Gaia Community: Steven's Blog

The Nature of the Self as a Factor in ADHD and Asperger's

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:38:40 GMT

Despite the obvious differences between kids with ADHD and Asperger's, if you sat with these kid's parents, much of what you'd see would look the same including the questions they ask. "Will my child ever be like the other kids in his class. Does she have to be on medication for the rest of her life? Will he ever learn to fit in with the rest of the world? Will she and I ever learn to talk to each other?" Underlying these questions of course lies a similarity even more disturbing; the look on their faces. These parents often look afraid. Moreover, I too have my reservations, in part, because I would so like to have all the answers and be able to tell them their child will be okay.

What really bothers me of course is that I know these parent's fears will probably play almost as great a role in their child's well being as their choosing the right course of action. This then brings up what may be my worst concern for these parents; that much of what they will likely hear from professionals will center on doing something I see as harmful to their kids; teaching these kids to imitate normal.

What's wrong with teaching kids to imitate normal?

Human beings, especially children, need to feel loved for who they are. To feel this, they need a clear sense of self, both theirs and others. Unfortunately, these kids already lack of a clear sense of self and others. Thus asking them to imitate something which is innately unnatural for them will only cause them to worsen, disconnecting them even more from the world around them.

In a way then, asking these kids to learn to imitate normal is like asking them to wear a mask whenever they appear in public. Which is probably in large part why, whenever I sit with adults who have ADHD and Asperger's, the most common human emotion I see in them is not fear. It's anger. These folks are mad as hell, in no small part because so often they've been pressured to fake normal in order to fit in.

Some of them have even told me things like "why can't the world adapt to me a little," and they're right. We too need to adapt ourselves to these kids. This in fact is what I had in mind as I begin to write this column. I'm going to offer you an alternative to asking these kids to fake normal, starting with telling you a bit about the most basic idea in all of personality, the idea of the "self."

Know that despite the myriad of books which describe characteristics of the self, none so far has empirically described the actual source of this experience. At the heart of what I'm about to tell you then is the solution to a centuries old mystery; where does our sense of self come from, our sense of being separate from others?

Know it's not self worth I am referring to here nor the various qualities which make up a self. It's our actual sense of "me as a separate being" I am referring to here, without which helping kids with ADHD and Asperger's to be themselves is impossible. Who are these kids anyway? We're about to begin to find out.

ADHD and Asperger's as Two Ends of the Same Continuum

You may have noticed that I have increasingly been positioning ADHD and Asperger's as diametrically opposed conditions in my recent articles. In truth, my research over the past twelve years clearly shows this and more; that these two conditions are actually the theoretical poles at the ends of one continuum. To see this though requires you have a background in personality theory. Fortunately, the personality theory required is the kind Nobel prize winning physicist, Ernest Rutherford referred to as "ideas you could teach the barmaid."

Let's begin with a brief recap of what we spoke about in my last article.

Basically I told you that any activity which involves complex sequences of mental activity will short circuit the brains of people with ADHD. Why? Because this type of learning literally widens their focus beyond their capacity to track, causing their minds to bog down as if their heads are filled with molasses. I also told you that the converse is true as well; that any activity which involves intensely emotional, single steps of physical activity will cause the brains of people with ADHD to speed up and focus. Hence their propensity for preferring video games over homework.

What I'd like to now add to this is that with Asperger's, people feel these same two things, only in reverse. Thus for them, any activity which involves complex sequences of mental activity will enliven and focus their brains rather than bog them down. Why? Because like the ancient Roman god, Mercury, who was said to be the only god quick enough to get into and out of hell, asking them to widen their focus and keep moving is like child's play. Literally. On the other hand, ask them to do an activity which involves single steps of intensely focused physical activity and they will bog down. Only this time it's their bodies that will bog down, not their minds.

In a way then, we could say that all these kids have both conditions. The kids with ADHD have ADHD in their minds and Asperger's in their bodies, whereas the Aspies have ADHD in their bodies and Asperger's in their minds. Or said more simply, some folks are extremely mind oriented, while others are extremely body oriented.

Where am I going with all this, you ask? It turns out that the best way to understand the personalities of these kids is to set aside all the medical symptoms and simply contrast and compare them at their core. If you do, what you'll find is, these two conditions literally fall at opposite ends of the same continuum. On one end, we have the folks who do best when asked to do single steps of rapid physical activity; the folks we say have ADHD, and on the other end we have the folks who do best when asked to do complex sequences of rapid mental activity; the folks we say have Asperger's.

Of course there is much more to what underlies these two conditions. This said, to be able to find a point at which to begin to unravel the mysteries underlying these two conditions is to me, worth the effort.

The question of course at this point is, on what do I base these claims? My answer begins with something most folks I ask have never heard of; the idea that we humans have two physiological brains. The brain you already know about, of course, is the brain in the head. The other is what medical researchers call, the enteric brain. Or as it's more commonly referred to, the "brain in the gut."

What the heck is the enteric brain? It turns out there is a significant amount of brain tissue sandwiched into the layers of the diaphragm, the same kind of tissue found in the brain in the head. Moreover, it turns out 95% of the neurotransmitter which carries our moods is not found in the brain in our head. The majority of our serotonin is found in the brain in our gut. Which begs the question, when you take an SSRI like prozac, where is it working? To me, the answer is obvious; it's working in the gut. And since serotonin is the main chemical messenger for emotion, this implies the ubiquitous "gut feelings" of ADHD folks are really there.

As to how this aspect of our physiology plays out in kids with ADHD and Asperger's, to show you, I'll need to use a simple analogy; the idea that our two brains function like two radio stations, each receiving and broadcasting on a separate frequency. Moreover, like real radio stations which are intelligible only when we tune in to one at a time, we humans can normally tune in to only one brain.

In real life, what this amounts to is that we can make sense of only one perspective at a time. Either we experience life mainly as thoughts which we receive and broadcast from our minds, or we experience life mainly as emotion and intuition, the gut feelings I just mentioned. I call the former, being "mind first," and the later, "body first."

Of course, the difference between us and radio stations is that with radio stations, we can can chose which station we tune in to, whereas with our two brains we default to one or the other. In fact, my research shows that this preference develops very much like handedness, in that we seem to begin to develop this preference somewhere around age three or four, and clearly have it in place by about age seven.

Please note, I am not saying these preferences are the cause of AS or ADHD. I'm merely saying they are like the fertile ground from which these conditions grow. More important, before you can know if any of this feels true to you, you'll need to first do a little experiment.

Try sitting across from someone with whom you normally talk well, someone to whom you can easily tune in to. Now ask this person to tell you something that happened to them recently while noting how well you understand this person.
Now ask this same person to tell you something else, only this time, ask him or her to speak to you very quickly. Again, note how clearly you can understand, as well as how their speeding up affects your ability to think, feel, and follow.
Finally ask this same person say these same things to you, only this time, ask them to speak exceedingly slow. Here again, note how this change in speed affects your ability to think clearly.
Now stop and contrast and compare your experiences.

If you are a mind first person, words spoken quickly will feel fine to you, whereas slowly spoken words will bog down your mind. And make you physically uncomfortable. Conversely, if you are a body first person, the reverse will happen. The slower the words, the better you will tune in and understand, especially with regard to how this feels.

Know that over the past year or so, I've done this experiment with well over two hundred people. In every case, the result is the same. People either tune in better to quickly spoken, complex sequences of mental activity, or they tune in better to slowly spoken, singularly focused, physical activity.

Remember too that what underlies what I've been telling you is a physiological fact; we have two brains. Google the enteric brain and specifically, Dr. Ron Gershon, and I'm sure you'll be as amazed by his work as I was. What makes Dr. Gershon's work even more credible though is his refusal to infer outside of his specialty.

Here then is where my work in and around personality comes into play, in how these two brains affect our ability to be conscious. It appears then that our ability to be conscious centers in and around these two styles of interpersonal broadcasting and receiving; the styles I call mind first and body first.

Where then does the idea of the self come from? It's simple really. From the way we experience these two brains. You see, it turns out which ever of our brains goes first is the self we call our "self." Then the other is the self we watch. To a kid with ADHD this means being him or herself is doing something where the body comes first. Video games. Martial arts. After school sports. Whereas to a kid with Asperger's, doing those things is like being punished.

In the months to come, we'll dig deeper into the implications of being mind first and body first, including how these two states play out in the four most fundamental states of personality; mind first, body first, mind body sync, and shock. We'll also look at several other factors which can lead to ADHD and Asperger's. These include the four distractions; comfort, neatness, understanding, and freedom, as well as the four decision tree processes; bluntness, correction, precision, and digression.

The point of all this, of course, is to be able to grasp the real personalities present, rather than the symptomology. These kids are not broken. Rather, their personalities fall outside of the bell shaped curve, the base of which, in case you've never noticed, is a single continuum.

What I'm saying then is that this continuum; from ADHD to Asperger's, is the baseline of personality. Moreover, rather than being based on conjecture or mere statistics, these ideas have been paying dividends for years now, in the form of helping people with both conditions to become themselves.

This leads us to some answers to the questions I began this article with:

"Will my child ever be like the other kids in his class." Yes, in fact he's more like the other kids than anyone has ever known.
"Does she have to be on medication for the rest of her life?" No. However, this depends largely on how she can come to know her true self.
"Will he ever learn to fit in with the rest of the world?" Yes, but only if he learns to see how his self and the selves of others contrast and compare. Not medically, nor psychologically, but rather, as different but still amazing human beings.
"Will she and I ever learn to talk to each other?" Absolutely, given you learn to build the necessary bridge. This depends entirely on how well you learn to see past your fears and trust your gut as far as allowing these kids to become themselves.

As for my personal experience, my whole practice has been incredibly different since I began to adapt the speed of my words to each person, including several people who ADHD is so severe, they long ago gave up hope.

Now let's review what I've introduced you to in this article.

All human beings have two physiological brains, one in the head, the other in the gut. The one in the head receives and broadcasts on a higher frequency, and we call these broadcasts, thoughts and reasons. The brain in the gut then receives and broadcasts on a lower frequency, and we call these broadcasts, emotions and intuition.
All human beings have a default broadcast frequency, either one based in the head or based in the gut. Moreover, because we each have a first choice as far as what we tune in to, we can say we are all either mind first or body first.
Folks with ADHD are always very body first. Folks with Asperger's are always very mind first. Moreover, while these preferences are not the causes of these conditions, they are, in fact, the two basic personality trait differences underlying them.
In essence then, the most basic differences between the personalities of folks with ADHD and those of folks with Asperger's lie in three basic areas; [1] whether the nature of what they do best is mind oriented (AS) or body oriented (ADHD), [2] whether they do best with either sequences of tasks (AS) or single step tasks (ADHD), and [3] where they get their best sense of time; either from the speed of what they're thinking (AS) or from the speed of what they're physically doing (ADHD).

In my next article we're going to dig a bit more into this mind body thing. And at the risk of sounding like a new age weirdo, let me point out that what we've been discussing has been the nature of the mind body connection. How can knowing the nature of this connection help us to better help our kids? The answer to this question lies almost entirely in knowing how to use this connection to teach these kids to tune in to the world, and us to them.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be read or reached at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Tags: mind body connection, add, adhd, asperger's, parenting, the nature of the self

What the Tao Has To Tell Us About The Secret

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:29:16 GMT

the Myth of the "All White" Philosophy
Every generation has their "how to get everything you want in life" book. Each one claims to offer the ordinary person some kind of millennia old secret with which to quickly and easily get a good life. Sometimes too, such as in the case of James Redfield's The Celestine Prophesy, people distort a book into that it can do this. Redfield himself never claimed this for his book and even tried to correct this impression. Redfield had integrity.

What does this have to do with Rhonda Byrne's book, The Secret?

Rhonda Byrne is this generation's "get everything you want" girl. Her "secret?" The Law of Attraction. Picture good and you'll attract this good to you. Unfortunately she adds to this that we must also steer clear of anything or anyone negative. Friends in trouble? People in need? She says we must not take part in their negativity and avoid them like the plague.

The problem of course is that if you buy into this, you make getting what you want the road to happiness, which it's not. At the same time, if you simply dismiss it all, you miss the part of what is true about what Byrne is saying; the law of attraction.

Then too, there's the other problem; that if you use the law of attraction as Byrne suggests, your life will probably get even worse. Why? Because what Byrne fails to realize, let alone tell us, is why this law worked for her. At the time she used the law of attraction, her life was pretty bad. She openly admits this. Thus what she actually did was use the law of attraction to rebalance an already bad life.

What happens if you take Byrne's advice during normal times? Well this depends on how well you can follow her all white philosophy. Most people can't, at least not for long. Good thing too. If you could, what you'd probably get is a few good things followed by a bunch of awful things. Think I'm wrong? Then consider this. At the time Byrne first appeared on Oprah, her book had sold some 18,000 copies. A week later, Oprah's positive endorsement raised this to over 100,000. Nice. The power of the law of attraction at work no doubt. A subsequent mention by Oprah then raised this total to over 190,000, and to many this too appeared to be the law of attraction at work. But was it? I'm not sure. Oprah's a pretty influential lady.

Whatever the case, not long after this, things began to reverse. A woman with cancer appeared on Oprah who said she was going to use Byrne's advice in lieu of medical treatment. The law of attraction at work? Yes. Although this time, Byrne seems to have attracted some pretty ugly energy. Including not only that Oprah had to hurriedly amend her endorsement, but also that the Internet quickly flooded with anti-Byrne blogs and articles.

Where's the problem in what Bryne is saying? Essentially just this. By telling us we must avoid the dark side of the law of attraction, Byrne and her crew of all white philosophers have perverted a genuine spiritual teaching into a recipe for personal disaster. Moreover, while she certainly is the latest to try to cash in on good people's free lunch dreams, she's far from the only person doing this. For instance, most diet books advise the very same, all white thing. Eat all these good things. Avoid eating these bad things. In no time, you'll be healthy and fit.

Ever try to stay on one of these all white diets? My experience has been that trying to follow an all white diet is like trying to use will power on diarrhea; in the long run, you're going to have to shit no matter how hard you try. And yes, when you first go on one of these diets, many people do quite well. But inevitably, the rebalancing comes and you end up even worse.

Sound familiar? Don't get me wrong. Like the good which does exist in Rhonda Byrne's book, many of these diets are based on genuinely sound advice. Unfortunately too few of them teach people to also embrace their failures, let alone that it's the all white philosophy which makes many of these failures happen.

Still not clear as to what I'm saying? Then consider this. How many times have you thought you'd found a way a better way, the secret to a better marriage, or to fitness, or to managing your money. Filled with hope, you earnestly begin this program only to fall back into an even worse state of disaster, months or even weeks later.

Why does this happen to us? It's simple. Deny any part of your nature and you'll end up in an excess. Moreover, that this happens is not even our failure really. It is simply the Tao; the way it is. Including that the unrealistic nature of our hopeful feelings must eventually resolve themselves into equally hopeless feelings. Again, it's just the way it is.

Here then is what the Tao has to teach us about these "secrets." Introduce an imbalance, including an all good one, and you'll end up with an equal and opposite imbalance. Conversely, honor your nature and focus on being real, and you'll end up not only with balance but also with your chances for change improved.

The thing of course is knowing how to accomplish this balance. This is what we're about to look at.

the Law of Repulsion
So what is missing in Byrne's book? Actually, it's pretty simple really. Like all coins and other valuable things, there are two sides to this visualization thing, not just one. Moreover in order to have a genuinely spiritual life, you must honor and practice both.

What are the two sides of the laws governing visualization?

The first is the law Rhonda Byrne refers to in her book, the law of attraction. I refer to this law as the "all white law." Or as it's commonly known, like attracts like.

The other law then embodies what Byrne claims you should absolutely avoid, the law of repulsion. In this case, we're talking about that opposites attract, the law I refer to as the "all black law."

How do these two laws of visualization work?

With the law of attraction, you draw to you the good things you picture.
With the law of repulsion, you push away from you the bad things you picture.
And when you seek balance by embracing both, you stimulate the very energy Dickens refers to in the opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities; "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." Which is why the two sides of the Tao symbol are separated, not by a straight line, but rather by a transverse wave. Very wise dudes, those old philosophers. In physics, transverse waves are the nature of change, and equal and opposite waves create the greatest changes.

Can you see why spiritual change always involves a pair of opposites? It takes what Dickens refers to as the best of times, worst of times. This is what creates the potential for change; the two roughly equal sides.

Said another way, these two laws are simply two ends of a single continuum, a natural pair of opposites. They each exist to balance each other out, and if you use visualization to tap into this power, you maximize your chances for getting a better life.

How would these two laws of visualization apply to a real life situation, for instance to dieting? In essence, you'd devote some time to picturing yourself successful and thin while at the same time picturing yourself overeating. Sound crazy? Well consider what it accomplishes. By picturing ourselves as thin and fit, we identify our goal. At the same time, by picturing ourselves overeating, we identify our starting point; where we are now. This then allows us to visualize our whole journey from what we are now to what we want to be. This greatly enhance our chances for success, as you can't very well change what you can't see.

In addition, by picturing ourselves overeating, we satisfy the body's need to overeat. How? By honoring an even more basic spiritual law at play here, something I call The Mind Body Law. Very simply stated, it says, what the mind pictures, the body experiences. I, in fact, have been successfully using this law to manage my anger for decades. Whenever I feel angry, I picture myself losing it and by doing this satisfy my body's need for release.

At the same time, my picturing harms no one including me. And yes, I do get mad at times. But since I began practicing this, I rarely feel anger build up let alone feel ashamed or guilty for feeling angry.

As for what the Tao symbol has to teach us, it is simply this. Great changes occur only in these kinds of times. This in part is why Dicken's words about the French Revolution are so timeless. It's also why picturing all white philosophies do work at times. They work when we're already feeling pretty bad. Conversely picture all good in times when we're already in a pretty good state and you inevitably end up in an equal and opposite state.

What does this look like when it happens? In my life, it led to angry outbursts. In fact, one of my worst faults has been that I have had a bad temper. Even as a child, I carried rage inside me. What I now know though is that a big part of my carrying this much rage was that I tried against hope to restrain my anger. To pretend to be calm and in control. Each time I would try to do this though, inevitably my anger would build up to a point wherein I would hit a last straw. Then my anger would burst out of me, often onto some poor unsuspecting soul who had merely bumped into me.

This changed dramatically after hearing someone share without restraint about anger in an Alanon meeting. This man openly and without shame puked out blatant negative wishes, words so filled with hatred I had trouble listening to them. No surprise, as he did, I judged him in the same way I had been judging myself; fiercely and with no compassion. After all, why give compassion to someone who was so openly negative? Wasn't this only making things worse?

Moments later though, I had an aha when I realized his point. He said he knew what he had been sharing was crazy and that it wasn't what he really wanted to do. Then he laughed, genuinely and spiritually, and in that instant I learned the secret to all white philosophy. If you want to change, you must be able to freely and without shame picture both sides of life, not just the white side. In this case then, it meant that when I felt angry, I needed to visually indulge this anger so as create the momentum by which things flow back into balance.

So did this change the way I handled anger? Very much so. In essence, it gave me an alternative to holding it all in, ending my angry outbursts.

In addition, it gave me the key to understanding balance, including that in order to satisfy my body's need for release, I must consciously picture myself letting lose. Here again, what the mind pictures, the body experiences. At the same time, I learned I also needed to clearly know that I did not intend for these bad things to happen. In this way, no harm comes to anyone, and balance is restored.

Does this strategy actually work in real life though? Years after my realization, I was sitting in a driver's ed point reduction class wherein a film on road rage had just finished. In the film, neat little boxes and nicely drawn arrows flow charted how to control your anger; basically that you should suck it up and think it away.

When the film finished, the instructor, knowing I was a therapist, then asked me to comment on what I had seen. "What do you do when you get angry while driving?" I said that whenever I felt like losing it, for instance, when I was stuck behind a little old lady going half the speed limit, I pictured myself driving her off the road, ripping her from the car, and pummeling her to a pulp. At which point, his jaw dropped and the whole room froze.

