. Moreover being able to empirically discern and measure this connection means we now have the key to understanding a whole lot of things we deal with in therapy. Things as different as learning disabilities, over eating, drug addiction, and clumsiness.

Can you imagine?

All right. I admit. There's a whole lot more I need to say before anyone should consider my hypothesis fact. Add to this the idea that we would also need to do a tremendous amount of work in order to turn this hypothesis into positive therapeutic outcomes. At the same time, can you imagine what it would mean if what I'm saying is true? And yes, we would also need to find doable ways in which to teach ordinary folks, including children, how to observe and monitor their mind body connections. Still, if true, the possibilities for health and healing could be endless.

Have you yet made the connection between what I presented in previous chapters and what I'm now saying about the mind body connection? For instance, have you realized that what I have called the psychophysical connection is the very same thing as the mind body connection? And that what I wrote about in the two prior chapters on addictions is but one application for this discovery?

What then will I be showing you in this and the coming chapters? A whole lot really. Beginning in this chapter with the two basic skills you'll need to acquire in order to explore any of what I am about to show you; [1] learning how to recognize and monitor the degree to which your own body and mind clocks are out of sync, and [2], learning how to use the group you fall into; the "mind first group" or the "body first group," to better manage your life.

Please let me say this again.

In order to see and understand what I'm about to say, you must learn how to recognize and monitor the degree to which your own body and mind clocks are out of sync. Thus merely reading these words will not be enough. Moreover, in order to fully grasp the potential here, you must also learn to do this with other people as well.

As for the two ideas I've just mentioned, let me address the second idea first.

What do I mean by that there are two default groups; the Mind First group, and the Body First group?

Begin with that all people fall into one of these two groups depending on which of their clocks normally runs faster. Thus when people's mind clocks run ahead of their body clocks by default, they belong to the Mind First group. And when peoples' body clocks by default run ahead of their mind clocks, they belong to the Body First group.

Now let me ask you. Can you guess yet which group you fall into, the Mind First group or the Body First group? Me? I'm in the Mind First group. Which means what exactly? Which means I tend to think way faster then my hand can write and often overestimate how well I have learned physical skills. Moreover, as far as I can see, I've been in this group all of my life. Along with all the other folks who have Asperger's.

How about the other group then, the Body First group?

It turns out that many people in the Body First group have the mirror condition to Asperger's. ADD. Hence the tendency of medical folks to see these people as having hyperactivity. Translation. The body clocks of people in the Body First group by default run ahead of their mind clocks. Which makes these folks better qualified in many ways to do sports and physical activities, but less qualified in many ways for intellectual pursuits. Why? Because these folks tend to move before they think. And overestimate how well they've learned intellectual things.

Obviously there's a whole lot more to know about how these two groups function. Know we'll talk in more detail about this in a moment. Before we do though, let's first address the first idea I mentioned, learning how to recognize and monitor the degree to which your body and mind clocks are out of sync. How exactly do you test for this? Actually, it's easier than you might think. Are you ready to find out how easy?

[click here to read the rest of What is the Mechanism of the Mind Body Connection?]

In the last chapter, I introduced to you the idea that the way we sense time in our bodies and minds is what connects our minds to our bodies. Not clock time, mind you. Relative time. The kind Einstein talked about. The thing is, in order to address this connection in therapy, we must first be able to sense the differences between the perceptions of the body and the perceptions of the mind. Not just the timing of what we perceive mind you. The content itself. Our literal perceptions. This then is what we are about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy. We are going to explore perception itself. Not from the cold and distant philosophical perspective. Rather from the normal everyday way in which we all perceive life. The ordinary warm and mostly fussy human perspective. Which happens to be the same perspective we explore from in talk therapy.

Thoughts and Feelings as the Two Perceptions
Let's get right down to it.

In the last chapter we spoke about how the mind and body interact and connect through their respective senses of time. Relative to each other, that is. In a very real sense then, we each have a mind clock and a body clock. And these two clocks run simultaneously and constantly, both recording, in their own way, the historical timing of everything we sense both with our bodies and our minds.