Seconds later, the air cleared as the whole room roared with laughter, including this instructor. At which point I went on to say that said I sometimes pictured the Mel Brooks' story wherein he once pulled the leather tie of an irate taxi driver through the taxi's little vent widow until the driver's head lodged in it. Again, the whole room roared with healing laughter. I then added that, of course, I never intended that any of this should actually happen, but that by momentarily mentally indulging my insanity, my anger would resolve into laughter at the thought of my doing these insane things.

To this, I would now add that no child nor mentally ill adult should ever be encouraged to visualize these kinds of things. However, when practiced by spiritually minded adults who know the meaning of "intending," using visualization to satisfy the urges of the body is indeed a very useful tool. As well as a spiritual practice rooted in a great ancient tradition; the balance pictured in the Tao.

Add to this that my life's work in and around emergence based theories and practices has been based entirely in that our suffering comes from what we cannot picture. Including that some of this suffering comes from being unable to picture the things we fear. This, in fact, is a lot of what underlies my almost twenty years of helping people. Including that by teaching them ways to use visualization to create this black and white balance, I teach them the simple wisdom of the Tao.

One last thing. Knowing these concepts in no way guarantees success. For instance, I still cannot picture overeating. Nor it seems can anyone else I know who overeats. Which leads me to believe this may be the piece missing in many of the diets which otherwise offer good advice.

What will change if I can figure out how to picture this? The truth? I'm working on it. Only time will tell. At this point, I can say this though. I feel more hopeful about overeating than I have felt in years. Including that I have not missed the irony in where this hope came from; it came from reading the Secret and allowing myself to find fault in it.

Will this work?

I'll keep you posted.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be read or reached at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Tags: The Secret, Rhonda Byrne, The Tao, all white philosophy

Why Do Stimulant Medications Affect ADD / ADHD?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:33:45 GMT

Fear Monsters Column - Arpil 2008

Why does taking medical stimulants help people with ADD? Ask ten doctors and you'll get ten answers, most of which will bring to mind the proverbial blind men examining the elephant. It's not their fault. We demand of these good doctors almost god-like answers, including a pill which will if not cure ADD then at least make these kids appear normal. And yes, it's our children's lives we're talking about here so it's really this important. But when it comes to ADD, the only thing most people are sure of is, no one has god-like answers. Including me. So what do I have to offer? As a personality theorist, a lot really, including that a major clue to the actual nature of ADD lies in that medical stimulants help. Why? It's simple really. Stimulants alter people's sense of time and space in a somewhat predictable way. They speed things up and narrow the focus. Moreover, while in theory we're talking about how medical stimulants affect folks with ADD, in reality, we all take stimulants, which gives us all access to this clue.

Not sure what I mean? We consider this. When you take the family to Disneyland and finally get into your seat on one of the rides, what happens next? Obviously, you get stimulated, including that your perception of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you get up in the morning and suck down your first cup of coffee, what happens to you then? Why, the same thing, of course; your sense of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you hurry to a store so as to be first in the sale line, what happens then? Again, your perception of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you watch the Beijing Olympics on TV later this year, what will happen to you? Again, during the pivotal events, your sense of time will speed up and your focus will narrow.

My point here is simple. An inherent part of human nature is we all sense time and space. Not scientifically, mind you, nor even as accurately as watch or clock time. Rather, we each sense time personally, including folks with ADD. Moreover a part of our sensing time and space is that, whenever we get stimulated, our sense of time speeds up and our focus narrows.

What does this have to do with the nature of ADD? Simply put, kids with ADD perceive being stimulated differently than non ADD kids do; more abruptly at first, then more slowly, and in all or nothing increments. Moreover, this difference is especially apparent in situations wherein kids are expected to keep up with other quicker minds, including in almost all classroom settings from about first grade on and especially in situations wherein kids are asked to learn sequences of things, like learning to read and other complex tasks.

What do we know physiologically about kids with ADD when they're asked do this kind of learning? Basically two things. One, that when asked to learn things like reading; in essence, whenever they're called upon to do mentally sequential problem solving, the brains of kids with ADD show slower brain waves compared with the brains of neurotypical kids (Shedding Light on ADHD, The Lancet, Nov. 2003). Two, in these same situations, the brains of kids with ADD show a broader area of involvement as compared with the brains of neurotypical kids (His Brain, Her Brain, INR seminar, Nikita Katz MD, 2007). In other words, in kids with ADD, brain activity gets slower and spread out more thinly as compared to neurotypical kids whose brain activity is stronger and more localized.

The thing to keep in mind here of course is that while brain scans can imply things, they fall apart as far as being factual evidence for what people think and feel. In other words, while brains scans can reveal physiological fractal patterns in things like blood flow, no researcher can claim with certainty to be able to interpret these patterns. We're just not there yet. This means while brain scans can imply things, they cannot replace subjective and objective reporting.

So what kinds of things do people with ADD report? To see, I asked more than a hundred people trained in emergence-based self observation methods a simple question; what's your favorite color? From this, two clear fractal patterns emerged with regard to ADD. In pattern one, people instantly digress then abruptly blurt an answer. In pattern two, people abruptly go blank and cannot self-restart.

What does all this tell us about the nature of ADD? To see, consider this. Picture yourself in winter, standing at a distance from a very big maple tree. Now imagine you have been given a task; you must redraw the patterns of the branches from memory. How would you go about doing this? Most people, when asked to do this, try to memorize a few of the larger patterns of branches. Kids with ADD either reach out in all directions at once and then blurt out an answer or they immediately go blank and then pretend to be memorizing, all the while staring through the tree.

Slower speed. Broader scope. The very bane of mentally sequential learning activities like learning to read. No surprise this is the very kind of learning kids with ADD hate the most. Interestingly enough, no one seems to notice that these same kids excel at the very opposite kind of learning; the kind required to master video games. What's the difference?

Learning to read requires kids repeatedly cycle through a sequence of four mental tasks; recite (pronounce aloud), memorize (commit to short term memory), recall (pronounce to yourself), and interpret (comprehension). In a way, we could call this kind of learning, multi-step mental learning as in, "think about what you're doing now and at the same time, think about what you're going to have to do next" learning. As opposed to the kinds of skills needed to master video games wherein we need to focus on doing one task at a time as quickly as we can, a kind of learning we might call, "no time to think, just do it" learning.

Can you see where this is all going? The psychophysical skills needed to master video games preclude the very type of learning which causes kids with ADD to falter and quit; complex sequences of mental learning. Moreover to understand what's behind this, consider what happens to these kids when they play a video game. Across the board they report their sense of time speeds up while at the same time, their focus shifts from a primarily mental one to a primarily physical one, the fractal pattern Yogi Berra alludes to in his famous comment, "you can't think and bat."

This pattern in fact is quite similar to how stimulant medications affect people with ADD, wherein they feel time speed up and become more aware of their bodies.

A major clue to understanding ADD then lies in discerning the differences between learning to read and mastering video games. What can we say about how these two kinds of learning differ?

Any learning which involves complex sequences of mental activity will short circuit the brains of people with ADD. This type of learning literally causes the overall rate at which their brains try to process data to slow down, in part, the result of their focus widening beyond their capacity to track. Conversely, any learning which involves intensely focused physical activity will cause the brains of people with ADD to speed up and focus, similarly to what happens to all people when they play video games.
In essence, these differences can be boiled down to three things; [1] that the nature of the learning is either mental or physical, [2] that the learning requires people to be aware of either sequences of tasks or single step tasks, and [3] that the learning differs markedly in how quickly or slowly people process time.
What accounts for the difference in how quickly or slowly people process time? Primarily, this is just the result of the actual physics involved, body learning versus mind learning. Said very simply, it takes more time to move the body then to move the mind. Nothing wrong here, it's just simple physics. What this means however is that, by nature, people differ as to which type of learning they are better at; body-based learners versus mind-based learners, and the main difference here is in how people sense time.
In a general sense then, we could say that people with ADD are more naturally adept at body oriented kinds of learning whereas neurotypical folks are more adept at learning mind oriented tasks. Moreover, this difference has nothing to do with people's native intelligence. It merely describes the type of learning to which each type of person is best suited.

So is there any fractal-based evidence to support these claims? There certainly is. Moreover, this fractal-based evidence also reveals the solution to one of the greatest mysteries of all with regard to personality; the nature of the self. What is it that makes us feel we are separate and apart from others? More important, how are our feelings of separateness a factor in both ADD and Asperger's? This will be our topic for next month when we discuss The Nature of the Self as a Factor in ADHD and Asperger's.

[for more thoughts on learning and learning disabilities, click here]

Tags: ADD, ADHD, Asperger's

Which is Better, Being a Genius or Being Creative?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:08:02 GMT

A few years back, I read a really good chapter in what I consider to be one of the best text books on personality. In it, Dean Keith Simonton, a professor of psychology at University of California, discussed how difficult it is to empirically define both genius and creativity. What has stayed with me since then were two things. One, I was surprised by the fact that research shows I.Q. is not a good predictor for creativity past I.Q.’s of 120. Two, I felt personally challenged to find empirical fractals with which to define these two parts of personality; genius, and creativity.

With regard to the first point, my surprise comes from the fact that while a person with an I.Q. of 120 can be expected to be a bit more creative than a person with a more normal I.Q., say 107, that after that people can have an I.Q. of 200 and still be no more creative than people with 120 I.Q.'s. (Normal I.Q.’s are considered to be between about 100 and 110)

How can this be? For years now, I’ve wondered. Wouldn't it make more sense that higher intellect would allow for, and even correlate to, higher creativity? It doesn't though. Moreover, this points to a prejudice present in almost all of us; that being word smart is better than being street smart; in essence, that “factual knowledge” is intelligence.

Yesterday I found myself, in one of my sessions, offering answers to these two questions, first, as to why genius does not correlate to creativity, and second, the fractals within personality which would explain and support this seemingly counterintuitive conclusion. First the fractals.

Know I define “fractals” as “recognizable patterns which always repeat differently.” Thus I see them as being the polar opposite to the more common statistically based kinds of definitions wherein repeating identically is the holy grail. My fractal for “genius” then is, “the ability to use pattern recognition to solve problems,” and my fractal for creativity is “the ability to find problems that lead to recognizing new patterns.”

This makes genius and creativity polar opposites as well and to see this, consider this. As I’ve just defined these terms, a genius is a specialist who uses reductionism to find better solutions. He or she says "why reinvent the wheel? Let’s get things done.” Conversely, a creative person is a generalist who uses expansionism to find previously unnoticed problems. She or he answers the specialist's question, "why reinvent the wheel," with a rarely thought of answer; "Why reinvent the wheel? Why, to become a wheel maker, of course."

From this it may sound like I favor creativity and to be honest, I actually do. Perhaps this is because I’ve met so many very intelligent people who cannot notice the beauty in a baby’s eyes let alone think outside of the box. I’ve also seen too many teachers say that creativity is important while at the same time relegating it’s development in students to an after thought looked at only after the practical learning is done.

Like all things, of course, there is also a down side to being creative and a reason why we, in general, pay people in creatively focused professions like music and art much less than we pay those in reductionist problem solving professions like the sciences and law. This downside is simply that people who are, by nature, expansionists; artists and musicians and such, often digress so far, wide, and badly, they fail to come up with anything useful let alone with enough practical skills to live a normal life.

About this, one of my heroes, the American theorist and professor William James might say that to be considered valid, an idea or endeavor must have a “cash value.” And I agree with him. Thus while the creative person’s question; “I wonder what hasn’t been thought of yet,” can indeed be quite inspiring, it can just as easily lead young people to pooh pooh and or disregard the good practical work of previous generations.

So now, the question. Which do you consider more important, genius or creativity? Moreover, is there a way schools can actually awaken these two skills in people, a pragmatic method with which schools might actually make this happen more? What do you think?

Warmly,

Steven

Tags: genius, creativity, education, I.Q

What Is ADD? A Better Way to Know

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:44:03 GMT

Last month we spoke about why folks with Asperger's tend to correct people. In essence, they process words in an unnaturally fussy manner. This is similar to how eighteen month olds learning language process words. They feel compelled to repeat them precisely and have no real awareness of how doing this feels to the other person.

The key to understanding people with Asperger's then lies in the phrase, "compulsive verbal precision forced on others." Folks with Asperger's literally cannot stand to hear to vagueness, especially conceptual vagueness. Hence their compulsion to correct anyone whom they hear speaking vaguely, or imprecisely, or with anything less than professorial comprehension. Fussy. Fussy. Fussy. Anything less is simply a waste of time and unacceptable.

This month we're going to look at the people who, by nature, lie at the other end of the fussy / fuzzy continuum. These folks rarely correct people; they know all too well what this feels like. They also often feel like being asked to find the right words is boring or a waste of time or next to impossible. Thus they tend to be the folks Aspie's correct the most. Of whom am I talking? Why the unnaturally fuzzy minded people of the world, of course. The folks who have ADD.

What exactly is ADD? Word wise, it's an acronym for Attention Deficit Disorder. Or as the fussy minded folk out there refer to it these days, ADHD; attention deficits with or without hyperactivity.

Please realize these words in no way offer us any real clues as to what underlies this condition. In fact, the only way to get a real sense of what underlies ADD is to set aside the "hyperactivity" part while at the same time, doing your best to disregard any and all images which may pop into your head as to what "attention deficits" may look like.

Not every one with ADD is hyperactive. That should tell you something. More important, we all have attention deficits, even Aspie's. Thus defining ADD as an attention deficit sometimes accompanied by hyperactivity does more to confuse the issue than to help. And yes, I know what I've just said is anathema to many in the medical community especially when, from the outside, folks with ADD do appear to have attention deficits. In reality though, defining ADD as attention deficits is more like defining manic depression as mood swings. Duh! Of course this is true, but so what. My point is, defining ADD as attention deficits is next to useless, as it does nothing to define the actual underlying condition.

What is ADD then? ADD is an unnatural state of mind and body wherein people instantly and compulsively digress. These folks literally try to pay attention to too many things at once. They then get lost and end up either sinking into an inner mental labyrinth of blankness or they seek escape by blurting out the first words that come to mind.

Why do they blurt out the first words which come to mind? Because blurting out these words feels better than standing there looking like an idiot. Doing this quickly also satisfies the educational world's misconception that quick answers imply learning. It also resembles the quick mindedness we think makes us clever or sly, as well as being a doable way to escape the pain of being lost in a wordlessly amorphous state of mind.

Now take a moment to take all these images in. Can you picture what it feels like to have ADD? You get asked a question. Then you stand there, blank and stuck, hoping to out wait the questioner until they give up and just move on. Know how many wives misread this as that their spouse doesn't love them enough to talk? Or parents that their child doesn't care about learning? And when I suggest this is not the case, these wives or parents say things like, "then why don't they answer me?" Why? Because this person has ADD.

Sometimes, too, the person answers but only after what feels like a long time to the questioner. To which the questioning wife responds with that the husband's answer isn't sincere. He's said it only because he believes she wants to hear it. Or if it's a child being helped with homework and she answers after a time, then it's assumed she could be finding the answers more quickly if only she would try harder. Not really. But it does look like this.

Most important of all, can you imagine how bad it feels when even simple questions evoke this kind of pressure in a person? Perhaps this why folks with ADD prefer having the wrong words to no words. And why quickly spitting out the first words which come to mind feels better than being slow to respond with the right words. Now add to this that when people with ADD can't answer quickly, they hear things like, "come on now, you can do it if you try" or worse; "did you forget to take your medication again?," or "quit stalling and just spit it out." Really makes a person feel like talking is going to be fun, don't you think?

What about you? Have compulsive digressions been a way of life for you? If not, then please allow me to offer you a few brief visual insights into what is really happening here. Why visual? Because insights make sense only to those who can visualize them, which is why we call them "in - sights" rather than "in - logic" (sigh).

What does someone with ADD look like then? How, in fact, can you know if you have ADD?

The easiest way to test people for ADD is to ask them a question then notice what happens to their eyes. The simpler the question, the better. For instance, asking people what their favorite color is can be a good ADD test. As can asking them what they'd like for lunch, or what they ate last night.
What do the eyes of folks with ADD look like when they are being asked a question? Before I tell you, I first need you to know that in order for this look to make sense, you need to see it as being on the opposite end of the spectrum from what the eyes of folks who have Asperger's look like. The core requirement one needs to know in order to accurately gauge this test then is how folks with ADD look when being asked a question as opposed to what folks with Asperger's look like.
Let's do the Aspie's first. What do folks with Asperger's look like when they're being asked a question? If you watch closely, you'll feel like their eyes are reaching out into the world, often with a sense of positive anticipation. Their eyes will literally widen a bit, sometimes quite a bit, and if you are an intuitive type, you can almost feel they are reaching out toward you, wanting to give you their answer.
This look is very similar to how the eyes of eighteen month olds look when you ask them a question; widened with positive anticipation. The eyes of folks with ADD will appear to be the exact opposite. The eyes of folks with ADD will appear to be receding inward, often in a suddenly blank and or guarded manner and with an overarching air of negative anticipation.
Know this look resembles children at an early age too, in this case, the look two and a half year olds give you when you ask them something. Thus if you contrast and compare the eyes of eighteen month olds being asked a question with the eyes of two and a half year olds, you'll have a good basic sense of what to look for.
Now try visualizing what I've just said about ADD. Eyes which appear to be receding inward, often in a suddenly blank and or guarded manner, with an overarching air of negative anticipation. This look closely matches the annoyed eyes of a two year old being asked to pay attention. Or being asked to learn something, or shown something, or being told to answer a question.
These pictures are a good way to begin to assess someone for ADD. They can also be used to infer what is happening inside of the minds of folks with ADD. Withdrawing in a guarded manner versus the positive out reaching of Aspie's. Big difference, right? More important, this happens to people with ADD even when they are being asked simple questions.
Thus were you to watch a film in slow motion of their reaction to being asked a question, you'd realize the blunt "get away from me" part of their response is actually their secondary response. Their primary response is actually that they feel compelled to find the right answer and so, digress into blankness. Realize too that this response is so much a part of their nature that it happens to them even when the question being asked is something they readily know, like what they ate last night.
This in fact is what makes this test for ADD so revealing. These easily observed responses are involuntary responses. Thus they offer us the best clues to the true nature of people with ADD.
What about their motives for not answering? Can't you logically infer their motives from observing them? In truth, if they're going blank, they cannot be choosing to do anything. You cannot chose what you cannot see, and all motive assumes mental access to choice.

How are you doing so far? Feeling any scientific skepticism right now? If so, good for you. Nothing truly new ever becomes intuitively obvious until much debate has passed. For now, I merely ask that you allow me to try to teach you something about the nature of discovering new ideas, the idea that all new discoveries are rooted in someone learning to recognize a previously unseen pattern. Einstein, Newton, Descartes, whomever. It doesn't matter. They each discovered patterns previously unseen.

The thing that's especially important to know is that, with all natural things, these patterns are always fractal in nature. Including the patterns which define ADD as ADD. How do I define patterns as being "fractal patterns?" They are "recognizable visual patterns which always repeat differently." As opposed to the holy grail of the today's statistically based sciences, wherein the only acceptable test for truth is "recognizable numeric patterns which always repeat identically." The closer to identical, the better.

Did you notice that the difference between these two ways of evaluating things? For the most part it lies in the last word; repeats "differently" versus repeats "identically." This is what makes using lists of symptoms to evaluate someone for ADD fail. Despite the statistical evidence behind each of these symptoms, at the single person level, each symptom may or may not be present. Why not? Because ADD never repeats identically. Not even in the same person on different days.

Contrast this way of knowing things with how we might determine if a leaf is an oak leaf. And yes, oak leaves are simpler than people. Still, the method we'd use to identify them both, in theory, should be the same. Right? Good science should be good science regardless of what we're testing for, yes? Surprisingly, most people would not use science's chosen method though. We'd intuitively use the very opposite method. We'd look for recognizable patterns which repeat differently as opposed to patterns which repeat identically. Identical patterns appear only in artificial oak leaves, right? Real ones always repeat differently.

This simple test for truth is how a nine year old can so readily identify a leaf as an oak leaf. How? He recognizes the visual pattern with always repeats differently. This is why the differences you'd see between oak leaves never really matter and why, once you learn what an oak leaf looks like, you know this pattern for life. The differences you see never matter because you are not cross checking a list for what you are supposed to see. You are looking only for a recognizable visual pattern.

Now consider how this concept holds true for identifying all natural objects, clouds to snow flakes, smiles to yawns. In each case it's the visual pattern we learn to identify, not a list of conditions. Moreover once we learn this pattern, we then recognize this thing for life. Easily, and with one hundred percent certainty.

Imagine being able to diagnose ADD with this much ease and degree of certainty? How much more could we help people with ADD. In effect, we'd be diagnosing them with one hundred percent certainty. Moreover, unlike cross checking people's behaviors against written lists of possible symptoms, wherein folks are considered to have ADD merely because they appear to have more of these things than chance would allow, with fractal patterns, what you see is one hundred percent true. Either a person has ADD or they do not. It's this simple. Can you imagine?

Please know that fully grasping this point is anything but simple. In effect, I'm saying that we should be using the same method to identify ADD as we'd use to identify oak leaves and smiles. Moreover, I'm also saying that the only truly scientific way to know the nature of ADD is to learn to recognize the fractal patterns which define it. Recognizable patterns like eyes reaching out, widening a bit, and feeling positive versus eyes receding inward, narrowing a bit, and feeling squirmy are just such fractal patterns. This makes identifying and learning to recognize these kinds of patterns enormously important in everything from diagnosing and understanding ADD to knowing how best to help.

Not convinced yet as to the importance of learning to recognize these kinds of patterns? Know you've been using this kind of pattern recognition to test for truth all your life. As babies, we learn to recognize these kinds of patterns in our mother's face within minutes of being born. Moreover, know it or not, we continue to rely on these kinds of visual patterns for the rest of our lives.

Want to experience this for yourself? The next time you meet someone, before you speak one word, take a moment to consciously take in what you see on person's face. Then ask yourself who this person reminds you of. Take your time. This test only works if it's the first thing you do.

Now watch how you feel as the conversation unfolds, paying close attention to how your "first visual impression" sets the tone for what you expect this person to be like. This impression can often lead us to immediately like or dislike a person, including that some of what we expect may eventually turn out to be wrong.

In a way then, what I'm saying here about the eye patterns of folks with ADD is that these patterns tell us far more than words like "distraction" can ever tell us, including things like that these folks are frequently more motivated to learn than has previously been thought. Unfortunately, our first impressions of people with ADD appear to make them the very opposite. They often appear to be folks who have no interest in learning but in fact, any teacher who gets an ADD kid to be interested knows this impression is utter nonsense. When they are focused, kids with ADD love learning just as much as the other kids. We think otherwise mainly because we judge what we see on their faces to mean disinterest.

What would you find if you were to spend some time exploring these visual patterns? You'd find a very simple truth. That beneath it all, people with ADD simply focus too much on escaping their need to have the right answer, while folks with Asperger's focus too much on having the right answer and not enough on having good questions.

Now picture what I've just described, the basic difference between ADD and Asperger's. Said more simply, the biggest difference between these two conditions lies in the speed at which these two kinds of folks process words. Now ask yourself how true these two visual patterns of speed feel in your body? Now trust your gut. Attention deficits are not even close to what you see. Digressing into bluntness is the real deal here. And speed is the clue to the underlying problem.

Does it still sound like what I'm suggesting here is more based on vague guesswork than on hard science? If so, then try this. Try watching a foreign film wherein you have no knowledge of the language being spoken. Now turn off the subtitles and continue watching. After a few moments, ask yourself how well you can understand the gist of what is going on just from what you're seeing. You'll be surprised at how much you can sense merely by watching the fractal patterns of body language and such.

Even more to the point, try reading a line of text wherein you cover up the bottom half of the words. You'll be stunned at how much of the gist of these words you can get even from just seeing the fractal visual patterns of the upper halves of these words. Scientists use this test to reveal the underlying nature of learning language, including that much of what we think we read or hear is never actually there. The nature of typos, remember?

Okay, yes. This is a lot to take in. Moreover reading through all this is a whole lot harder than if I were to have given you a list of symptoms for ADD. The thing is, if you've gotten even the vaguest sense of how we learn to identify oak leaves, then you have the first clue as to how best to identify folks with ADD.

How do we best help people with ADD? Obviously, it's complicated. What I can tell you at this point though is this. The key to knowing how best to help folks with ADD has been in front of us all along, right there, in plain sight. Moreover the proof for this being true lies in a single, simple question. The question? Why does taking a medication which speeds up a person's sense of time help people with ADD to focus? Go slow now and for Pete's sake, don't look for the answer with logic alone.

What does a person's sense of time have to do with ADD anyway? Remember, you cannot arrive at a truly scientific answer unless you find the underlying visual pattern which always repeats differently. In truth, underlying fractal patterns are the only truly scientific way to define anything, including everything in the natural world.

Next month, I'll reveal the fractal which underlies ADD. I'll also show you a simple way to change a lot of this. A clue. It has everything to do with something I've been saying, the person's sense of speed. How could this help? I'll tell you next month.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached or read at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com .

Tags: ADD, attention deficit disorder, learning, body first person

Why Does My Child Keep Correcting Me? (Asperger's Fear #3)

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:28:00 GMT

One of the more difficult things about trying to help someone with Asperger's is they correct you a lot. Eight year olds. Forty three year olds. Twenty six year olds. It doesn't matter. Every person with Asperger's feels this same need; to be the guardian of correct words and ideas. Instantly and without exception. Ever wonder why they do this? This is what we're about to begin to look at. And yes, I said begin to look at. This topic is a doozy. A real Pandora's box.

What's the fear monster here? Oh boy, where do we begin. That you just cannot stand having this done to you one more day? That your little lovable know-it-all just insulted your next door neighbor again? That you're tired and angry and can't find it in you to set one more parental limit? That you fear you'll eventually lose it and toss someone through a window? Or jump through yourself!

Consistency is one of the pillars of good parenting. Yet being consistent with an Aspie child is like arguing gum off the sole of your shoe; it ain't happening without a world class struggle.

Giving clear direction is one of the main qualities of a good boss. Yet trying to be clear with the thirty two year old genius you just hired without them embarrassing you in front of your whole staff feels more like baby sitting your two year old nephew when it's past his bedtime. Or a game of erotic pictionary witnessed by your favorite minister. Or having your spouse start an argument when you're overtired and just want to close your eyes. Makes you want to hire dummies, or robots, doesn't it?

Then there's what happens to teachers. Giving visually stimulating examples is the heart and soul of good teaching; show don't tell, remember. Yet when your star fifth grade student has just interrupted you for the ninth time today and it's only 9:03. Arrgh. Worst of all, what he said was actually right every time. Disruptive and disrespectful. Yes. But he was correct in what he said. And everyone knows it. Oh boy.

What is going on here? It's simple. Frustratingly simple in fact. In fact, to see this, all you need do is picture a normal eighteen month old. Now picture what they are like when they are doing "show and tell."

What are they like? Cute, to be sure. Why? Because you so want this little being to grow up and be smart. And every time they hold up objects and correctly name them, you see more evidence they will. For instance, can you picture your little boy holding up your new, four hundred dollar designer eye glasses and saying, "glasses." At which point, you smile, nervously, yes, but proudly too. Then he does it again. "Glasses." To which you respond with something vaguely encouraging like, "Yes, look how smart my little man is. Very good, sweetie. Now put them down please." At which point, his little arm shoots up yet again and you realize this is not going to go down easy. Then it happens again. His little energetic arm shoots up and he laughs at you; "glasses." And he keeps on doing it until, at last, in frustration you grab the freakin' glasses out of his cute little energetic hand and physically hustle him away to some hopefully better distraction.

Ever thought about what it is babies are doing in these moments? Yes. I know. They are learning to speak words. And certainly this is amazing to watch. Indeed. But they are also annoying the crap out of you, by insisting they show you, again ,and again, that they know the correct word for the object they are holding up. Until at last you want to scream. "Glasses." "Glasses." "Glasses." "GlasseS." "GlasSES!" GLASSESS!

The feeling you feel in these moments is the thing to notice here. This and the specificity of what they're saying.

"Specificity?"

Yes. Specificity. The precise nature of what they are repeating. You see, even if medically minded folk are right about there being physiological differences between normal folk and people with Asperger's, when you've been corrected for the inth time and feel like killing someone, the science of it all doesn't matter one bit. You want answers. Real answers. Things you can actually use.

You want an answer? Well here's one. Learn to visually recognize Asperger's as an extended stay in the second year of life, and you will have a real foundation from which to solve for many of these problems.

How exactly does this work? You learn to hear the words Apsie's say as a second language; what I call, "fussy." As opposed to the kind of language normal folks use, which I call, "fuzzy." What's the difference?

When people speak fussy, they make giving or receiving information more important than connecting to people, whereas when people speak fuzzy, they do the opposite. They make connecting to people more important than giving or receiving information.

Can you see the difference yet? Well try this. Try picturing a balance scale loaded with the information in the left tray and the human connecting in right tray. Now consider the significance of what I've just said. Cold hard info on the left, warm fuzzy stuff on the right.

So can you seeing the significance of what I'm saying with regard to the social deficits of folks with Asperger's? And yes, scientists have noticed that the amygdalas in the brains of Apsie's are larger than normal, making these folks have stronger than normal reactions to the emotional content of facial reactions. However, the better scientists also admit this may be a chicken and an egg thing, in that something experiential may be causing these amygdalas to become larger.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The evidence is right in front of our faces. No pun intended. Children are normal at eighteen months old when they annoy the crap out of us with their verbal repetitions. But by eighteen years old, what was once cute and annoying has become the bane of our existence. And the essence of the condition we call Asperger's.

What can you actually do with what I've just told you? For one thing, you can use to see for yourself what it's like to have Asperger's. This in fact is the focus of this month's "interpersonal realization tool"; seeing for yourself what it's like to feel a compulsion to correct people.

What does this tool do exactly? Just what I said it does. It teaches you to personally recognize, and hear, one of the most basic defining qualities in all human communications; the fussy - fuzzy quality. Which just so happens to be one of the main ways folks with Asperger's differ from normal folks.

Imagine understanding what it's like to have Asperger's? Here's where you can begin.

Start by asking yourself which style of communication you prefer; warm and fussy or cold hard facts? Don't take you own words for this either. Check it out with someone who knows you well, someone who will tell you the truth.
Ask them which style they think you do more. Then ask a few more people. Then sit down and think back on your life. Now take it all in and look for your overall pattern. Fussy? Fuzzy? Which do you prefer?
Now consider how this preference affects every relationship you have, as far as how well others hear you. Or don't hear you. How people react to you. Are you fuzzy and are people always asking you to clarify what you say, meaning, they haven't a clue as to what you mean? Or are you fussy, meaning, you frequently annoy people by how many facts you offer. Not sure? Do people tell you things like, "could you get to the point please" to hurry you along? If so, then you're likely more fussy than fuzzy.
Consider for a moment what these results imply as far as your having relationships with others. Now realize this survey is just the beginning. What I mean is, no card carrying Apsie like myself would ever want you to just accept what I'm saying. We Aspies want you to see the truth in things for yourself. I know this to be one of the better qualities of folks with Asperger's. Along with that they're rarely prejudiced in the anti people sense of the word. So yes, Aspies want to correct your mistakes, but never just to be right but rather, mainly, to be helpful.
How about you then? Do you tend to be someone who feels urges to correct others? If you do it all the time, you may have Asperger's, or at least the features of Asperger's. If you do, then the next time you feel one of these urges, try to notice what you feel an urge to do. Blurt out a correction? Call the person stupid? Get them to speak correctly? Stop them from babbling nonsense?
If this is you, then consider what you may be missing in this scene; that in normal settings, people connect by making each other more important than the information they are talking about. And yes, there are times, emergencies mostly, wherein making information more important than people is the right thing to do. Even then though, forgetting people's feelings means people will not hear most of what you say.
Do you tend to be on the opposite end of this scale, someone who frequently finds themselves painfully enduring these kinds of lengthy discussions? One of the simplest tests for this is asking yourself if like talking about the weather. Do you? People who like talking about the weather most times don't really care about the weather. They're just saying things in order to have an excuse to be talking ,and possibly connecting. As two human beings being rather than as two encyclopedias informing.
Finally, remember what I've been telling you, that we're only beginning to address this particular fear monster. And yes, I have indeed used the word "beginning" like a year and a half old baby. Has this has annoyed you? Well then perhaps you're beginning to see my point. Meaning what exactly? Meaning the key to facing this fear monster is simply to learn to see folks with Asperger's as over efforting eighteen month olds rather than as disrespectful know-it-all's. If you can, you'll be amazed at how much this can help, especially when you feel the need to summon up the same love and patience you'd need to give an eighteen month old. The same love and patience you yourself deserve for putting up with this all this crap. The same love and patience we all deserve to give and get, every single day of our lives.

And at the risk of annoying you yet again, I need to say it once more (smile). This is only the beginning.

Arrgh!

To be continued next month . . .

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached at his site, http://theEmergencesite.com .

Tags: parenting, aspergerâ€™s, ASD, autism spectrum, helping kids with asperger's, correcting

Aspergers Autism Fear Monster #2 - Will my child ever be normal?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:19:12 GMT

Martin is a handsome thirty six year old man with a masters degree in history. He is also single, has had no full time job, and still lives at home with his mother. Not because he wants to, mind you, albeit she and he get along quite well. Rather, Martin has Asperger's, a rather serious case, and on a severity scale from one to ten I'd say Martin would rate a nine. On a good day.

The thing is, a lot of people with Asperger's somehow manage to have normal lives. Geeky in places, yes, but otherwise normal in the eyes of the world. So why has Martin, with his high IQ, struggled more than most? I've asked myself this question about Martin time and time again. It took me three years to find an answer I could live with.

For many years, Martin's mother had been asking herself this same question, each time Martin had a meltdown. At age three or four, the meltdowns were hard to endure. At thirty-six, they were beyond hard. They were almost unbearable.

Martin himself had frequently asked me this question as well, each time he spiraled into hopeless which in the first two years was often. And when he'd ask me, I'd do my best to find some shred of progress which might offer him hope. A light at the end of the tunnel which he could look forward to.

So will Martin ever be normal? My answer may surprise you. Moreover if you are the parent of a newly diagnosed Aspie, wondering if your child ever be normal may feel like the most difficult question you have to deal with.

My thoughts? Before I offer you an answer (and I will), I first need to tell you something about me. You see, I, too, have Asperger's, like Martin, a rather serious case. In fact, if asked to rate my own level of severity, I'd have say my Asperger's is just as serious as Martin's. This then begs the question, how have I managed to attain so much of what society would say makes me normal when a man as smart as Martin can't seem to find his way out of his meltdowns? What in fact makes Martin's life and mine so different? For that matter, why make such a big deal of the differences between Martin and I?

Why? Because in the answer to this question lies the key to resolving the "will my child ever be normal" question. So will your child ever be normal? Big breath now. No, your child will never be normal. At least not in the statistical sense of the word. He will always have Asperger's. This is not going to change.

At the same time, your child has the potential to live a very normal life. An exceptional life even. How? In the same way folks recovering from alcoholism achieve very normal lives. By looking at "what it was like, what happened, and what it is like now." In other words, by using a bit of the old contrast and compare.

Not sure to what I'm referring? Have I hit your "too good to be true" button? If so, then know you're in good company. In fact, if you read what experts say about Asperger's and at the same time, pay close attention to what they disagree about the most, you'd find this question; will my child ever be normal, underlies much of what they argue about. In truth, this question may be the biggest fear monster of all with regard to Asperger's. And apparently this holds true for professional and parents alike.

How then can I feel such admittedly blatant optimism? In the coming months, I'll be explaining this optimism to you. Including that I will offer you ways in which to make this very same kind of a difference. Know that each of the things Ill tell you is based on something which has helped both me and those I've worked with to live more normal lives. And in a moment, I'll share with you the first of these ideas.

Before I do though, I need to qualify something. When I say, "live more normal lives," I am not merely referring to ways in which people with Asperger's can learn to imitate normal. I, myself, strongly oppose interventions which ask that anyone pretend to be normal. Rather, I'm talking about ideas which may lead to genuine, life changing possibilities, each built on finding the positives in Asperger's, as opposed to trying to eliminate what many folks see as the "brokenness" of Asperger's

Of course, the real question you need answered here is the one prototype American psychologist, William James, frequently asked himself a hundred years ago, whenever he wanted to know if something was true. He would ask himself if this idea held any "cash value"; if it was pragmatically true. So is there any cash value to ideas which may help an Aspie to feel more comfortable around normal folks? Ask Martin. Last year he had his first ever romantic relationship. His meltdowns have decreased to the point where they may soon become extinct. And currently, he's happily employed for the first time in years.

How did he manage to do this? Again, the key lies mainly in knowing how I, myself, managed to escape the almost Saturnian gravity of Asperger's when Martin did not. How did I? It's simple really. All Aspies, regardless of age, share a common thread; their special interests. And as luck would have it, unlike the interests of most Aspies, my special interest; human personality, generalizes to society at large. A fortunate coincidence, to be sure.

At the same time, I've had to learn that my special interest may not be interesting to others. As well as some rather mundane but related concepts such as that people talk about the weather so as to have an excuse to connect, and not so much because they give a hoot about the weather.

Has knowing this stuff made me normal (smile)? Not exactly (sigh). And if you put me in a social situation and bring up the Yankees, you'd see this right away. However, over the past few years, I've learned to love being in social settings in ways I never thought possible. I've also helped quite a few Aspies to feel the same way. Most important, I've been able to repeat what I've done with remarkable certainty.

What does all this mean as far as actually helping someone with Asperger's? Of if you, yourself, have Asperger's, what does this mean about helping yourself?

In the coming months, I'll be sharing a lot regarding the idea that the real goal for Aspies should be their becoming comfortable with being around normal, rather than on being normal. As for how these ideas work, they all have one thing in common. They hold the potential to provoke what I call an "emergence." Or said in normal language, the potential to cause an "aha"; a personal realization.

Why an "aha?" Because, while there are many good sounding ideas out there, only aha's are permanent. Why? Because in the process of having them, a person's very nature gets altered. This means the cash value of these ideas continues to exist even on bad days; even when a person's will power wears thin; even when the person forgets why he is using them.

This permanence then is why I call these ideas, "interpersonal realization tools." Each idea holds the power to help someone with Asperger's, or someone who loves someone with Asperger's, to face yet another aspect of the "will I even be normal" fear monster head on, and to do this in a lasting way.

So if you have Asperger's, will you ever be normal? By now, you know my answer. No, you won't. At the same time, you can learn to love being around normal, and in doing so stop feeling so alone and afraid.

Now let me introduce you to this month's "interpersonal realization tool"; learning to see the difference between the special interests of Aspies and the interests of normal folk.