I also told you that like right and left handedness, we each have a clock which normally has the upper hand. The one in control. Either our mind clock or our body clock. And whichever clock is running faster is the one in control.

In a way then, we each have what amounts to a master clock (the faster clock) and a slave clock (the slower clock). Moreover, this master / slave relationship psychophysically mirrors the master and slave clocks present in all digital communications systems, from CD and DVD players to the equipment in the biggest television studios.

Now for those for whom digital systems remain a mystery, the quick explanation is that all things digital store or play information. Just like we do. CD players. Computer hard drives. HDTV cameras. Whatever. They all record and play back information.

Why do we call them "digital?" Because they store or play back information which has been sliced into samples. A process we call "digitizing."

What is important to see here is that this digitized information plays back in a way quite similar to how a timed sequence of snapshots would play back. Only it plays back a whole lot quicker. How quickly exactly? Well if we're talking about a CD, you can see this rate listed in the fine print on the back of the package. 44.1. Which means what exactly? Which means that a CD plays back sound at a rate of 44,100 samples per second. Pretty fast, eh? This number then, which we call the sampling rate, is shorthand for the amount of samples which a digital device will play back in a single second. In a single second! Imagine?

The point is, something must tell this CD player when to move to the next sample. The rate at which to play back these tens of thousands of samples. This something is a kind of clock.

Now if the music on this CD was recorded anytime recently, chances are it was recorded in a studio wherein there were many different digital processors all linked together. A whole bunch of different boxes each of which does something to the sound. And in order for all these boxes to work together properly, they each must have a way to know when to move to the next sample. This way is a master clock. A single clock which is in charge of telling all the other clocks when to move to the next sample.

What happens if these clocks get out of sync?

Sometimes there is a very unpleasant sound called digital hash. Sometimes there is no sound at all. And sometimes the sound starts and stops randomly, something like a person who stutters only the person is the box. Whatever the case, when one or more of these boxes fall out of sync, the whole system does not record or play back properly. And if you add recording video to the complexity of recording sound, the potential problems multiply pretty quickly. Things like no picture. Or the picture gets blurred. Or distorted. And so on.

How does all this technical stuff apply to us?

We human beings have a lot in common with these digital recording and play back systems. Including that we too suffer from these same limitations. Thus each of us has two main systems which must record and play back information. Our mind and our body. Moreover we record and play back properly only when the clocks which drive these two systems are in sync.

What happens to us if our two clocks are not in sync?

To begin with, unlike digital communications equipment wherein the system is considered to be working properly only when all the clocks run in close to perfect sync, our two clocks rarely run in close to perfect sync. Roughly in sync? On good days, perhaps. But in close to perfect sync? Mostly not. Except in those rare occasions wherein we have flashes of insight. Sudden realizations. Aha's. Or eureka's. Or spiritual experiences. Or what I call, emergences. All of which are simply different ways to refer to those times wherein our clocks suddenly lock up and for a split second, run in absolutely perfect sync.

How often do we have these sudden realizations? Obviously, not often. However, the thing to pay close attention to here is that these flashes of insight occur only when our two clocks are in perfect sync. No perfect sync. No flashes of insight. Which is why learning about these two clocks being in sync is so important. Especially considering that yet another way to refer to these perfectly in sync moments is to call them, "therapeutic breakthroughs."

What about in everyday life then. What is it like to live with our clocks not running in sync?

To begin with, as I've said before, the technology we humans make always mirrors who we are. How we work. How we break. What we like and so on. In this case then, like all digital systems, it is perfectly normal for all of us to have one of our two clocks running ahead of the other. This clock is our master clock. The other clock then, the clock which is running slower, is our slave clock.

The thing is, we are not made to the same strict tolerances as our digital recorders and play back devices. Thus, we humans suffer from many of the same problems as the digital systems I've just mentioned. Only we suffer from these problems everyday, all day.

What am I saying? I'm saying that the reason we walk around having such a hard time visualizing is that we all have with problems with our picture and or sound. More with the picture than the sound, mind you. But also with recording and playing back sound.

What does this mean? It means that at best, we hear only parts of what we think we experience. Mostly sound without picture and even then, very little of the sound.