Social skills deficits are the hallmark of any autism, whether this be Asperger's, Kanner's, or otherwise. With Asperger's, the key to understanding what prevents these social skills from developing lies in the idea that Aspies have "special interests." Moreover this idea holds true regardless of what physiological differences and or special circumstances may underlie this condition. What makes these interests "socially special"? Asking yourself this question is a good place to begin to change.
Now try contrasting and comparing this aspect of the Asperger's personality with the way normal folks behave. All Aspies have these kinds of all-consuming special interests. Most normal folks do not. This in part is what makes it so hard for normal folks to understand how people with Asperger's can be so blind when it comes to knowing how it feels to be on the other end of one of their impromptu dissertations. As well as what makes it so hard for normal folks to see why Aspies get so hurt and angry when normal folks cut them off. Which they do, of course, only so as to keep from drowning in an informational deluge.
This then is a good starting point from which to help someone with Asperger's to become more authentically normal. Have this person explore the idea that all Aspies have special interests, and all normal folks do not. At least, not all-consuming ones. How might you best help them do this? Ask them to make a list of their special interests. And for God's sake, please do make sure you tell them the rules for making this list (smile).
What are the rules? Rule one. The list may have one thing on it, or it may have ten things on it. It may also have changed a lot over their lifetime, or it may have remained the same since age three. Whatever the case, the rules are the same. The list must be limited to what fits on one side of one page. Rule two. Each item on this list must be limited to a title and one paragraph. No more than this and no less. Rule three. They must be given a full 24 hours in which to write this list. They must also feel free to use as much or as little of this time as needed. At the same time, whatever they come up with must be promptly turned in to you within an hour of it being done. Finally Rule Four. There are only three rules.
Now leave them alone and do not ask them how they are doing. Even if you see them doing nothing, let them be. And if the person is too young to make this list on their own, then create a time in which the two of you can do this together, remembering that the goal is not to make a perfect list. Insights do not require perfection. Only seeing beauty where you did not expect it. Doing your best is all that's required then. You can do no more.
When the list is complete, have the person sit down with family members and ask them if they too have any special interests. Before beginning though, be sure to let the Aspie know that they are not allowed to share their list for now, that for now, it is to remain private. For people with Asperger's, this alone can be an eye opening experience. It can also be the beginning of understanding what the normal world calls, "boundaries."
The overall goal here is simple. If you can help an Aspie to see what makes their interests "special," then this idea alone can create great insight and hope in them. After all, these folks very much want someone to tell them what normal is. Which is why they constantly ask you to tell them, and remind you of, the "rules." The thing is, "normal" is not something rules can describe. Moreover, if you doubt this, then try reading what personality theorists see as the rules behind what motivates humans to do anything, match making to back scratching. Then compare what they say to what you know to be normal. And trust yourself. Whatever they say, your experience is the real truth. Unless of course you think there actually is such a thing as a "normal" which is defined by rules. In which case, you may want to have yourself evaluated for Asperger's.
The next step then would be to learn to see these special interests as something more than a social deficit. Here the thing to remember is that beneath these socially alienating behaviors beats a heart of gold. What I'm saying is, regardless of what it may seem like on the outside, people with Asperger's are amongst the most caring, least prejudiced, and most motivated people I know. The problem lies in that they find it hard to believe others do not share the same all-consuming interests. This is why they tend to react so defensively when asked to refrain from sharing about these special interests, and why they can feel so ashamed when this happens.
Finally, if you keep in mind why they share these special interests, it can help. They share them mainly because it is their way to connect to others socially. Thus if you can see these interests for what they are, then you have the beginnings of understanding what it's like to have Asperger's. These special interests are their only escape from the profound loneliness Aspies feel. This makes helping them, and you, to see the nature of these special interests the beginning of teaching them to love being around "normal."

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached or read at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Tags: asperger's, autism, helping parents and children

The Eyes as the Window to the Soul

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:51:31 GMT

Have you ever felt unsure as to whether you were dreaming or awake? How about whether what you thought you were seeing was really there? In truth, we all feel things like this at times. And even if all you get baffled by is an odd sounding noise or a hand and finger shadow rabbit, reality can be quite an elusive thing. Especially if you are deeply engrossed in something. A movie. An infatuation. A deep sleep or a dream. In this, the final chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to explore the experience we claim we are looking for in talk therapy. We're going to explore reality. And how what we visualize affects our perception of it. Are you sure what you saw in the shadows was not the boogie man? How can you be sure? Are you really sure? Let's see.

"Getting a Little Movement"
One of the more lasting conversations I've had in recent years was with a man named Tony. Tony is a chiropractor. At the time, I was on his table and had asked him what he looks for when he is adjusting people. His answer? He told me that all he tries to do is to "get a little movement."

Know this chiropractor is one of the smartest men I know when it comes to body mechanics. He also has a masters degree in engineering and extensive training in nutrition. Thus the simplicity of his comment surprised me. What stayed with me though and what has continued to amaze me is how Tony's comment so points to the strong parallels which exist between our two professions. And yes, the focus of our practices is obviously different; Tony focuses on the body and I, on the mind. Even so, when you boil down what we do to its simplest forms, our underlying goals are the same; we both look to get a little movement. Tony, in the body. And me, in the mind.

Where am I going with all this? It turns out that movement is one of the best ways to gauge peoples' progress in therapy. It is also one of the best ways to learn to see the mind body connection. Unfortunately, even knowing this may not enable you to see this movement. Why? Because while most people find it easy to see how the laws of physics apply to physical movement, for the most part, seeing how they apply to what is going on in the mind is not so easy. Unless of course you understand what I've drawn in this chapter's diagram; how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye. In which case, seeing how the mind and body connect is a no brainer. No pun intended.

What does this diagram represent?

Start with this. Instead of focusing on testing for yourself whether these ideas are true, try clearing the workspace in your mind the same way you might clear a physical workspace. Next consider what it is we are about to explore. We are going to explore the mind body connection. How? By exploring how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye.

What skills will we need? We'll obviously need to know a few things about how the laws of physics work. A few of the more basic concepts. Including that all laws in physics can be reduced to one rather deceptively simple category of statements; they are all descriptions of how something moving in time and space relates to and effects other things.

How do these descriptions reveal the mind body connection? It turns out that because our physical sensations are the source of much of what we mentally envision and imagine, that what we envision and imagine is governed by the same laws which govern these sensations. The laws of physics. Thus even when we imagine doing things which supersede the laws of physics, such as when we dream of flying and such, because we are being guided in part by what we physically sense, these laws still apply.

So yes. The laws of physics affect everything. Even what we dream. Not such a hard concept to take in really. What complicates this though is the idea that this process occurs in reverse as well; what we imagine creates sensation. Thus, no matter what we imagine, these imaginings create sensations. And because they do, the laws of physics govern even our imaginings.

This is why hearing a strange noise in the night may convince us someone is in the house. We get awakened by what we believe to be an actual noise. Then we imagine a stranger is in the house. Of course, then, as we strain to discern what it is we are hearing, our imaginations create more physical sensations in us. All of which combine and interact until we become unable to know fantasy from reality.

Here then is the main thing which makes it hard for us to test for reality. Even in talk therapy. Because sensation creates the mind and the mind creates sensation, we can have a heck of a hard time determining what is real. Both out in life and in the world of the therapy room. And lest you think this difficulty is limited to what we experience in our minds and bodies, please know this idea is one of the more debated ideas in science; to what degree does what we think affect the world around us. Including the laws of physics.

The good news though is that there are things we can know with certainty. Including about the laws of physics. The main thing being that these laws are what connect the body and the mind. Which is why you have heard me repeatedly call these laws, the psychophysical laws. Or the "mind body" laws if you will.

What makes this idea so important? Talk therapy claims to be helping us to know reality. Yet in general, talk therapy seems to ignore these laws. This despite the fact that if we accept that these two worlds; the world of the body and the world of the mind, are governed by the same set of laws, then we can begin to measure reality simply by measuring the degree to which the body and mind parallel each other's movements over time.

Not sure of what I'm saying here? I'm saying that while we experience our minds and bodies differently in many ways, in one aspect they never differ. They both ground themselves in physical sensation. Thus they both follow the same laws with regard to space, time, and movement. Moreover, the easiest way to measure this sameness is to observe the timing of when you sense things moving in space. In the body; physically. And in the mind; psychologically.

Interestingly enough, while this idea does not appear in writing until 1860 (Elemente der Psychophysik, Gustav Theodor Fechner, 1860), we can find this same parallel implied in writing several thousand years earlier. In what has become one of the most recanted wisdom's of all times; "as above, so below."

Not familiar with this saying? It is said to have come from something called the Emerald Tablet and is the core wisdom of a philosophy in existence around the time of Jesus. Hermetic Philosophy.

What is the Emerald Tablet? According to legend, it is a tablet said to have been discovered in a cave tomb clutched in the hands of the corpse of Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian priest and sage reputed to have been be one of the wisest men of antiquity. Legends differ on who discovered this tablet. One says it was Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Another says it was Apollonius of Tyana. Whatever the case, this tablet was supposed to contain the magical secrets of the entire universe. Inscribed in Phoenician. Unfortunately, while several arabic translations exist and a Latin translation from about, 1200 AD, none of these translations are identical and little on the Tablet appears to make sense.

Why mention this legendary tablet? Because this saying, "as above, so below," does indeed state one of the deepest secrets in our universe. What? The essential quality of what I see to be the consummate test for truth. The idea I refer to as "fractility."

What is fractility? My definition? It is a quality by which something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat differently regardless of scale. As opposed to the essential quality of linear geometry wherein something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat identically regardless of scale.

Why mention fractility? Because this chapter focuses on how we can know reality. And in our world, fractility is the only authentic test for truth. Thus if an idea is fractal, then it is one hundred percent true. Every oak leaf is a true oak leaf. Every snow flake a snow flake. Whereas if an idea is not fractal, while it may contain a partial truth, at best, it is only partially true. Thus a person may test as competent by getting all A's in school. Yet this same person may be unable to translate any of this into real world skills.

Okay. So if something has fractility, we can know it to be one hundred percent true. And if it does not then we can know that it is at least partially untrue. Doesn't the partial truth contained therein have value though?

Actually, other than as a coarse test for truth, most times, this kind of knowing is less valuable than being certain you know nothing. Why? Because you cannot know for sure which part is true and which is not.

Now take a minute to let this idea sink in.

Now let's come at this from a different angle.

We know with certainty that nothing which occurs in the natural world occurs in a linear fashion. For example, there are no naturally occurring straight lines. Nor are there any naturally occurring perfect geometric shapes. Despite our knowing this with certainty though, oddly, we continue to use linearity as the test for truth in everything from our sciences to our psychologies.

How does the saying, "as above, so below," apply to all this?

It turns out that the parallel I've been referring to throughout the book; the one between our bodies and our minds, is the only linearity in our world. To wit, there is a linear relationship between the laws which govern our physical world and the laws which govern our psyches. In other words, as go the laws which govern the world at large, so go the laws which govern us. Thus, as above, so below.

This means when we say in physics that time is relative to the observer, we are not only saying that moving at close to the speed of light changes how physical time passes. We are also saying that our sense of how long it takes for things to change inside us can vary. For example when astrophysicists posit how we might actually time travel, they are exploring relativity. And when we say there are times wherein being in love makes a minute feel like an hour and an hour feel like a minute, we are referring to the same laws.

Likewise, when we say in physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we are referring to one of the more basic laws of our physical world. But when we say this, we might as well be saying that the laws of karma apply to physics, as in, what goes around, comes around, both for objects and for us.

Why makes such a big deal out of this parallel in a book on talk therapy? Just this. If you rely on a psychological truth for your means to get to know someone, then you are doomed to failure. Why? Because you are assuming the same linearity which makes most sciences fail more than succeed. However, if you learn the laws of physics and then seek parallel images for these laws in peoples' minds and bodies, then you'll be on a path which at least in theory can lead to truly knowing them. And everything else about reality and human nature.

What would be the best way to get onto this path? As I said, by using the laws of physics to find the parallels in how things move over time. Beginning with the first half of this cycle. How noticing physical movement leads to our thoughts and feelings.

In other words, the first thing to master in your journey toward knowing how reality works is to learn how noticing sensation (becoming aware of physical movement) affects what you think and feel. Moreover, this entire mastery begins with one simple idea; knowing how the two worlds, the world of the mind and the world of the body, intersect at the plane of the eye.

Do you think you know how this works already? You may. Just the same, let's look together.
[click here to read the rest of The Eyes as the Window to the Soul ]

Tags: talk therapy, mind body connection, psychophysical, emergence personality theory

Thoughts, Feelings, and Talking in Therapy

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:27:58 GMT

We're almost done with the book. Can you feel it? Yet as far as discussing talk therapy, we've only just begun. Okay. So yes. You knew this already. But did you also know that these two feelings are what people should feel throughout the course of talk therapy? After all, we are one of the deepest mysteries in the Universe. Human beings. Then again, the real mystery here is where what we think and feel comes from. As well as whether our memories contain what we think and feel. Never thought about it? Well you should. Especially since being asked what you think and feel in therapy conflicts with what I've been saying about the mind and body. Not sure what I'm getting at? You're about to find out, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

What The F Are Thoughts and Feelings?
In the opening chapter I joked that the standard bad therapist's line, so how did that make you feel?, should be a signal to run for the door. Yet we all know, intuitively at least, that in the service of getting to know ourselves, that we'll need to answer these kinds of questions. Again and again, in fact.

The thing is, despite knowing we'll need to endure these somewhat vapid requests, we're never told directly what we're being asked for; what a feeling is. Let alone where we should be looking for this information.

Imagine if the guys behind the deli lunch counter did this. Or the salesman at the car dealer. Or the customer service woman at the bank help desk. Or the head of sales at the reality office. Imagine what it would be like if they never told you what they need from you. You'd never get what you want. Not sure what I'm saying? Well consider this. Consider how talk therapy usually unfolds.

Tom, the decent therapist: "So Sidney, when your teacher, Ms. Wordsworth, scolded you, what did you feel?"

Here the therapist is asking Sidney what is perhaps the most common question a therapist could ask a client; for the client to recall what he felt in a certain situation. The underlying assumption? That we record, and can recall from memory, our thoughts and feelings. Can we? Common sense observations point overwhelmingly to that this is highly unlikely. As well as to that we probably make this stuff up on the fly. However, because of the way therapists voice this question, we infer they believe the opposite; that we do record our thoughts and feelings in memory. Moreover, because this unspoken assumption is a mainstay of the therapy, the client then responds to this request without ever questioning this assumption.

Sidney, the ADD client: (a long blank pause, followed by) "Well, doc, I don't know. Mad, I suppose?"

Here the client offers the therapist what is perhaps the most common answer a client could offer a therapist; a guess voiced as a question. That this answer is voiced as a question is a sure sign the client is asking the therapist if this is what he should have felt. To which a decent therapist might respond by offering Sidney some help, probably in the form of some possible answers for what he might have felt. A great therapist, on the other hand, would bypass this question by asking Sidney to check in with his body. In other words, to notice where and what he was physically feeling, if anything. His here and now sensations. Tightness. Heaviness. And so on. As well as what he felt about being asked this question.

Tom, the decent therapist: "Well Sidney, when you tell someone to go F themselves, usually you are feeling mad."

Since Tom is a decent therapist, not a great one, he suggests a possible answer. This answer assumes not only that Sidney recorded his feelings in memory but also that his feelings make logical sense. And while this kind of logic is often absent from what people feel, when a therapist suggests a logic with which to frame feelings, people usually feel better. More so when what they say they felt pleases the therapist. Which then prompts the client to say things like the following.

Sidney, the ADD client: "Well then I guess that is what I must have felt. Yes. Mad. That's it. I was mad. Really mad."

Here Sidney the client agrees to say he recalls feeling what the therapist suggested. Including that what he felt makes logical sense. By this point, Sidney may even be feeling this anger in his body as the body often takes it's lead from the mind.

Tom, the decent therapist: "That's great Sidney. You're doing a good job of getting in touch with what you felt then."

Here the therapist rewards the client for fabricating the proper feelings. Decent therapists describe this process as that the "client has gained insight." In reality, there is no way to know for sure this is what the client felt. Or if the therapist has instilled these feelings in the client. We can only know that the client is now sure this is what he must have felt, and that he feels better knowing that what he felt makes sense.

Okay. So not all therapists are this cliche. Still, when therapists ask clients to recall their thoughts and feelings, this is what they are asking their clients to do. And when clients ask therapists to clarify what they are asking for, therapists often have no way to do this. Other than to rephrase the question with different words, or to offer the client logically possible answers.

Why don't therapists have a better way to explain what a feeling is? Over the years I've asked myself this many times.

I've also struggled to find a way to answer these requests. After all, it is me who is asking folks to tell me what they feel. Shouldn't I be able to clarify for them what feelings are?

The truth? I should. But until now, I haven't been able to. So what have I done? I've done what many other talk therapists do. I've danced around the question, with everything from showing pictures of faces labeled with feelings words to long winded dissertations on the nature of emotion. All the while hoping, I guess, that the person would intuit what a feeling is.

How does this usually work out? More times than not, between the two of us, we somehow manage to make this work. Probably because most people are quite willing to fish for their feelings the same way that I do, all the while supposing, I guess, that they will somehow stumble onto the "right feelings." At which point hopefully my face lights up so that we can both assume, they and I, that they now know what it was they thought and felt back then.

Does this fishing for feelings do any good?

In many cases, it does. People get to see how dumb therapists are. And that we're no better off than they are. With regard to naming our feelings anyway. On the other hand, if you were to ask me to seriously consider if this process helps people, in the grand scheme of things, I'd say it probably does as more to confuse people than it does to heal them.

This then has been the state of talk therapy. People asking other people to fabricate feelings on the spot, all the while assuming people store their feelings in their memories. In hindsight, I feel amazed by this. As well as by the fact that we have somehow been helping anyway. This said, I cannot count the number of times I've felt at a loss as to how to teach people what feelings are. As well as worried that what I am saying might be biasing them away from their truth.

So let me ask you. Has this even happened to you? Have you ever felt pressured to put this vagueness we call feelings into words that feel true? And have you ever tried to define for someone else what feelings are only to come up against this very vagueness?

Of course, the proof for this vagueness lies in the very books with which we define our words; our dictionaries. Including my old standby, the massive twenty three volume OED. To its credit though it does offer us our first clue. That the word feelings derives from Greek and Latin words, both of which mean the palm of your hand.

What does this imply? It implies that feelings derive from sensations. After all, palm is an obvious reference to that feeling things means touching things. But touching what? Touching the wall? Touching moments? What do we touch when we feel things? Unfortunately, the OED does not say.

Then there's the vagueness surrounding this word in everyday life. For instance we commonly use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our heads. As in what we feel about something; our opinions about it. At the same time we also use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our hearts. What we feel period. Our emotions.

Here then is our second clue; that the word feelings can refer both to our thoughts and to our emotions. As in this word can refer to two variations of the same thing.

Then there is our third clue; that at the same time, we also use these two words, thoughts and feelings, to refer to two separate and distinct experiences. Each with its own set of rules and such.

For instance when the word feelings refers to what is in our hearts, feelings can be neither right nor wrong. As in, feelings aren't facts. Yet when the word feelings refers to what is in our heads, feelings are right. Or wrong. Or both. As in the "right thinking" of Buddhism. And the right way of thinking in politics.

So what is a feeling? A thought? An emotion? And which is it, can they be wrong or not?

To me, these questions define one of the major dilemmas in talk therapy today. The dilemma? That we refer to thoughts and feelings as if they are two varieties of the same thing while at the same time, we refer to them as being two different things. One of which can never be wrong, the other, frequently wrong. Or even inconsequential at times as in, "it's just your opinion."

Now take a breath. And still your mind. Now notice your body while you consider this.

I've just suggested we have three clues as to what the word feelings actually means. One. That feelings derive from physical sensations. Two. That feelings, as thoughts and emotions, are two aspects of the same thing. And three. That we treat thoughts and emotions are two separate and distinct things.

Now consider how what I've just told you so parallels what I've been saying about views of the four philosophers on the mind and the body. As well as the views of more modern folks. Scientists and such.

To wit, I've told you that some folks, the materialists, believe our feelings arise from our bodies. From what we feel in our bodies. Sensation itself. Thus here we have a whole lot of folks who believe feelings stem from sensation. Which explains why we would use the word feelings to refer to sensations.

I've also told you that Spinoza believed that the experiences of the mind and body were two aspects of the same thing. Thus here we have clue two; that our thoughts and feelings are two aspects of the same thing. Which would explain our using the word feelings to refer to both.

In addition, I've told you that Descartes believed our experiences of the mind and body were two separate and distinct things. And if we use the word feelings in the clue number three sense of how we commonly use it to refer to emotion, we can say that Descartes two separate and distinct things were thoughts and feelings. Again, a usage we already use, and the root of our having two separate and distinct rules by which to live.

Now add in that when we apply Herbart's threshold of perception to Descartes and Spinoza's ideas, we see how all these things come together. You see Herbart's line is the threshold of sensation. Above which we experience thoughts and feelings as it they are two separate things, thoughts coming from the mind and feelings from the body. And below which thoughts and feelings turn out to be two aspects of the same thing, a single continuum extending from the mind to the body; from thoughts to feelings.

Finally add in my recent discoveries about the mind and body. That the speed at which we sample our physical sensations is what determines whether we experience physical sensation as thoughts or as feelings and you have solved one of the greatest mysteries in human personality. What a feeling is. So what is it? It's all the things I've just described and a whole lot more. Starting with the ideas we've just discussed, all of which already appear in our everyday language. The ideas?

That feelings derive from the physical sensations we sense along our spines. This roughly approximates the path described by the existential mystical practice of yoga in ancient India and by doing so, honors many modern day healing practices. Note this does not imply the materialism of modern western medicine; that the body gives rise to the mind. Rather, by including the brain in this vertical path, we infer Descartes mind / body interactionism; the idea that not only does the body give rise to the mind, but also that the mind gives rise to the body. As in we can mentally imagine sensation which then gets physically felt in the body.
That the speed at which we sample these physical sensations determines which of Descartes two conscious experiences we have. Either mind sensations / thoughts, which are the things we sample at the faster rates, or body sensations / feelings, which are the things we sample at the slower rates. Here thoughts would include all reasons and logic and attempts at reason and logic. Whereas feelings would include all emotions as well as our intuitions and gut reactions.
That beneath these two experiences this lies a single continuum of sensation, consistent with Spinoza's idea that the mind and body are two aspects of one thing. Expressed as physical sensation, it runs from the top of the head to the base of the spine and includes the rest of the physical body at heights approximating the points at which the limbs and such attach to the spine. And expressed psychologically, it runs from the fastest sensations; pure thoughts, to the slowest sensations; pure feelings.

Now add to all this that we can easily observe all these things in ourselves. Including that we each have a default preference for which of these two ways we experience life, either as quickly sampled thoughts or as slowly sampled feelings.

Here then is the thing talk therapists have been needing all along; a way to define what they have been asking us for. And yes, this does not address the ambiguity present in our everyday day language, as far as the word feelings referring to everything from physical sensation to thoughts and emotions. However, it does at least begin to address what underlies this ambiguity.

This then leads us back to the action part of these requests; that we recall our thoughts and feelings. And to my assertion that we cannot do this. That we do not store thoughts and feelings but rather make them up on the fly. As we sense them. Even about the past.

So where do thoughts and feelings come from? This is what we're about to explore. Starting with what to me is a rather amazing coincidence. The idea that this possibility; that we make up our thoughts and feelings on the fly, has been around for a hundred years. Including as one of the main beliefs of one of America's first psychologists. Harvard professor, William James.

What did James have to say? Let's look.

[click here to read the rest of Thoughts, Feelings, and Talking in Therapy]

Tags: talk therapy, psychology, mind body connection, emergence personality theory, thoughts and feelings

ADD and Learning - a Mystery Solved

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:26:05 GMT

How would you rate your ability to stay focused, especially on new ideas? Are you quick to catch on, or do you usually need more time? Can you learn from reading, or are you better hands on? And how's your attention span? Are you easily distracted, or can you stay on track? Do you in fact have ADD? This then is what we're about to explore. How getting distracted affects your ability to learn. Including that folks with ADD learn some things better than those who don't have it. Does this surprise you? Does it contradict what you know? Can you guess what I'm referring to? Let's see. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

How About a Little Less Defining and a Little More Helping Please
"Pay attention, Sidney."

"F off Miss Wordsworth."

"What did you just say!"

"You heard me. F off."

"Sidney. Go to the principal's office. Right now."

"Thank you, Miss Wordsworth."

It's Hard To Treat What We Cannot Define
Many folks today take for granted we know how to define ADD. Yet if you were to Google ADD, you'd find an incredible variety of conflicting opinions. One site says, "ADD is a brain-based disorder that affects all aspects of one's life." Another says it is "a psychological term currently applied to anyone who meets the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for impulsivity, hyperactivity and / or inattention." Another says it is a "neurobiologically-based developmental disability estimated to affect between 3-5% of the school age population." Yet another says it is "one of the most common childhood behavior disorders." And yet another says, "About 35% of all children referred to mental health clinics are referred for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. It is one of the most prevalent of all childhood psychiatric disorders."

So what is ADD? A "brain-based disorder"? A "psychological term"? A "neurobiologically-based developmental disability"? A "common childhood behavior disorder"? A "childhood psychiatric disorder"? Anyone have a clue? And yes. I know. ADD as a diagnosis is now passe. The term currently in vogue is ADHD with and without HD. Which to be honest, seems a bit convoluted don't you think? What is ADHD without HD? AD? ADHD minus HD? Sitting still but still not knowing what the heck is going on ADD? Argumentative Disruptive Disorder with a side order of stillness?

Obviously, there's something wrong here. These definitions all disagree. Moreover if we cannot agree on a definition, how can we possibly help.

Let's try this. Let's set aside all this technical talk and only look at what is obvious. Starting with that we all get distracted. And lose our focus. However some of us have a harder time getting the gist of new ideas. Especially when they are taught in fast paced classrooms where teachers rely more on words than deeds.

What am I saying? I'm saying that there are folks who do poorly in classrooms wherein fast paced word based learning is the norm. As opposed to slow paced action based learning. Moreover what makes this relevant to ADD is that these folks, the ones who have trouble with fast paced word based learning, are the ones who get ADD labels.

Now let me explain why.

The Two Gifts of Learning
Okay. What I've just referred to, rather abruptly, are the two main styles of classroom learning. Fast paced word based learning. And slow paced action based learning. Moreover, I've just used the first of these two styles; fast paced word based learning, to introduce these two ideas.

The thing is, while some folks will be fine with my having done this and will now be wanting to know more, others will have been jarred by this and may already be feeling lost.

If this is you, please take a breath.

Now notice what you're feeling, not what you're thinking. Your body, not your mind, remember?

Now gently give in to that you got lost, close your eyes and clear your mind.

Now open your eyes and imagine that I have placed two beautiful gift boxes in front of you. Notice the colors and ribbons and such.

Now read the name tags on these two gifts and see your name written there. In beautiful blue and yellow fountain pen ink. Complete with curls and swirls.

These two gifts are for you.

But you have to open them slowly.

Know if you open these gifts slowly, you will get the gifts. And if you hurry and open them quickly, you will likely throw out the gifts with the wrapping.

This is true in the classroom too. Words are the wrapping, not the gift. Remember and you'll get so much more.

Being Body First is ADD
For chapters now, I've been telling you that we all fall into one of two groups. Either you're in the Mind First person group or you're in the Body First person group.

I've also been telling you that there are two main differences between these two groups. The speed at which they sense life; quickly or slowly. And the place wherein these folks first sense life; either in their minds or in their bodies.

Which is which?

Mind First folks prefer to sample life quickly, while Body First folks prefer to sample slowly. Moreover, quickly sensed things become thoughts to human beings, whereas slowly sensed things become feelings.

Who does all this have to do with ADD and with the two styles of classroom learning? Basically just this. Because Mind First folks feel more at home with thoughts expressed quickly, they do best with fast paced word based learning. And because Body First folks feel more at home with physically based learning delivered at a nice slow pace, they do best with slow paced action based learning.

The thing is, because most folks see getting the gist of things quickly as the proof someone is smart, fast paced word based learning has become the norm in today's classrooms. And Mind First students, the stars. Which means what? Which means that Body First folks, those who learn best from slow paced action based learning, get relegated to what are seen as the dumb classes. You know. Home economics. Auto mechanics. Wood shop. Things like that.

So how do we explain putting kids in these classes? With words like aptitude and performing below grade level. And yes, overtly, their not keeping up with the "smart kids" is seen as no ones fault. However, in some ways, this is seen as the kid's fault. He or she just can't pay attention, remember. Hence the label; ADD.

My point here is, because we see speed with words as equating to intelligence, we see Mind First folks as smart and Body First folks as dumb. Or slow, if you use the more vague and indirect reference. Moreover, if you look at the symptoms we use to define ADD, you'll find they all describe Body First people.

So do all Body First folks deserve ADD labels? Absolutely not. In fact, no one does. And when you see how all this stems from not knowing about the mind body connection, you'll see why I'm saying this.

ADD in the Classroom
The upshot of having ADD is, this entitles you to "special help." What does the help look like? You get segregated from your peers. And slotted in with the dumb kids. Not the best of positions for a kid to be in. Then there's the visits to the school guidance counselor, where you get asked questions like, "So Sidney, how's the math going. Did you pull up the english grade? And is the medication still working for you?"

Of course, no one takes seriously your complaints about how you're being taught. Why not? Because they're certain they already know what your problem is. It's some combination of your genetics, your parents, the food you eat, and your bad attitude. Which means what? Which means you have to hear things at home like, 'Sidney, did you remember to take your pill. You know how you get when you don't take it?"

And when you ask how long you'll have to be on this stuff? Why of course. You might have to take it for the rest of your life. Which between this and the segregation and the being patronized, probably kills any desire left in you to even try to learn. Exit stage left the beautiful urges you were born with to explore your world.

Then there's the dreadful blankness you feel in school. Sure you're less restless now that you're on the medication. But what about the pain of boredom? The truth? More times than not, you simply long for the day to end. Or at times, you blurt out answers hoping to find some way to fit in. Even when these answers involve the right words though, more times than not, they make no sense. Or stray off the topic. Or challenge the teacher's authority.

And when you do this, what happens? In essence, everyone ignores you. Or just sighs. Or pities you. Once again. And yes. The whole class knows you just offered a hollow answer. But no one cares enough to call you on it. Too much trouble. So the focus just moves off you and you get ignored and forgotten. Or if the teacher's in a bad mood, then you get seen as disruptive and perhaps, get kicked out of class.

So are folks with ADD dumb?

The odd thing is, if you go by IQ scores, a lot of these folks have higher than average IQs. This I know personally. Some of the smartest folks I know fit this exact criteria. More than you might have imagined.

What's up with these smart but inattentive folks then? Are they smart but bored? Rebellious to a fault? Brilliantly disruptive? Victims of a mystery condition? The truth? It's none of this. In fact, despite all the conjecture about gross brain scan dimness and vaccinations, studies show people with ADD are neither dumber nor smarter than the average bear. They're just people whose minds and bodies respond differently to learning situations. Literally. In fact, the current research shows that in brain scans, less of their brains light up. Which only offers more proof for the mind body differences I've proposed.

Unfortunately the world hasn't caught on yet to that there is a second brain in us. The enteric nervous system. Moreover, even the folks who champion this as being physiologically important fail to look at how this affects learning. This despite the solid evidence that the gut is the home to our intuition and emotion.

Would we find that people with ADD light up more in their bodies than Mind First folks? The psychological evidence overwhelmingly points to this. Whatever the case though, we need to remember what our purpose is here. We are trying to help. Thus I'm not sure we need to wait for this evidence. In fact, I'm sure we do not. We need to do something now.

What can we do? We can start with a better definition.

What Is ADD Then?
Seriously now, so what is ADD?

[click here to read the rest of ADD and Learning - a Mystery Solved]

Tags: ADD, emergence personality theory, talk therapy

Managing Overeating - a Mind Body Speedometer

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:08:47 GMT

Of all the issues I hear in therapy, no ongoing issue seems to frustrate people more than being overweight. Broken hearts. They mend eventually. Death and dismemberment. A snap. But being overweight? Whew. It's the bane of banes. So now, let me ask you. Has overeating been a problem for you? Have you struggled with your weight? Have you dieted and failed or regained the weight? Is there even a way to manage overeating? These are the questions we're about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

"Fat Jokes and Thin Jokes"
As I combed the Internet for this chapter's opener, I came across this obnoxious little bit of weight directed hatred: "When fat people pass wind, if you're caught in the updraft, you lose days off your life ! It's a scientific fact!"

Did I just make laugh? Get you mad or insult you? Do you fear this chapter is already off track? If so, then consider this. My mother was forty eight when she died. At the time, she was 5'6" and weighed all of seventy pounds. And when I walked into the hospital ICU that day, I could barely find it in me to look at her. She was little more than a skeleton covered with skin. To say I felt afraid is an understatement. And what made it worse was how ashamed I was to show this fear. My own mother and I couldn't even look. How sad is that.

What did my mother die of? She died from not being fat enough. Literally. Can you imagine that? And while most thin people will not die from being thin, if you think being overweight and hearing fat jokes is bad, you should feel what it's like to be underweight and hear skinny jokes. This one I know personally. At the the point my mother's anorexia killed her, I was pretty thin myself. Frighteningly thin, in fact.

As you might imagine, I had frequently been the target of jokes during my childhood. And of course, hearing these things always hurt. Interestingly enough though, as I grew older, hearing thin jokes was not what hurt me the worst. What hurt me the worst was hearing things like, "You're so lucky. You don't know what's it's like to be fat." And they were right. I didn't know. But they didn't know what it was like to be too thin either.

Fast forward to my early fifties. At this point in my life, I did know what it was like to be too fat. And had for years. Since when? Since somewhere in my mid thirties. The strange thing is, while I knew with certainty that I had gone from being underweight to overweight, I could not recall a time wherein my weight felt right. Ever. Until my mid fifties, that is, when I stepped onto a scale and in the same moment, felt afraid I'd die of obesity and afraid I'd die of anorexia. Both at the same time. And no. You're not reading this wrong. I felt too fat. And I felt too thin. Both from seeing the same number.

Sound crazy? Hard to believe? Know this then. I'm not the only person who has felt this way. In fact, many overweight people have told me they cannot recall a time when they did not feel fat. Talk about feeling confused.

In a general sense then, this is what we'll be talking about here. Being too fat. And being too thin. And what it feels like to be either or both. As well as the role overeating plays in all of this. And no, this will not be a rehash of what is known about dieting. Nor a food bashing contest either. Rather, we'll be looking at how a lack of mind body awareness, especially in the gut, is the real culprit in overeating.

What about the idea that we eat to mask our feelings? Don't we often feel painful emotions, before, during, and after overeating? The truth? Not really. In fact, seeing feelings as the cause of overeating is like seeing the sky as the cause of the horizon. The sky and horizon simply exist as two parts of the same view.

Likewise emotions and overeating. In other words, obviously painful emotions and overeating coexist. But not because one causes the other. Rather they coexist because they are two parts of the same picture. A painful picture, to be sure. However neither causes the other. They simply coexist within the same picture.

Don't experts tell us we overeat to stuff our feelings though? And doesn't this idea feel true to a lot of us?

Yes. Experts do tell us this. And it does feel true to a lot of us. Regardless of how true this may feel to us though, it cannot be the truth. Why not? Because symptoms cannot cause injuries. They can only be the result of injuries.

Sadly this kind of thinking; that symptoms cause injuries, is one the main errors modern therapies make. Talk and otherwise. Including therapies for everything from addictions and overeating to relationship difficulties and reality problems.

Here then is yet another common talk therapy misbelief. The idea that if we treat the symptoms, we effect a cure. Sadly, many therapies fail because they base their remedies on this misbelief. And it's not their fault either. In many cases, it's hard to tell the two things apart; the symptoms from the injury. Why? Because the nature of injury is such that it always includes a startling onset. And being startled programs our minds to go blank, rendering the cause itself invisible to us.

The thing is, no talk therapy currently teaches this idea let alone the nature of healing. Which means, if you ask your therapist if we overeat to mask our feelings or if we feel these feelings because we overeat, if she's intuitive, chances are she'll answer correctly; neither answer is true. At the same time, she'll likely have no idea why.

Does knowing why matter? Very much so. You see, if you cannot discern a symptom from a wound, how can you heal your wounds? This is why I spent so much of the early chapters of this book focused on the nature of wounds; that they are the suffering we cannot see rather than the symptoms we can see. Metaphorically and literally, they mirror the "bullet hole," not the bleeding.

With regard to overeating then, it is important to remember that while one symptom may exacerbate another, this does not make this symptom the cause. Moreover, the wounds which cause these symptoms always have one thing in common. They are some sort of an inability to notice something. Literally. A blankness which has been programmed into our minds.

What blankness causes overeating then? Our inability to sense the gradual changes going on in our guts as we eat. This is what we cannot see. Thus our lack of awareness that we are eating is what causes overeating. And yes. We may have wounds in and around eating as well. Most people do in fact. But healing these wounds will not stop overeating. It will only make people more aware they are overeating. And less ashamed.

So fine. Our inability to sense the gradual changes going on in our guts as we eat is the root cause of overeating. Moreover, it would make sense that because this lack of awareness is the true source of overeating, that until we focus our energies on becoming more aware of what is going on in the gut, that there can be no long term solution to our overeating. Okay. Fine. But how do we become more aware of what is going on in our gut? Can we even learn to do this?

In a word, yes. We can learn to do this. And in my practice, I've already begun to teach people how. Moreover, before we end this chapter, I'm going to share with you what I've been teaching my clients. A way to begin this very process.

Know that what I'll show you here is but a beginning, not an end. There is much work left to be done on making this process doable. Even so, and with only a brief exposure to this work, a number of people have reported noticeable changes in their awareness. Body wise as well as mind.

Before I show you this though, I first want to elaborate on the nature of what not feeling what is going on in our guts is like. Beginning with what I've previously mentioned about the work of Dr. Michael Gershon. That we have two brains; a brain in the head and a brain in the gut.

[clikc here to read the rest of Managing Overeating with a Mind Body Speedometer]

Tags: overeating, mind body connection, emergence personality theory, talk therapy

Addiction and Recovery - the Therapist's Role

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:15:32 GMT

In this chapter, we're going to look at an aspect of addiction rarely discussed. The mind body influence. To do this, we'll touch briefly on the cliché addictions; alcohol and drugs. As well as on a few of the other addictions; sex, gambling, and exercise. Food? We'll be leaving that for the next chapter. And yes. There are addictive qualities to overeating. Wolfing down a pink of Cherry Garcia can be pretty compulsive. And painful. But is overeating food the same as snorting heroin? Do the differences even matter? And what can a talk therapist do to help people with this stuff anyway? You want answers? Well, okay. You're about to get them. At least, the one that counts the most. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

Addiction - The Bane of Mind First People
"Bane." Do you know this word? My visual thesaurus says it's "something which causes misery or death." And yes. Most addicts don't die from their addictions, albeit, a lot of them wish they would. But the "misery" part? Absolutely. I know. I've been addicted myself. To what, you ask? To a lot of things. From drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes to buying clothes and playing pinball.

Alcohol? Cigarettes? Spending? Okay. But playing pinball? How the heck can someone get addicted to playing pinball?

My answer? God knows. One day a friend asked me to play one game. Then somehow I ended up playing everyday. Often for hours at a time and with money I did not have. Eventually it reached the point where even my family began to suffer. Can you imagine? Playing pinball became the bane of my existence. At least during this portion of my life.

Why tell you this? Because years later, when I faced a serious drinking problem, I was surprised to find in myself the very same behaviors as when I had been hooked on pinball. The same lies. The same guilt. The same shame and selfishness. Except that, instead of playing pinball at a bar for hours while I had a beer or two, I was drinking beers at a bar for hours while I played a game of pinball or two.

So am I saying that for me, being addicted to pinball was the same as having alcoholism? In part, yes, I am saying this. And yes. I realize there are important differences here. Still. When it came down to what I would do to get my fix, in many ways, these differences became moot.

Bull dinghy you say. Alcoholism is much worse than playing pinball. You stagger. You swagger. You boast and you brag. You crack up cars and you roil with guilt. You lie. You steal. You sneak around. All this and more. So yes. You're right. Alcoholism is pretty awful. However, when playing pinball had me by the balls, other than staggering, I had every single one of these symptoms. Including that I cracked up cars.

Cracked up cars? Well, actually, only one car. I was so guilty that night and in a such hurry to get home that I never saw the accident coming. Thus my point; when I was addicted to playing pinball, I did and felt a lot of the same things as when my drinking was at its worst. Including lying to and stealing from my family.