Why does this happen? Because our two clocks, our body clock and our mind clock, fluctuate so badly with regard to being in sync with each other that we basically see and hear very little of what goes on in life. And most of what we do see and hear gets distorted. Is this beginning to make sense to you yet? Are you realizing what this means?

It means that if we didn't have a way to correct for these errors, we'd be screwed. Totally. We'd have no sense of reality. Fortunately, we do have an error correction system built into us. Logic is a part of it. Intuition, the other. The thing is, even with the best error correction system in the world, we can only work with what has been recorded. Thus, because we record so little of what goes on in life, even though we each have in us what amounts to the world's greatest error correction system, we still base what we experience in life mostly on erroneously recorded and partially missing data.

What makes this whole thing especially important is that the character and biases of our master clock then largely determine what we see as true in life. Moreover we then base our choices in life on this distorted truth. Thus, whichever clock is master, mind or body, determines how our choices are biased in everything from deciding how and what we will best learn to deciding what we will do for a living. And who we will have as friends. And what we will do in our free time. And who we think is telling the truth.

How does all this play out in real life then?

Well if you are a Body First person, you'll be naturally talented at almost everything which requires physical coordination. Batting and kicking and catching a ball. Jumping rope and climbing stairs. Most of which will come easier to you than to a Mind First person.

And if you are a Mind First person?

Mind First people are naturally talented at everything which requires mental coordination. Everything from algebra and logic to psychology and accounting. Classroom learning in general in fact. And while no Mind First person learns everything well, Mind First people have the upper hand in classrooms. Period.

Of course, they also feel pretty uncoordinated in gym classes and in wood shop. Or in home economics. Or in any technical trade. Plumbing to auto mechanics.

Are you beginning to see whom our world is biased towards? Who we value more? Our natural built-in prejudice?

Not sure what am I saying? I'm saying that the world is largely biased towards Mind First people. We see them as being more desirable than Body First people in a way similarly to how we value right handed people over left handed people. And lest you think this is not true, consider how we design most physical things to be easier for right handed people than for left handed people. Guitars to television sets. Words to laws. (As in we use the same word for "right" turns as we use for turning the "right" way. Or morally living "right'. Or legally being in the "right.")

The point is, we have the same kind of bias towards Mind First people as we do towards right handed people. We see them as quicker, smarter, and more valuable, even when we do not realize we do this. Which is why I suppose we tailor our classrooms, and our accolades, towards Mind First people and away from Body First people.

To most people then, Mind First people are smart. And Body First people are dumb. Mind First people are quick minded. And Body First people are slow minded. Except of course when it comes to sports. In which case, Mind First people really look dumb and most times just don't get it. They're just too slow to get it. Body wise, that is.

Changing a flat tire? Mind First people will feel less than competent especially in the presence of a Body First person. And this is true even if the Body First person has never changed a tire before. Intuitively, a Body First person will know more about how to do a physical task than a Mind First person ever will. Even if the Mind First person has done this task many times.

In chemistry class though? For instance, with things like understanding what the matrix of periodic elements means?

Body First people rarely take chemistry. But if they do, they usually struggle to keep up. More than the Mind First folks do anyway. Moreover this is not because Body First people are dumb. They are not. Nor is it because Body First people cannot do the work. They can. Rather, it is because they learn things differently.

What is different about how they learn? Well if you go back a few lines and notice the words I used to describe Body First peoples' experiences of chemistry classes, you'll find a clue as to what this difference is. What words did I use? I said they usually "struggle to keep up." Duh. So what does this mean? Well take a few moments to consider why I chose these particular words. I chose them as we so often say things like this about Body First people. We say, they "struggle to keep up." To keep up with what though? Most folks would assume it means, to keep up with the smarter kids. The truth? They struggle with two things. One, they struggle to keep up with the faster pace of the Mind First kids. Two. They struggle to conform to what is for them a counter intuitive learning style.

What am I saying? I'm saying that pace not a measure of intelligence, although we humans are biased towards thinking it is. In truth though, often times, people who learn at a slower pace learn more thoroughly. And isn't this a better measure for intelligence?

The point is, pace is the first difference between Mind First people and Body First people. Pace. Not intelligence. A difference. Not a problem. Unless of course the classes are biases toward the pace of the Mind First people. Which most classes are. In which case, it appears that pace is a measure of intelligence. But only because of how these classes are designed.

What is the second difference? The second difference is that Body First people learn things best in the reverse order from how Mind First people learn best. Body First people learn best when they are shown then told what they were shown. Whereas Mind First people learn best when they are told then shown what they were told.

Can you picture this difference? Do you know which you prefer?

At some point in your life then, you might have even had someone ask you to change your way of teaching for her or him. If so, this request was likely made because of this difference. Whatever the case though, Body First people learn best if they are shown then told. Why? Because Body First people are oriented toward the physical not the mental. In other words, they do best if they learn it with their bodies first and only then think about what they did.

Now consider how this biases these folks towards taking classes in which show then tell learning in the norm. What kinds of classes am I talking about? Classes like gym classes, home economics, wood shop, auto mechanics, sports, trades, and so on. Beautician. Carpenter. Practical fields. Physical learning. All classes wherein kids are shown then told.

This also biases Body First people away from classes wherein telling normally precedes showing. Classes like accounting, theoretical sciences, higher maths, and English comp. Astrophysicist to architect to zoologist and so on. All classes wherein kids are told then shown.

Finally, there are the classes which involve both mind and body learning. Notice the way these things fit together though. The order in which the mind body teaching is given. Thus the science of frog anatomy (mind first) comes before dissecting frogs in science lab (body first). Digging on archeology field trips (body first) comes only after studying the field classification systems for finds (mind first). The science of internal combustion engines (mind first) precedes the body oriented learning of auto mechanics (body first). And even the mind first strategies of football plays and designing gymnastic meet routines come before body first cheerleaders and gymnasts.

The thing to notice here is which of these classroom activities come first. Which? In almost every case, the learning is biased towards tell then show learning. Which means most of our normal classroom education is tailored towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people. Moreover, since authentic talk therapy more resembles teaching people rather than fixing people, even most talk therapy is biased towards Mind First people. And away from Body First people.

This is sad. Especially in light of the fact that because of the way the world is biased against them, Body First people often have more reasons to be in therapy. And even when we are talking about Mind First people, no Mind First person lives in a vacuum. They all have many Body First folks in their lives.

In a way then, we treat Body First people very similarly to how we once treated left handed people; as folks who needed to be forced to conform to the values of the more popular group. I've even spoken to people who as child were physically forced to use their right hands. Not a very pleasant experience to be sure.

This leads us to a question which I think looms here. Can this Mind First / Body First orientation ever change? My preliminary answer? Yes. I've seen a number of cases so far wherein this change has happened to people. More on this to come. The next question though is, so if this orientation can change, should we ever try to make this happen? My initial thoughts? No. We should not try to make people conform to a personal norm simply so that they can fit in better with the majority.

On the other hand, I think we should be developing ways in which people who choose to may have options. Both Body First people and Mind first people. But to force them to change? No. I don't think so.

Some now might ask, why not? Wouldn't they suffer less? Yes. In some ways, they world. And fitting in does have it's advantages. Even so, the degree to which people are allowed to be themselves is the degree to which they can and will live happy lives. Thus being oneself is the key.

At the same time, there is a lot to be said for helping people to be aware of these two clocks. And for developing ways in which we could help people to become more skilled at what their slower clock does. This could markedly improve peoples' lives, in ways we have yet to imagine.

Know that in coming chapters, we'll talk more about some of these possibilities. Before we do though, we first need to ground these discussions in a bit more substance. How? By delving a bit more deeply into the nature of the mind body connection. Beginning with yet another dichotomy, a split I call, the Two Perceptions.

[to read the rest of The Voices of the Mind Body Connection - Thoughts and Feelings, click here.]