Where is all this going you ask?

Well if you were a therapist and had a guy come in who told you he was addicted to playing video games, would you feel the same sympathy for him as for an active alcoholic? The truth?

Probably not.

And if this same fellow then told you he was also addicted to looking at porn; that he looked at it every night while his wife was asleep, would you feel drawn to focus on this man's video game problem?

Probably not.

The thing is, with the momentum in society today towards helping folks who have alcoholism, folks with drinking problems can find lots of support. And good information. And encouragement. And understanding.

And with today's trend toward valuing honest disclosure, if you admit to having a sex addiction, porn in particular, while some folks may scrunch up their faces, cringe and run, others will extend you a sympathetic hand. Along with a meeting list and some heart felt compassion.

However if you tell people you are addicted to playing video games, while they may look at you strangely or even chuckle a bit, they will also likely give you one of the classic human "looks." Which one? The "what the heck is wrong with you? Didn't you ever grow up?" look.

Okay. So there isn't much support and sympathy for folks addicted to video games. But if you, the reader, were this man's therapist, where would you begin? On his alcoholism? His porn addiction? His video game problem?

The truth is, there is only one main focus in treating addictions, and it isn't any of these three things. You see, if you treat the addictions before you the man, then at best you offer him temporary help. And yes. This kind of temporary help is necessary at times. And loving. However, if you focus on this man's drinking, or on his porn problem or video addiction, then you are treating the man's symptoms not the man himself.

What would treating the man himself before the symptoms be like?

After getting him, as best you could, to be present in his seat, you would focus on his lack of psychophysical awareness.

Psychophysical awareness? What the heck is that? And why would I even suggest such thing? Wouldn't convincing him to go to AA or SA be a better place to focus?

Actually not. Thus while convincing him to go to AA or SA would be a good thing to include, if you were to focus on the man, this would not be your main focus. Why not? Because recovery from addiction begins only after you address the fundamental problem. And yes. Doing acts of damage control, like getting him to stop drinking, should be part of his therapy right from day one. AA and SA included. However, if you, as a therapist, want to do more than simply help this man to get things under control, then you must address his real problem.

And what is his real problem?

Again. The psychophysical nature of his addictions. Specifically, his inability to psychophysically sense the onset ramps and release ramps of each of his addictions. The psychophysical experiences which fall below his threshold of perception, mind body wise.

Yes. I know. Onset ramps. Release ramps. Psychophysical experiences. Isn't this just more psychobabble?

The words? Perhaps. But my telling you to focus on this man's missing mind body experiences? Hardly. You see, with additions, this focus is the heart and soul of recovery. Form cocaine to the Mario Bros.

Still unclear as to what I am suggesting you do? It's simple really. Especially when you know that everything I've just said derives from but a single idea; that what renders one vulnerable to addiction is your default mind body preference, specifically, being Mind First, combined with a high threshold of perception. This is the heart and soul of recovery from an addiction. And yes, there are Body First people who get addicted to things. But none who do not have a high threshold of perception in and around this addiction while at the same time, being in a Mind First state.

What's the big deal here?

The idea that making the mind body connection the pivotal focus in addictions treatment significantly improves a person's chances for a recovery. How? By addressing the person's actual nature, rather than just his symptoms or behaviors.

How exactly do you achieve this focus? Before we tell you, I need to briefly touch on something else. The idea that we can have whole areas of life, such as eating, spending money, sex, and so on, wherein we deviate from our default mind body preference. Not just temporarily, mind you. Rather, for long periods of time. Sometimes for a whole life.

What am I saying?

I'm saying we have exceptions to our default mind body preferences, similar to how we have exceptions to being right or left handed. Thus with handedness, most of us have a clear preference. Either the right hand or the left is dominant. Moreover we usually denote this dominance based on which hand we prefer to use when we reach and write and wave.

Despite our having this clear preference though, we each have a number of exceptions to this preference. Situations wherein we prefer the opposite hand. For instance, while I feel more comfortable writing, waving, and reaching for things with my right hand, when I hold my hands behind my back, my left hand is dominant, meaning, my left hand holds my right wrist. And when I fold my arms in front of me, here again, my left arm is dominant, meaning, my left arm is on top of my right.

On most handedness tests then, I score about 65 / 35, right to left. Which means I have quite a few exceptions to my usual right handed preference.

Similarly, I have exceptions to my Mind First preference as well. For instance, as a kid, I sang on records and very much preferred singing melody over lyrics.

What does preferring melody over lyrics have to do with one's mind body preference? Melody is a Body First activity. As is performing music in general.

Lyrics, on the other hand, are a Mind First activity. Writing them. Singing them. And even liking them.

The thing is, based on my natural Mind First state, these preferences should have been reversed. I should have preferred singing lyrics over melody, and singing lyrics over performing music in general. Clearly, I did not.

So can this anomaly be an injury? Actually, I'm pretty sure it is not. I didn't hate lyrics. I only preferred melody.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure my having this counter preference actually led to my getting an injury. How? At age twenty three, after having sung on a number of released albums, I sang at an office party and forgot the lyrics. After which I never sang in public again. Ever. I did however continue to sing in studios and in fact, sang in them for many years. But sing in front of a crowd? After that incident? I never sang in public again.

How do I know, though, that my forgetting those words wasn't what caused my mind body preference to switch?

My answer? Because before this injury, I sang in front of crowds many times without this fear. All with this same counter preference. In fact, I once sang acapella while standing at the head of a four city block long line. At the time, I was waiting for a Doo Wops acapella show to open, and a few of the fellows who were performing that night and I spontaneously sang. With me singing lead no less. In front of several thousand people.

What makes this even more certain is that I had never even met these fellows let alone practiced with them before. Yet I sang with them and felt no fear whatsoever. In Midtown Manhattan. With hundreds of folks crowding in to hear us.

What's the point to this story? Actually, I am making several.

Point one. That we have mind body counter preferences. By this, I mean, we each have situations wherein our natural mind body preference reverses. Moreover this is similar to how we each have situations wherein our preference for right or left handedness reverses.
Point two. That experiencing these counter preferences may make us more vulnerable to injury. Similar to what happened to me the night I sang in front of my coworkers and forgot the lyrics, never to sing in front of people again. Especially if the counter preference is a Mind First counter preference.
Point three. That there may also be times wherein experiencing a mind body counter preference may protect us from injury. Especially if the counter preference is a Body First counter preference.

As for points two and three, I have a story which may serve to illustrate them a bit.

To begin with, I, with certainty, by age fifteen, had alcoholism. I have no doubt about it. All the signs and symptoms were there. In spades. By age fifteen.

I also, by age fifteen, sang in a band regularly. And clearly, when I did, I felt the counter preference I've been describing here. The one wherein I preferred singing melody to reciting lyrics. The one wherein my mind body preference switched to Body First.

What makes me certain of this? Among other things, because my favorite way to sing at the time was to scat sing. And for those for whom this word is unfamiliar, when you scat sing, you use your voice more as an instrument than as a way to sing lyrics. In other words, with scat singing, you mainly sing melody with nonsense sounds. And if you do use words, you use them more as percussive sounds than as lyrics.

Okay. I have two things here I'm certain of. One. I had alcoholism by age fifteen. And two. I also had a mind body counter preference which resulted in my being Body First when I sang.

Now recall what I've said renders one vulnerable to addiction; having a Mind First mind body preference combined with a high threshold of perception. Which means what exactly? Which means that being Body First should render one less vulnerable to addiction.

So does it? Yes. And in my case, the proof for this is clear. You see, while I am certain I had alcoholism by age fifteen, and while I am certain I also had a Body First counter preference when I sang, I never ever drank or drugged when I sang in public. Not before my lyric forgetting injury. Nor after. In fact, this situation, singing in public, was one of the only situations wherein I did not drink during my active alcoholism.

Conversely, the same was true for me as well. What I mean is, while I never drank and sang in public, when I sang in studios, meaning away from the public, I had no reservations about drinking. I also remember having to work really hard to get out of my head when I sang in studios. Which means when I sang in studios, I did not have this counter preference. My mind body preference was Mind First.

What's my point?

It turns out that an additional proof for the idea that having a Mind First preference makes one more vulnerable to addiction is that having a Body First preference is one of the main factors in not being vulnerable to addictions. Including to alcoholism. And yes, genetics and social exposure of course also play a role. However, plenty of folks who have the genetics and social exposure to alcohol do not get alcoholism. Or any other addictions for that matter.

Can this be true? Can having a Mind First preference actually render one more vulnerable to addiction? And can having a Body First preference render one less vulnerable to addictions? Moreover, is there any theoretical evidence for this being true?

Yes, there is. And this is what we'll be looking at next.

[click here to read the rest of Addiction and Recovery - the Therapist's Role]

Tags: addiction and recovery, talk therapy, emergence personality theory, mind body connection

Hollowness in Relationships - More Mind Body Connection Stuff

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:21:12 GMT

Ever felt like someone you were speaking to wasn't there? How about a therapist? Ever had one whom you felt wasn't listening or just plain didn't get what you were saying? In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to explore what underlies these uncomfortable experiences. The feelings I call, "hollowness." Not from the psychological perspective, mind you. Rather, from the mind body perspective. Why do we feel this kind of hollowness? Is there something inherently wrong with us? For instance, are we all just bad listeners at times? Or is this hollowness more a normal feeling? Do you know? Let's see.

"Hooking Up"
Ever overheard a young person say, "we hooked up last night"? Modern parents know to pay particular attention to this phrase. Why? Because for today's kids, "hooking up" is not exactly 'hanging out." Hooking up means your kid had some kind of "body to body" contact. Or as we old folks used to say, they "got it on." Of course, were you to inquire directly as to what they did last night, they'd probably say something like, "we just talked." Translation. They had the kind of interpersonal contact officially sanctioned by the league for the parents of perfect kids. "Mind to mind" contact.

Then there's the look. You know. The one wherein your daughter appears to have just swallowed a halogen lamp. The bright, light, sunny, airy, floaty look. The "yes, I really liked him but don't ask me any more questions" look. Which means what exactly? Which means your daughter had person to person contact. Mind to mind and body to body. And a whole lot more. In the hormonally driven teenage sense of "a whole lot more." But they didn't necessarily hook up. Confused?

Actually, it's quite simple given you take a minute to reflect on it. Then again, with all the late twentieth century TV therapist type psychobabble floating about these days, it's a wonder some modern parents can still boil an egg let alone talk to their kids. After all, why else would they ask things like, "how old is he; where's he from; and does he get along with his mother?" Oh, Lord.

Interestingly enough, when you know how simple mind body connections are, most of these questions go away. Or at least, they feel a whole lot less important. You see, the kinds of things which can happen to us in these situations are pretty much set within the first encounter or so. The tone of them anyway. And this holds true even for us older folk. You know, the "no fool like an old fool" situations and all that.

So how can knowing about mind body stuff tell you what may happen to you? Can it tell us how well we'll be able to connect to others? And what happens when we fail to connect? For instance, when we feel like people are not listening to us? Is it our words? Is it our timing? Is it even us?

Let's start with something simple. The idea that there are only three interpersonal mind body states wherein we can actually connect to someone.

What can be confusing here though is that, in two of them, we can connect and still feel hollow. Not because we've failed to connect, but rather because we did connect. But only half way.

What are the two states?

One. We connect to someone mind to mind, but not body to body. "He's handsome, intelligent, and perfect on paper but I just don't feel any chemistry." This is what it's like to feel physical hollowness.

Two. We connect to someone body to body, but not mind to mind. "She's gorgeous, sweet, and thoughtful but she's not the brightest bulb on the tree" type of hollowness. This is what it's like to feel mental hollowness.

So okay. There are two kinds of hollow connection we can make. Mind to mind, and body to body. What about when we do manage to connect in both ways, as in person to person contact?

In many cases, when this happens, we make a connection for life. Or at least, we make one for some significant amount of time. Moreover, while the nature of these encounters is that they often end up being significant romances, even when they don't, they still have the power to change our lives. Often in ways we never thought possible.

Obviously, these person to person connections do not come along very often. Nor do they always last in a meaningful way. You see, while person to person connections are the heart and soul of realness, there's obviously a lot more to having a lasting relationship than connection.

For instance, say we feel a strong person to person connection but you both have too much unfinished business. This becomes what I call the "starter house" relationship. Here, because you have a great person to person connection, you feel close right away and may think, "this is the one." Unfortunately, because there is the matter of the unfinished business, you also right away begin to struggle and hurt.

What happens then? The Mayan death grip. You love them and hate them and cannot leave. Thus, even with a great person to person connection, being healthy and continuing to work on yourself is much more important than say, an ever present physical connection. Not that this connection is unimportant. It's just that there are things which are more important. Finishing unfinished business is more important.

Whatever the case, even in the best relationships, we all need courage to keep a connection going. Fate alone (the mind body state) is never enough. And yes, there are people we can feel "fated" to have met. I've felt this feeling a few times myself. The soul mates at first sight kind of thing. However, in hindsight, and with a lot of years and failures behind me now, I more know these feelings to be the signs of a strong person to person connection than any predictor of meant-to-be-ness.

I suppose the thing to remember here is that even soul mates argue. And need lots of TLC at times. So yes. It's wonderful to have that special connection. But I wouldn't sell the farm until you learn to see past the person to person glow and into the other person's darkness.
All kidding aside, my point here is, person to person connections are never enough to sustain a relationship. Let alone make it a good one. Certainly, these feelings are often enough to get one started though. But then. so are the other two kinds of mind body connections; mind to mind and body to body.

Know we'll be looking at all three mind body connections later in this chapter, when we take a closer look at The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections. What they look and feel like, and how they affect our lives.

What else will we be looking at in this chapter?

For one thing, the three mind body situations wherein we fail to connect. The one's I've drawn in the diagram you see above. I call these three situations, The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Disconnections, as, in most cases, they result from people having tried and failed to make one or more of The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections I mentioned a moment ago.

Why do these failures happen? Before telling you, let me tell you a few things that are not true.

What is not true is that we fail to connect because we have nothing in common. We all have things in common with everyone. But we can't know this if we fail to connect. Thus, while we do have more things in common with some folks, this "more" is more likely a function of how good the connection is than a measure of how much we have in common.

What else is not true? It is not true that we fail to connect simply because we fear getting hurt again. And yes. People can and do feel afraid to get hurt at times. We all do. Often, very powerfully. Even so, if a strong person to person connection comes along, this reasoning evaporates very quickly.

Ironically, feeling strong connections is what gets us over these fearful feelings. Which makes learning to recognize and use mind body connections a heck of a powerful personal skill.

What about the idea that we're just not ready? The fearful therapist's mantra? Is this ever true?

The truth? Life is the one who decides when you're ready. Not your therapist. Nor you. And yes. You may be in the middle of sorting out a whole lot of garbage. Baggage. Issues. Whatever. Still, when you find yourself feeling any one of the Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections, then you know life is saying, you're ready. Ready to be with "the one"? No. Ready to be with "the next one."

Which brings us to the next point. Is there always a "next one"?

Yes. There is always a next one. However, when I say there is always a next one, I do not mean, there is always someone better. Or that we should leave out present relationship. I mean only that life's way of getting our attention is to allow us to connect. We do not create these opportunities. We only say yea or nay. And if you're already in a relationship, then nay is the proper response.

The whole point here is, despite the psychological reasons some experts offer us for why our relationships fail, for the most part, they fail simply because no one teaches us about the Show First- Tell First Cycle. To what am I referring? To the two ways in which all people can communicate and reach the other person. The Show then Tell method, which works best for the Body First people, and the Tell then Show method, which works best for the Mind First people.

What makes knowing about this cycle so important?

The fact that the two most common failed attempts at connecting; Mind to Body failures and Body to Mind failures, occur, not because people do not try, but rather, because a Mind First person and a Body First person do not, by nature, know how to connect. And they can connect. And stay connected. But only if they use the Show First - Tell First Cycle.

What is especially sad here is that the thing which prevent these folks from connecting is so simple, that many times a lasting improvement can occur between two people in a single therapy session. We'll talk about how later in the chapter.

So what do we have so far?

We have the three ways in which we can connect, mind body wise; [1] mind to mind, [2] body to body, and [3] person to person.

We also have the three ways in which we fail to connect, mind body wise; [1] mind to mind, [2] body to body, and [3] person to person. Is this it then for the ways in which we can and cannot connect?

Actually, no. There are two more to mention. The times wherein we make, or fail to make, an internal mind body connection. Thus in this case, we are not talking about interpersonal relating. Rather, we are talking about those times in which we try to feel a connection between our own mind and body. What I call, a "personal connection."

The thing to know here is that, because no one teaches us what the mind body connection is, most of don't even know what we are trying to achieve let alone how to live this way for any length of time. Thus despite the fact that many folks have a genuine willingness and desire to learn, unless you know the nature of mind body connections, these effort fail despite these good efforts.

What's the problem here then? In other words, where have we been going wrong?

For one thing, when people advice us as to how to make mind body connections, most of them discuss these connections additively. Rather than simultaneously. What I'm saying is, most people who teach folks about mind body connections teach that if you cover all your bases, mind body wise, that your mind and body will somehow connect in the process.

Oh, were it only this simple. But it's not. Why not? Because this advice actually causes us to disconnect, mind body wise. And for the same reasons all three of the interpersonal failures occur. Because the efforts they tell us will help us to connect within ourselves are based mainly on mind body arithmetic, not on mind body holism. In other words, you can't add mind plus body and get a connection. This only results in some kind of mismatch, some wrong signals between our mind's way of connecting and our body's way of connecting. Thus the jagged red arrows in this chapter's first diagram.

What is going on here though? Basically, just this. We each have a mind and a body. And they each have a separate brain. Physiologically. And psychologically.

In addition, both these brains function within a different range of speeds. Body is in the slower range. Mind is in the faster range.

Thus, in many ways, we function like two great runners. One is a sprinter and the other, a long distance runner. Now can you imagine these two runners running on the same track and trying to have a conversation?

Please know, this analogy, as odd as it might sound, reveals the very worst part of the mind body connection problem. The mismatched by nature speed problem between the body and the mind. Moreover, the entire solution to mind body connection problems is to learn to notice and make corrections during the race. Similar to how these two runners would have to adjust to each others speed. Or not and not connect.

We mostly do not. And do not connect. Even within ourselves.

In a very real way then, we live life as if we were two separate people. A quick running, mind based person. And a slow but steady, body based person. Moreover, because we fail to notice and honor this difference, we more times than not fail to connect mind body wise. Moreover, this holds true even internally as we are subject to the same limitations which exist between two physical people. More so if the two literal people are a Mind First person and a Body First person.

Okay. I admit. I've just thrown a whole lot of information at you. Far too much to expect yourself to fully comprehend. The thing to know though is that, even if you understood very little of what I've just said, if you make an honest effort to learn it, you can learn to make mind body connections. Albeit, it may take you a bit of practice.

Given the effort and perseverance though, you can connect. Or at least know the real reason you failed to connect. Not all the psychological mumbo jumbo reasons. The real reason. The feeling I've been calling, "hollowness."

Can you see now why I've titled this chapter, Hollowness in Relationships. It's the entry point into the entire cause of failed connections. And yes. Learning to read and use mind body connections can literally take a lifetime. However, acquiring the main skill; learning to recognize hollowness, can be learned rather quickly.

Okay. Time for a recap. Up to this point then, I've mentioned eight mind body states. The three ways we do manage to connect. The three ways we fail to connect. And the two ways connect internally. The good news is, that's it. Eight states. And before we delve any deeper into what these possibilities are like, allow me first list them all for you once more. Beginning with the four ways in which we fail to connect. Mind body wise. Then followed by the four ways in which we do connect. Mind body wise.

The Four Ways We Fail to Connect

A Failed Mind to Body Connection (a hollow mental attempt)
A Failed Body to Mind Connection (a hollow physical attempt)
A Failed Person to Person Connection (an extended interpersonal hollowness)
Failed Personal Connection (an internal Mind to Body hollowness)

The Four Ways We Successfully Connect

A Successful Mind to Mind Connection (a physically hollow connection)
A Successful Body to Body Connection (a mentally hollow connection)
A Successful Person to Person Connection (an extended interpersonal Mind to Body connection)
A Successful Personal Connection (an internal Mind to Body connection)

Click here to read the rest of Hollowness in Relationships - More Mind Body Connection Stuff]

Tags: mind body connection, emergence personality theory, connecting in relationships, Show First / Tell First Cycle

Mind Body Connections- How They Happen

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:37:59 GMT

In the past two chapters, I've introduced you to some of the theoretical underpinnings beneath the mechanism which connects the mind and the body. The philosophy behind this mechanism, and the physics which supports it. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to begin to look at how this theory plays out in real life situations. Specifically at how it affects our abilities to connect. To ourselves. To others. And to the ideas and beliefs we hear and say to ourselves and others. For instance, why is it we so often feel disconnected from each other. Do we do this to protect ourselves? Is it weakness or injury? Or are we exactly as we should be, disconnections and all? Can this inability to connect be healthy in fact? Do you know? Are you sure? Let's look together.

The Power of Having a Master Clock
The big thing I'll be introducing you to in this chapter is how external events, such as falling in love, getting high, and having sex for the first time, can become the master clocks to which our minds and bodies synchronize. And how, when this happens, these experiences can feel so good, they can seduce us into all kinds of craziness. Some of it destructively bad. And some of it world changing good.

Before we begin though, I first need to mention a few more things which point to that we do indeed have two internal clocks, a mind clock and a body clock. And yes, I've already pointed out both philosophical precedents (the ideas of the Four Philosophers) and anthropomorphic mirrors in our technologies (free wheeling and master clocks) which point to this being the case. However, the more you know, the more you can draw your own conclusions.

In addition, there is the idea that the only way to know for sure if a theory is true or not is to test it for "fractility." And for those of you for whom the meaning of this term has yet to emerge, allow me to restate it briefly.

Fractility is the essential quality of real world objects; things (body) and ideas (mind). This quality is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. As opposed to the essential quality of classically geometric things and ideas (like statistics), which is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat identically.

For example, Einstein's E=MC2 is an incredible truth. Why? Because it is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; energy, mass, and light. As is Ohm's law; E = IR. Again, the formula is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; voltage, amperage, and resistance.

In both cases, the formula is a recognizable pattern with always repeats differently. Thus while there are an infinite number of different, real life possibilities which could derive from these two formulas, all these possibilities will stem from the same set of recognizable patterns.

Some may now ask, so is there a formula underlying what I've been telling you about how the mind and body connect? A formula based on the relationships between fractals? My answer? Yes, there is. M=I(T). Meaning equals Information multiplied by Time. And before I tell you what this formula defines, please first note the similarity between this formula and the previous two; they are all based entirely on the relationships between three fractals. Which means all three are recognizable patterns which always repeat differently.

What does this last formula represent? It represents the ways in which our minds and bodies manifest Information, Meaning, and Time. Here, the Information fractal is identical to Spinoza's Mind Body continuum, wherein thoughts are one end of the continuum and feelings on the other. The second continuum then, the Meaning fractal, is identical in nature to Herbart's thresholds of perception, which Herbart himself referred to as the varying "intensity" of what we perceive. Finally the third continuum is the Time fractal, a continuum which is identical in nature to Herbart's second measure of human nature, the one on which he maps out peoples' perceptions of time.

The thing that makes this formula, M=I(T), particularly meaningful though is what it reveals about human nature. You see, if you use this formula to chart how the visual intensity of the information we perceive over time changes (by making our perception of Mind / Body Information, the "X" axis, the visual intensity of this Information, the "Y" axis, and our perception of Time, the "Z" axis), you will find that underlying all of human nature, there are four, three dimensional fractal shapes. And only four. Four simple recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. Moreover, what makes these four fractal patterns so meaningful is that they are capable of describing the essence beneath all human experience, from the fractal which defines human injury to the fractal which defines learning itself.

Obviously, if this formula is true, then it represents a major step toward quantifying human nature. However, as our focus here is on fractility as a test for truth (and not on how this formula quantifies human nature), I need to now beg your indulgence and set this formula aside, so we can return to the topic at hand. That the way to know if a theory about our world is true or not is that this theory must be based entirely on the relationships within and between a group of fractals. If not, then no matter how intriguing the theory, there will always be limits to the amount of truth it can tell us, even when it holds some truth.

How then does this "truth test" play out in real life?

Basically, it's simple. When a theory is true, there is always more it can teach you about the nature of life. Including more personal stories in which this theory is in play. This, in fact, is what makes statistically based research hollow at the personal level. The amount of stories in which it still holds true end long before our searches reach the personally descriptive level. Similarly to how, when you zoom in on anything fake; a silk rose, a cultured Christmas tree, a photoshopped photograph, at some level, you'll find linear transitions. Places where you can see unnatural boundaries. There are no straight lines in nature, remember.

In effect, these unnatural boundaries define the limit to which you can zoom into a theory and still have it be real. For instance, say you are trying to describe an oak leaf to someone whom has never seen one. And say you must do this using only statistics to describe this leaf. How well do you think you would do if your goal were to impart the beauty of an oak leaf?

Let's see. "Average length; 7 inches. Average width; 5 inches. Average number of points; seven. Average color during July; medium green. And so on. All true statements at the general level. But at the up front and personal level? To see for yourself, ask yourself this. Could anyone whom had not previously seen an oak leaf recognize one, with confidence, after having only heard this data? Even if you offered reams of it? More important, could they actually know the beauty of a mid fall New England oak leaf, just from having been told these numbers?

The obvious answer? Of course not. And this is what I'm getting at when I say real world truth is fractal. Thus to know the degree to which a theory holds true in real life, you must see the fractal or fractals from which this theory derives. And if your hypothesis is about human nature? Then for this hypothesis to be true, it must always be able to teach you new and interesting things about human nature, and at the same time, have all these things derive from the same pattern of fractal relationships.

And if your theory reaches a point wherein it has no more to teach you?

Then this theory has reached the limit of it's truth. The limits of its accuracy. And the limits of its usefulness.

As such, it has failed the test for fractility. Why? Because no fractal fails this test. Not a one. There simply is not limit to what we can see in a fractal. Which is why there is no limit to the beauty you can find in oak leaves. Or the wonder in snow flakes. Or the mystery in human beings.

Now let's look at one more story. A story which meets this criteria. How? It is yet one more real world example which supports the fractal patterns that show how the mind and body are two separate, but interactive experiences.

The Second Brain
In a previous chapter, I briefly mentioned the work of Dr. Michael Gershon, a neurobiologist whose work centers around proving that we humans have two brains. In fact, Dr. Gershon literally writes these very words throughout his book. No coincidence his book is entitled, The Second Brain (1998).

What is his book about? Dr. Gershon says we literally have two physically separate brains. A brain in the head. And a brain in the bowel. Please know that when he writes this, he is not merely referring to this second brain metaphorically. Nor is he positing a medically unsupported hypothesis. Rather, he is referring to what medical doctors call, the enteric nervous system, a complex system of nerves and nerve centers in and around the gut which literally functions as a separate and distinct "brain." His words, not mine.

What makes him say this so emphatically? Because research ongoing since the early nineteenth century proves that our gut functions very differently our the limbs or other organs, especially with regard to how they connect to the brain and spinal cord. What I'm saying is, if you sever the nerves which connect any limb, or any organs other than the gut, to the brain or spinal cord, these limbs and other organs cease to function. Reflexively. In other words, to function as they normally do. However, in the case of the gut, even if you sever all the nerves which connect it to the brain and spine, it will still continue to function. Reflexively. Even to the point where it will continue to function even after being surgically removed from the body.

Why mention this? Because other than in the gut, reflexive behavior always involves signals sent either from the brain or from the spinal cord. In effect, all limbs, and all organs other than those of the enteric nervous system, are unable to make decisions for themselves. Thus, for the heart, or the bladder, or the skeletal muscles to function normally, they must receive instructions from the central nervous system.

The organs of the gut are totally different. Why? As I said, because even when you cut all the nerves which connect them to the brain or spine, they still function as if they are being given instructions. Why? Because they are. Not by the brain in the head or by the spine, but rather by the enteric nervous system itself. Which is part of why Dr. Gershon calls the gut, the "second brain."

Why makes this important? Because if indeed we do respond separately to what we feel in our guts, then knowing this separateness exists physiologically as well as psychologically adds yet one more pointer in Descartes' direction. And yes, Dr. Gershon himself seems reluctant to say this as directly as I'm saying it here. In fact, his words fall short of even admitting that this second brain is responsible for our "gut reactions." Not surprising considering his fellow doctors crucify folks who even allude to such things publicly. This said, in the opening of his book, Dr. Gershon actually hints at this very possibility when he says, "Since the enteric nervous system can function on its own, it must be considered possible that the brain in the bowel may also have its own psychoneuroses." And lest you think this statement crazy, consider this.

The neurotransmitter most associated with moods and the lack thereof is serotonin. Most current antidepressants in fact are SSRI's; serotonin re uptake inhibitors. Why mention this? Because over 95% of the body's serotonin is made and exists, not in the brain, but in the bowel. Why and what does this mean? You tell me. Is it that the bowel is the seat of emotion as I've been saying here? Makes you wonder what and where those anti depressants are working, doesn't it?

Okay. So this stuff is interesting to say the least, But why include it in a chapter on how the mind and body are what allow and disallow us to connect in the world?

In simple terms, because if we have two ways in which to perceive the world; through our thoughts and reasonings (the mind) and through our feelings and gut reactions (the body), then we have two ways in which to connect to the world. Moreover, like all coins which by design can be stood on end only with great effort, we too perceive the world with both sides only with great effort.

Like coins thrown in the air then, we all end up having a sort of built in preference for one of these two ways of sensing the world. Either we land on the mind first preference side of the coin or the body first preference side. Moreover, because we all have this one sided preference, whenever we make decisions, we make them mostly based on only the half of the data we prefer. Either what our minds have perceived, or what our bodies have perceived.

The result? We end up making mostly half baked decisions, in everything from what we eat to whom we marry. Not always. But often. Why? Because we, by nature, ignore, or do not sense in the first place, what one of our brains is trying to tell us.

Putting this into my language then, all of us end up preferring one or the other kind of perception. Either we prefer to sense life through what we think of life or we prefer to sense it through what we feel in our guts. Either way, we have a preference, wherein we value one way of sensing life at the expense of the other.

This then is where Dr. Gershon's idea that we have "two brains" comes in. Because we human beings literally have two decisions centers, we function much like corporations wherein there are two managing partners. Including that like many real world business partnerships, one of the two managing partners is usually more powerful.

Our "two brain corporations" function very similarly. Not on paper, mind you. But in real life. Thus, while on paper both brains are required to make decisions, rarely are both brains fully present and accounted for. This results in our making many bad, poor, wrong, or half baked decisions.

My point here? That the source of a lot of our problems in life is that we make decisions with only half the data. Over eating and addictions being two examples. And if you need a more normal example of how this happens, picture this. Picture yourself asking a friend if she and her husband would like to come over for dinner on Saturday night.

Now picture her saying yes.

Now picture her sheepishly calling you later to beg out, because she said yes without first asking her husband. Which made him so mad, he wouldn't go.

The decisions we make with only one brain present end up very similarly to how this "didn't ask first " marital decision ended up. In other words, when one of our brains makes a decision without first consulting the other, then whatever follows is at least half baked, and often times a mess. Not always. But often.

What do we feel when this happens to us? Usually we end up feeling confused as to why we made this decision. Or when things really go badly, we often torture ourselves, or those around us, for having made the decision which led to this disaster.

How often do these kinds of things happen in real life? Well ask yourself. How many times have you, in hind sight, remembered ignoring a gut feeling which, if listened to, would have prevented a bad decision? An intuitive voice which was telling you, you should probably pass on something? The deal which felt too good to be true and in hind sight was. Or the relationship wherein the person was saying all the right words but in hind sight, ended up being more of a self serving business deal than a friendly offer.

Or how about the salesperson who promises that what you are by buying will be just right for you. Or the unfaithful lover who assures you, yet once more, that he or she will never cheat on you again. Yeah, right.

So what makes us ignore what we know to be the dissenting opinion? The wisdom of the unequal partner in our two brains?

It's simply our nature to do this. Moreover, this is what these bad decisions all have in common. We make them because we miss seeing, or ignore, what one of our two managing partners has to say. Either we ignore or miss what our gut has to say or we override or misinterpret the logic present.

Having trouble believing this happens as often as I'm implying? Well consider this. We human beings make so many of these minds mistakes that saying we've made one has become cliche. Why? Because we normally cannot "remember" to include both partners. Nor can we learn to do this. You see, our two brains remember things very differently.

What I'm saying is, mentally remembering to "check downstairs" will never be a long term answer. Nor will remembering to "think before we speak." Why not? Because in order for us to have simultaneous access to both these intrinsically different memories, we must be able to feel them both consciously. And to feel them both consciously, we must have more than just an awareness that they both exist. Both brains must be in sync, time wise.

What this means in daily life is, we humans will always function more like two physically separate reel to reel tape recorders, both of which are "free wheeling," than like the equipment in modern television studios, all of which is synced to a "master clock."

So are we doomed, meaning, is there nothing we can do to remedy this inequity?

The answer lies in asking whether there is a functional equivalent to master clock in out lives. Is there? Yes. And understanding how this works is really a lot simpler than you might imagine. You see, it turns out that any event wherein we experience surprise can become a master clock to our minds and bodies. Anything at all. A surprise birthday party. The birth of your first child. The day you got married. Or the morning you got promoted.

All these and similar life events hold the potential to sync up our mind and body clocks. Which is why we often feel so clear and sure of ourselves right after experiencing one of these kinds of events.

Herein lies the answer to our dilemma regarding our two out of sync clocks. And what we are about to explore. Learning to find, create, and use life's master clocks. Beginning with how special life events can sometimes sync up our two brains and in doing so, get our two brains to be on the same page. Walking in lock step. Clear and focused and ready for action.

And without this sync?

Without this sync, we feel a hollowness in our inner life. Not functionally, mind you. Most of us can accomplish much good even when what we are doing feels hollow. What I'm saying is, we all have the capability to do good even when we are only "doing the right thing." Unfortunately, unless we do this good while both our brains are in gear, we take no credit for the good in what we do. After all, we were only half there when we did it.

To state this even more emphatically, the only time we human beings experience life consciously is when our two brains are synced to an external master clock. This in fact is why we can at times so desperately latch onto what we believe is an inspiring leader, only to find out later that we were taken in by their rhetoric, or by their hand shakes and smiles. Insincere politicians immediately come to mind. And sincere but crazy cult leaders. And well meaning to blinded by science medical prophets. And fear mongering kill them all power hungry generals.

This group also includes the lovers who whisper words of endearment while at the same time cheating on us. And the alcoholics who promise us yet again that this time will be different.

In all these cases and in so many more, in hind sight, we see we failed to trust either our guts or the facts. And because we never face the real problem; our out of sync clocks, we end up blaming ourselves or the world but never really change.

Here then is our real problem. We need a master clock. Moreover, we cannot create these clocks all by ourselves. We need relationships with others in order to create them. Which is why, in talk therapy, we must either connect as two openly human equals or settle for not getting better.

So how do we begin to learn to do this? The answer? Like everything posited by Emergence Personality Theory, the solution lies entirely in learning to see what cannot normally see, rather than in learning to better see what you can already see. And what is it you will find has been what you cannot see? The feeling I call, "hollowness." And the times wherein you do not feel this hollowness.

This then is what we are about to explore. The special events can cause our two brains to sync up. Including those which underlie all lasting results in talk therapy. In other words, no connection, no lasting results in therapy.

Has all this theory suddenly become more important to you? I certainly hope so. Here we go.

[click here to read the rest of Mind Body Connections - How They Happen]

Tags: mind body connection, fractility, emergence personality theory, talk therapy

The Physics of the Mind Body Connection

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:57:47 GMT

In the last chapter, we looked at the four philosophers whose work underlies what I've been telling you; that the mind and body connect through our perception of time. Why begin with philosophy? Because the primary clue to uncovering the actual mind body connection lies in how we psychologically experience this connection rather than in some physical location, such as within our brains. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to look at the other end of the psychophysical continuum; the actual laws of physics which underlie these psychological experiences. Specifically the psychophysics underlying audio video recordings and how we technologically sync multiple media sources when we mix them down to one data stream. Did you just go into shock? Not sure where this is going? Don't worry. Just remember. The key to understanding the mind body connection lies not in understanding our physiology but rather in understanding how we experience it. Thus while we are indeed looking for the actual connection, we will not be looking for an actual physical location. Why not? Because there is none. Don't believe me? Let's see.

"Let's Get Psychophysical"
As I begin to write this chapter, for some reason the chorus from Olivia-Newton John's 1982 song, "Let's Get Physical," keeps playing in my head. Annoying when that happens, isn't it? The thing is, to some folks, even my knowing this song would indicate that I must be a very old dude indeed. Which I am. No big secret there. What is interesting about this though is that because I am this old, I was alive before a lot of what we're about to talk about was invented. Digital clocks? Sample rates? Certainly not common knowledge in 1982. Even for brainy types like me. And years later, when I was learning this stuff? It felt more mysterious than my former wife's thirty year old forgetting to buy her a birthday card resentment. I did it once. That's all it took. Ah, the mysteries of marriage.

Fortunately for us, by comparison, the mind body connection is a lot easier to understand. Especially if you focus on what we spoke about in the last chapter; on how we experience the mind body connection. Rather than on explaining it medically. In other words, to uncover the mechanism of the mind body connection, we need to focus on how we sense this connection rather than on searching for some fabled neurological site. Which is why, in the last chapter, we began our search by exploring how four of the great philosophers sensed this connection.

The four philosophers? Descartes, Spinoza, Herbart and Leibniz. And the four ideas we drew on from their work?

That human beings have a threshold of perception, a point at which we begin to experience the mind and body (per Herbart).
That above this threshold of perception, we experience mind and body as separate and distinct experiences (per Descartes).
That below this threshold of perception, we experience mind and body as two aspects of one continuum (per Spinoza).
That our perception of time is what connects our conscious awareness of these two experiences (per Leibniz)

Granted, stating this last idea as I have is a bit of a stretch; Leibniz actually never actually mentioned that we perceive two senses of time. Only that our having two clocks is a good metaphor for how the mind and body connect. Even so, it appears that Leibniz may have been the only person to make any reference at all to that the mind body connection involves our perception of time. Thus my including him and his ideas.

What will we be looking at in this chapter? As I said, we're going to get psychophysical. In other words, we're going to build a mind body bridge between the philosophical ideas of these four great men and the laws of physics underlying twenty first century digital recording. Specifically the laws underlying digital audio and video recording whenever different audio video streams get combined into a single presentation.

Does this sound like it's going to be hard to understand? Don't worry. We're only going to explore three simple situations. One using 1950's tape recorders. One using 2007 television studio equipment. And one using us. Moreover, with the two technological examples, we're only going to explore the parts of these situations which involve syncing separate pieces of playback equipment together in time.

The three real life situations?

No Master Clock. We're going to look at how recording engineers in the fifties on rare occasions tried to manually sync the output from two tape recorders so they could combine these two sources onto one master tape. By hand. By trial and error. The point here will be to offer you an example of how our two internal clocks function in everyday life; our minds and bodies free wheeling with no master clock to sync them together.
Digital Master Clock. Next we're going to take another look at how digital systems work. This time in a modern television studio. Beginning with a quick look at how things get to be digital. Followed by a look at how the big boys do digital; how digital recording studios manage to sync together dozens of physically separate devices. The point here will be to show you how today's digital systems, DVD players to whole television studios, sync physically separate playback devices to a single external master clock. Which is what happens to us whenever we are in the presence of great beauty; the beauty we experience becomes the master clock.
Life as the Master Clock. Finally, we're going to look at how the psychophysics of time within these two technological situations mirror what we experience in our minds and bodies in everyday life. First, when we "free wheel" with no master clock. And second, when our minds and bodies sync up and mix into one vivid experience. Just like what happens to playback devices in television studios when they broadcast it all as a single show.