Anyone whose practice involves psychology, science, or religion will at one time or another face the questions inherent in Cartesian dualism; whether the mind and body are separate and if so how they can interact. Moreover this holds true whether you be a surgical M.D., brain researcher, a professor of theology, or a talk therapist. In addition, for chapters now, I've been telling you things about something I've discovered; the actual mechanism which connects the mind. And what this discovery implies. In the next few chapters, we'll explore the history and science behind these statements. Who and what I'm basing my work on, and how I can be so bold. Beginning in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

Philosophy again? Ah, come on already . . .
To Rene Descartes, there were two kinds of experiences. The experiences of the mind and the experiences of the body. And while philosophers before and after him have said many similar things, from his writings on, no serious philosopher could ignore this idea. Or the problems it created. Mainly how two such seemingly disparate experiences could possibly exist let alone interact. As well as how they could sum to a single person. In other words, if what Descartes said is right, meaning, if the experiences of the mind and the experiences of the body are truly the ingestions and outpourings of two separate and distinct substances (the physical and the non physical), how can we, at the same time, experience life as a single being?

Why bring up Descartes again? Because for several chapters now, we've been exploring the implications of a recent discovery I've made. The actual mechanism which connects the mind and body; our perception of time. In this chapter then I'll begin to ground these discussions with the work of others. As well as with the science behind my claims; that I've found a way to potentially cure ADD. And the over eating part of obesity.

The thing is, in several cases, I've already accomplished this and am now in the process of exploring many more conditions. Things like stuttering. And dyslexia. And anxieties related to playing music. And repetitive motion injuries. And the psychophysical parts of addiction.

Of course, I am well aware of how all this sounds; too good to be true to be sure. In fact, were I reading these words, I'd probably feel the same. The thing is, I've based what I've been telling you on years of practice and have the case studies to back it up. Thus if you'll reserve your judgments a bit longer, I promise to make it all clear.

Know that unlike most folks who discuss mind body dualism, I have no interest in debating these questions philosophically. Nor do I wish to offer you a new logic. Rather, I simply wish to present you with a pragmatic solution to what has been a seemingly unsolvable dilemma. How the body and mind can connect.

Where will we begin? With a brief recounting of how philosophy has attempted to solve this problem. Why philosophy? Because beneath all therapies, there is a philosophy. A set of assumptions as to how we work. It is from these assumptions in fact that all talk therapists proceed. Moreover, even outside of talk therapy, we still face these questions in our everyday life. Can't see how? Well consider this.

Do you ascribe to any sort of spiritual beliefs? The differences between the temporal self and the eternal self? Or whether we have a soul which survives physical death? If so, then you have made assumptions about Cartesian Dualism.

How about the arguments between science and religion. Ever find yourself taking sides? Or wondering why they fight? They fight because they believe different things about Cartesian Dualism.

How about holistic health care? Are you a person who tries to care for both her mind and her body? Do the right thing for your health? If so, then you've made personal assumptions about Cartesian Dualism.

Then there's talk therapy. And the issues we all struggle with most. Like our parents dying. Abortion and illness. And the issues behind raising children. Ever face any of these issues? If so, then you have had to face the problems inherent in Cartesian Dualism. The mind body connection. And how it works.

What am I saying? I'm saying that whatever your beliefs and interests, we all, in some way, make assumptions about Cartesian Dualism. Even folks who have never heard of Descartes and have no interest in philosophy. Speaking of which, did you know that in Descartes' time, he would not have considered himself a "philosopher." Nor would any other like minded person. Rather, this title; "philosopher," is merely the way we have come to refer to folks who spend their lives exploring the nature of things. Including some folks we do call philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle. As well as some of science's brightest folks, such as physicists Richard Feynman and Fritjof Capra.

Have you ever read the doctoral parchment of a Ph.D. psychologist? If so, then you have in all likelihood read the words, "Doctor of Philosophy." Which means we could include these folks in the philosopher group too.

Interestingly enough, were you to consult a book on the history of mathematics, you'd find Descartes listed in there as well. Right along with many other famous philosophers like Pythagoras and Leibniz and Pascal. And if you were to page through a book on the history of science, you'd find Descartes listed in there too. Along with many other famous philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Helmholtz and so on.

My point?

Even if you do not consider yourself a "philosopher," if you are reading this book, then you may as well admit it. You are one at heart.  And if you struggle to believe what I've just said, then know you are in good company. None of these famous philosophers saw himself as a "philosopher" either. Rather, they were all just folks looking to learn more about the human condition. And if you feel this same desire then you are a philosopher as well.

Why focus so much on philosophy? Because no one who aspires to be a better person can escape the philosophical questions. Including the dilemma implied by Descartes dualism. So yes, while some prefer to call these questions dilemmas of the mind body connection and others, questions about the Cartesian Split or Cartesian Dualism, what you call them matters little. The fact is, anyone interested in human nature must ask philosophical questions. Including questions about the mystery of the mind body connection.

Now allow me to tell you what we are about to do. What exactly will we be doing?

First, I'm going to take you on a ten cent tour through the beliefs of four philosophers; Descartes, Spinoza, Herbart, and Leibniz. Brief mentions only about their thoughts on dualism. Nothing too deep and fanciful. I promise. Hopefully we'll get through most of this in this chapter.

In the next chapter then, I'm going to show you how what they have to say about dualism relates to a modern technology. Specifically to the technology behind digital systems; how everything from DVD players to whole rooms full of equipment manage to stay in sync with each other.

Why parallel philosophy with this technology? Because it turns out that the key to understanding how the mind and body connect lies in understanding the physics behind modern digital technology. Thus we're going to be doing a bit of psychophysical reverse engineering.

Oops. Did I just use lose you? If so, I can certainly understand. This little phrase; psychophysical reverse engineering, is a mouthful. At the same time, it is also the primary vehicle from which I've made my discoveries. On dualism. On human nature. And on everything else. Which means I must at least briefly touch on what this phrase means before we launch into our discussion.

What is psychophysical reverse engineering? It is using the laws of physics to discover the laws of psychology. The laws of the natural world to reveal the laws of human nature.

Know I am not the first person to seek knowledge this way. Far from it. For instance, many famous philosophers have walked on this same path. Which is why I suppose so many of them also made discoveries in science and math. Socrates to Spinoza. Carneades to Kant.

What do we gain by doing this though? We gain insights into how non physical things like the mind; psychology, can connect to physical things such as us to our bodies; physical health, for instance. As well as us to other people. Which makes contrasting and comparing human psychology with technology with an incredibly useful tool.

We also gain something equally valuable. A way in which to know if what we believe about human nature is true. You see, if the world is truly psychophysical, then whatever we say about our psyches must be mirrored in the laws underlying our technology. Why? Because this is just the way we are. We make things in our likeness and image. Which means when things in psychology do not mirror things in the world of physics, our assumptions as to what is true become suspect. And may be false.

Of course to call this process psychophysical reverse engineering is to give it a modern spin. However people have been practicing this idea for hundreds of years. Moreover, I'm not even the first person to call what I'm doing, psychophysical. People were using this word in the seventeenth century. By the end of the nineteenth century though, it seems this word fell out of favor, as the hard physical sciences began to push the soft sciences into the new age closet. Ergo the current crop of "there is no God" books.

Finally, before we begin, I'd like to share with you what William James said about the mind body connection at the end of the nineteenth century. After years of exploring the same questions we'll be discussing here, he wrote, "the simplest psycho-physic formula and the last word of a psychology which contents itself with verifiable laws, and seeks only to be clear and to avoid unsafe hypotheses, would appear to be a blank unmediated correspondence, term for term, of the successive states of consciousness with the succession of total brain processes . . ."

Yes. These words are dense and difficult. After all, James is one of the greatest geniuses of all time. Even so, isn't it amazing how what James advises us to do here so mirrors what the brain researches of today are doing?

So what was James' solution to the mind body dilemma? Unfortunately, just when you think he is going to offer us his answer, he admits he does not know. He then goes on to say that we should continue "to live on the raged edge" of not knowing rather than indulge in the "spiritual chloroform" of admitting defeat.

We have been living on this raged edge for a long time now. Are you ready for an answer which I think would have satisfied even a consummate pragmatist like James? If so, here we go.

[click here to read the rest of The Philosophy of Talk Therapy (resolving the Cartesian Split)]