What is my goal in all this? To give ordinary folks a way in which to grasp how our minds and bodies do and do not connect. As well as an understanding of what makes me so certain that what connects our minds and bodies is our perception of time. Both within ourselves and between us and others; mind to body and body to mind.

Before we begin this journey though, I need to first clarify something, by addressing one of the potential snags in this whole concept. What snag? That current mind body research assumes that by mapping specific physical locations to what we do, say, and feel, that they are locating the mind and body connection. What am I saying? That while the ongoing neurological discoveries regarding how cognition and neurological brain functioning seem to overlap are indeed fascinating, nothing discovered so far even begins to prove a connection between the mind and body. It proves only that coexisting activity occurs.

In other words, while current brain scan research suggests mind body connections, in truth it proves only that some psychological things happen at the same time as some physical things. Nothing more.

Thus, while fMRI's and SPEC scans can now show connections between certain human activities and experiences and increased or decreased blood flow to certain areas of the brain, none of this research shows how the physical experiences of the body connect to the non physical experiences of the mind. Unless, of course, our physical bodies are what create our minds. In which case, this research does reveal the mind body connection.

Does it though? Not really. And to see why I say this, consider this. Consider how, when researchers and scientists assume this coexisting activity suggests they are mapping the mind body connection, the unspoken assumption beneath their statements is that our bodies create what our minds experience. This assumption, in fact, is one of the major philosophical viewpoints underlying most current medically based research. The thing is, despite claims made by these researchers that their research is scientific, by not mentioning this assumption, they skew the opinions of all those reviewing this research. Ergo the leaps frequently made by untrained news reporters regarding the implications of this research.

Are they right though? Does the body create the mind? To see, we'll need to take a moment to explore this assumption. How? By turning to yet another a group of philosophers and specifically, to the view point known as materialism; the idea that mental events are causally dependent on bodily events.

Ironically, were the scientists who unknowingly espouse this view point to know of it's controversial beginnings, in the writings of Julien Offray de la Mettrie (1709-1751) for instance, they might seriously reconsider. In his book, L'Homme Machine, Mettrie suggests we are all just human automatons. And while this viewpoint obviously falls far outside of what most medically oriented researchers believe today, Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis' (1757-1808) interpretation of Mettrie's work does seem to state their view point pretty well. Cabanis wrote , "to have an accurate idea of the operations from which thought results, it is necessary to consider the brain as a special organ designed to produce it, as the stomach and intestines are designed to operate the digestion, the liver to filter bile . . . " (Rapports du Physique et du Moral de l'Homme, 1802)

Does this at all sound like what underlies most of today's neuroscientific research? Indeed. Thus while these researchers claim scientific foundations for their work and conclusions, unless they can prove what we experience in our bodies occurs on a psychophysical one way street leading to our minds, their work, as exciting as it is, falls far short of explaining how the mind and body connect. Or anything else, other than coexisting activity.

So do any of these researchers admit they make this assumption? In my many searches, I have yet to find a single mainstream neuroscientist who openly admits they assume this let alone one who takes seriously the idea that what they are really researching is the mind body connection. It seems, to admit to this in print is tantamount to admitting the sin of researching forbidden questions. Or at least, admitting your research focuses on questions deemed quackery by the scientific community at large.

Note what they are calling "quackery" here. Not the search for these connections, mind you. Rather, the phrase itself; the mind body connection. Thus, if you do the research but do not mention this phrase, you can somehow squeak by the Cerberus of science.

This prejudice aside, the thing to realize here is that there are many philosophical positions with regard to whether the mind and body do or do not connect. Not the least of which is the one Descartes observed; that we experience the mind and body differently and that they both interact. Moreover, while science, and psychology, can point to times wherein our minds play tricks on us, this is not one of those times. How can I be sure? Because the position I'm suggesting here goes far beyond mere philosophy and or scientific observations of concurrency. It's already helping people. Many of whom are among the most conscious folks I know. Including that they regularly and frequently question everything they see. Openly and honestly.

For instance, take Kristin and Allen. Kristin is a music therapist and a teacher in my Emergence Master Teacher's Group and her husband Allen teaches kinetic language among other things. Signing and such. And sadly, a few days ago, their eight year old daughter fell off a boat and hit her head on the boat propeller. Which then sliced through her jaw and skull.

That she lived is a miracle. One of many unexplained acts of kindness and beauty which occurred in the Universe that day I'm sure. But that she is recovering at a rate far in excess of what the hospital staff is used to is quite another thing entirely. Moreover while the hospital staff admits being at a loss as to how to account for why she is recovering so quickly, we know it is the love and support she's receiving. Especially from her mother and father, Kristin and Allen.

When mention this? Because yesterday my friend and fellow teacher Ed and I drove to Rhode Island to visit the three of them. And in the pediatric intensive care unit, while standing within feet of their semi conscious daughter, Kristin and Allen spoke to us about how the idea of Mind First / Body First connection has already affected their marriage. Including that it has affected their ability to connect to each other in this deeply emotional time.

To say this deeply affected me is to put it mildly. I, the consummate lover of words, am still at a loss as far as how to express the love I saw there. Husband and wife love. Mother and father love. Family and hospital staff love. So many pictures of love. Many of which existed long before these mind body discoveries. Even so, that Kristin and Allen could so consciously express this love in the face of such a tragedy amazes me. Which makes me think and feel that if the only contribution these discoveries made was to their daughter's well being, it would still be worth my efforts.

Of course, this is not the only family being affected by what I'm positing here. In fact, even now, only weeks into having made these discoveries, a number of other families are reporting similarly increased abilities to connect. To each other and to those outside their relationships. My point? How many researchers can claim their work has accomplished this beauty even once? Moreover, of the folks who do believe in the mind and body connection, how many can make what they practice accessible to ordinary folks?

What follows is the physical science behind these admittedly grand claims. Please know these ideas are but one piece of the mind body puzzle. Still, when you combine this piece with what we looked at in the last chapter, we have the underpinnings of a great discovery. The actual mechanism of the mind body connection. Not the locality of it, mind you. There is no such thing. Rather the experiential substance from which this connection is made. Our physical and mental perceptions of time itself. And how these two perceptions do and do not sync up.

Ready for part two? The physical part of the psychophysical connection between mind and body? Here we go.

[click here to read the rest of The Physics of the Mind Body Connection]

Tags: mind body connection, talk therapy, descartes, spinoza, liebniz, psychophysical, emergence personality theory

The Philosophy of Talk Therapy (resolving the Cartesian Split)

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Mon, 28 May 2007 01:53:17 GMT

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)]

Tags: mind body connection, talk therapy, emergence personality theory, descartes, cartesian dualism

The Voices of the Mind Body Connection - Thoughts and Feelings

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:43:06 GMT

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.]

Tags: mind body connection, talk therapy, descartes, emergence personality theory

What is the Mechanism of the Mind Body Connection?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 13 May 2007 22:36:47 GMT

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?]

Tags: mind body connection, descartes, talk therapy, emergence personality theory

Should Therapy Encourage People to Blame?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 06 May 2007 15:25:50 GMT

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.]

Tags: talk therapy, blame, emergence personality theory, is blaming good

What Do All Good Therapies Have in Common?

http://humanistic-emergence.gaia.com — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:06:23 GMT

A question I have been asked many times over the years is, "what kind of therapy do you do?" In part, what makes this hard to answer is that there are so many therapies now. Why all these therapies? And is there a "special something" the good ones all have in common? As it turns out, there is. More important, this "special something" can be described with a fractal. Can you imagine? A fractal for good therapy. This then is what we are about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy. Can you guess what the "special something" is? Let's find out, shall we.

Getting Better Mileage Out of Your Suffering
I need to warn you right up front. I'll be throwing a tirade somewhere in the midst of this chapter. Thus, you'll need to do your best not to let my emotional Italian nature prevent you from seeing the good in what I'm presenting here. Especially since any and all kinds of therapists can benefit from what I'm about to show you; the Fractal for Good Therapy.

This said, in the last chapter, we discussed the idea that in order to heal in therapy, we must suffer through the healing process. Not too pleasant a thought really if you think about it.

In this chapter I'm going to show you something which can make this suffering a whole lot easier. A fractal for getting the most mileage out of the suffering you experience in therapy. As well as some simple ways in which you can learn to utilize this fractal to focus the therapy in general. Before I do though, I first need to mention a few myths about therapy. Some of which we'll discuss in depth in later chapters.

Myth Number One: It Takes A Long Time To Heal A Wound
If we define therapy as I did in chapter one; as "healing a person's inability to breath properly," then the time in which we do the actual therapy is brief. Moments only.

What makes us think it should take longer then? The idea that prior to Emergence Personality Theory, no one had empirically defined what it is we are healing let alone how these wounds occur. This is somewhat strange since we can do all this in only three sentences; [1] Wounds occur whenever we get startled while we are in a hyperaware state, [2] what being startled wounds is our ability to visualize a particular set of needs and [3], healing restores our ability to visually access these needs.

This is it then. The entire theoretical essence underlying all wounds and healing regardless of the symptoms. Unless, of course, the wound involves non repairable physical damage, such as the loss of a limb or an eye. Even here though, talk therapy has much to offer, beginning with the idea that there is always a psychological component to every wound, and that healing this component requires you help the person to have an aha with regard to visualizing some set of visually inaccessible needs. After which, the person will once again be able to breathe normally. And visualize their needs. In that particular arena of life, anyway.

What complicates this process is that we all during our lifetimes incur many wounds. Most of which happen before we have adult memory making skills. In effect, this means the majority of our wounds root into our personalities like maple tree roots into the foundations of old New England homes. Tough to get them out without taking down the whole house.

So why can't you use the Block Markers I showed you in Chapter Four to heal these wounds? Actually, you can. And healing a single wound this way should take no longer than a few hours at most. Not all in one session, mind you, but cumulatively, no more than this.

At the same time, because all symptoms thread back to multiple injuries, while it need take but a few hours to heal a single wound, healing the wounds beneath things like a serious depression can take years. Which is why even the most motivated people in the best therapies can spend years there and still not be done.

Knowing these two ideas before you start a round of therapy is important then. One, the idea that most wounds can be healed within the space of a few hours, and two, the idea that we all have many nested layers of wounds. This means, when you commit to a therapy, you commit not just to a therapist but to a life style. And while healing does indeed hurt a lot at times, healing as a way of life is a good way to live. Especially since it means you will always have more of the good in life to look forward to. True, discovering this good can feel mighty uncomfortable at times. But no where near as uncomfortable as avoiding this process.

Here then is my first point. Healing a single wound takes only a few hours. Healing a person takes a lifetime and then some.

Myth Number Two: Cognitive Therapy Is The Way to Go
Cognitive Therapies all make an assumption; that the wound is in your thinking. And yes, wounds do affect your thinking. However, as we'll discuss later in this chapter, we can know full well how we should be thinking and still be unable to live this way for long. We all know this already anyway. We just usually choose to ignore this fact.

Why does this happen to us in the first place? Because what we think is only one part of who we are. An important part, yes, but not the whole enchilada. In other words, knowing how you should live and actually being able to live that way are very different things. And thinking is but one part of this decision process.

So am I saying there is no value in Cognitive Therapies? Absolutely not. And please do take note of what I've just said to you here. In truth, no decent therapy can ignore logical inconsistencies. If it does, for the most part, you'll cripple the therapy.

The thing is, you also need to know how and when to use cognition during the healing process. Up front, as a way to better define what people are missing, yes, it's outstanding. And difficult to do without. As a healing agent though, cognition remains impotent and misleading. Why? Because the nature of wounds themselves, meaning, the nature of what we actual heal in people is their blocked abilities to picture their needs. This means, since logic by design believes only in what makes sense, logic alone can never restore a person's ability to picture. Why not? Because we already know it is illogical that we do not address these needs. And you can know this for years and still not take proper care of these needs. Thus what is missing is not good logic concerning how you care for your needs. It is that you have blocked visual abilities with regard to picturing yourself taking care of these needs.

My point here? Cognitive therapies work best for identifying what kinds of needs we have trouble visualizing. However, since all logic is based on finding patterns in what we can see, and since the essence of all wounds is that they are needs we cannot see, logic alone can never heal wounds. It can only find where they exist.

Myth Number Three: Behavioral Therapy Can Heal Peoples' Wounds
In it's heyday, Behavioral Therapies were the therapies of choice. And for some conditions, like physical rehab, they still hold great value. Using them to heal wounds of the mind though is like using paint to seal cracks in a boat hull. Not much real strength in stormy weather.

So is there no place for Behavioral Therapies in talk therapy? Again, I am not saying this. Why not? Because if peoples' behavior is so awful as to be generating an avalanche of confounding symptoms, then it's pretty hard to identify what is wrong with them. Even if you use the best of logic. In other words, if a person has too many symptoms to be able to focus in therapy, then you must first deal with these symptoms.

Case in point. Say we are talking about people caught in the undertow of something like a new divorce or a recent affair. Here, behavioral interventions are often the best place to start the therapy. In the long run, however, they are only the first step. Why? Because like cognitive therapies, behavioral therapies cannot heal what underlies these symptoms. Why not? Because they too do not address peoples' visually blocked needs. At least not in a direct and lasting way.

How about the combination of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies, the current darling of insurance companies? Is this the answer? The truth. Well think about it. While this combo does generate some great sounding treatment plans, and while these treatment plans can often be understood even by untrained clerks, do two wrongies make a rightie? Naw. Why not? Because healing still requires we restore a person's blocked visual access to their needs. Period. Thus for all the things these two therapies can do well, because neither address peoples' visually block needs, neither can actually heal wounds. At least not purposely.

So what makes us think these therapies can heal our wounds? Mostly something one of my heroes, William James, believed in. That "acting as if" can lead to healing. And while on occasion these therapies can and do lead to healing, this healing happens more by accident than by design. Something like stumbling onto the correct answer to a math problem and not knowing how you got there.

My point? Do you want to bet your suffering on the accidental healing these kinds of therapies sometimes bring you to? I don't. At the same time, they both offer much in the way of preliminary good.

Myth Number Four: Spiritual Healing is The Answer
Yes, I know. I just used the "S" word. Which means I'm opening up a whole horse belly full of worms here. And no. I'm not one of those arrogant heads-with-feet who believes there is no such thing as a spiritual life. Still, whomever created us gave us minds for a reason; to learn to heal whatever injures our ability to love each other.

So what is it that I am saying is a myth here?

I'm saying that while prayer, meditation, laying on of hands, and so on are wonderful adjuncts to talk therapy, these things alone are not enough. At least, not for us folks with an average level of faith.

Am I saying that Spiritual Therapies do not belong in talk therapy then? I am absolutely not saying this. However, I am saying that while I personally believe very much in the power of prayer and so on, I also believe a therapy should never rely on prayer alone. Not as a primary talk therapy anyway. Why not? Because we are all simultaneously spiritual beings and physical beings. Thus only the combination of body and spirit taken together as one gives us access to the true nature of our wounds.

How hard is it to do this then? Fortunately, not hard at all, as addressing these two parts of us simultaneously happens every time we visualize. More important, whenever we visualize, we gain this simultaneous access regardless of whether we believe in it or not. This access is simply built into our nature. It is the way we are designed. Good thing too. Some folks have a pretty hard time believing in things other than what they can hold in their hands. Hard evidence only for them they say. Spiritual things are too flaky to be scientific. And they are. Too flaky for science, that is.

The strange thing is, most scientific geniuses are very spiritual people. Einstein. Newton. Descartes. Stephen Hawking. To these great men, spiritual things were not flaky. They were real. Which means what exactly? Which means in order to begin to address the whole person in therapy, we need the combination of Cognitive / Behavioral / Spiritual Therapies and then some.

So is this combination the answer then? The combination of Cognitive / Behavioral / Spiritual Therapies? Not completely. You see, while all therapists wanting to be good therapists need be educated in all three, even here, a critical element is missing. What critical element? The clear and conscious ability to help people to heal their blocked visual abilities with regard to their needs. Which is where the Fractal for Good Therapy comes in. The Layer Five to Layer Seven contrast and compare.

To what am I referring? Before we look, I have one more myth to mention.

Myth Number Five: If There's No Research Behind a Therapy, It's Just Pseudoscience
[Tirade warning light on]

I have to admit, when I see someone say this stuff in print, it makes my blood boil. To what am I referring? To the idea that if the good old boys in Parrot Maker land do not see twenty years of statistically based, parrot approved research to back up a therapy, then they dismiss it as pseudoscience. That this therapy helps people is never enough.

What I'm saying is, these proponents of the Emperor's New Clothes school of science require that in order to sanction a therapy, this therapy must first have a logical proof that should work or else it is bunk. Can you imagine? That it works as a therapy is not enough!

The thing is, most of these pencil necked experts couldn't actually practice therapy with a lab rat let alone with a hurting child. Which is why, I suppose, they prefer to spend their days hiding, oops, I mean "researching" human nature from the safety of their well equipped one way glass labs, all the while dismissing what we therapists out in the field have to say as unfounded. Unless of course we back it up with two hundred pages of faceless numbers and cold hard data, all of which they say is necessary in order to "protect" folks from unscrupulous therapists.

Are there unscrupulous therapists out there? A few. Yes. But is the proof for this that a therapist uses alternative or intuitive methods? No. And while I do see the good in that therapists are being asked to explain what they do, dismissing the parts of a therapy which in essence can never be explained with hard evidence is just plain wrong. Not all parts of human nature show up in linear based research.

What's wrong with linear based research anyway? Everything. Starting with the idea that trying to fit the roundness of human nature into the square hole of research numbers is like asking an oak tree to prove itself by growing a predefined set of limbs and leaves and then dismissing it as an oak tree when it can't pass this test. This is what using statistically based research data gleaned from controlled studies about human nature is like. Repeatability. Reliability. And fitting living things like human nature into facelessly dead pages of predictably repetitive data.

The sad thing is, most people, some of them incredibly smart, accept these pronouncements of legitimacy as valid. And the pronouncements of those who do not follow this regimen as pseudoscience. All this without a shred of fractally based evidence. Why the tirade? Because some of the best therapists of all time; Carl Jung and Pierre Janet to name two, made up their therapies on the fly and only then supported what they saw with theory.

How exactly did they do this? Simple. They looked for fractal patterns in human nature and then used what they found to better help their patients, all the while refining what they did. More important, this process took place entirely in real life situations with real live people and not just in controlled, artificially inseminated lab settings.

My point? I've gleaned the fractal pattern I'm about to present from having sat with thousands of hurting people. Literally, at this point, I have sat with thousands. And like my heroes, Jung, James, Janet, Freud, Adler and so on, I base what I am about to present on that it helps people. In real life settings. And not just in pseudo real life science lab settings.

Just imagine how much might change about therapy if what I'm presenting here is true? Can you imagine? Making understandable what great therapists like Jung and Janet did. Not just in artificially controlled research settings but in real life, face to face, talk therapy settings. And before you dismiss what I've been saying about these great men, go back and read what was written about them by their adversaries. If you do, you'll find they too were called pseudoscientists by the parrot makers of their times.

On the other hand, if you dig beneath these dismissive remarks, you'll also find things like that even the folks who dismissed James and Jung sent them students and clients. Jung was in fact seen as one of the best therapists of his day. And James as one of the best teachers.

My point? Yes. Make people show you that what they do really helps people. But do this in real live, case by case tests and not in pseudo therapeutic settings from behind a one way glass or worse, from behind pages of numbers.

Okay. I'm done.
[Tirade warning light off]

Please note, to read the rest of this article, you'll have to click the article title below. Why? For one thing, I frequently revise these articles. For another, because these articles can be a bit long for a blog entry. Plain Talk about Talk Therapy - Week Ten.]

Tags: talk therapy, emergence personality theory, fractal for good therapy