Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘life’ Category

Gut Feelings

The relationship between intuition and reasoning has been cropping up all over the place for me recently.

I just read Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer (ISBN 978-0-7139-9751-4) and he gives one of the most cogent models of intuition I’ve ever read. He outlines what he calls “evolved capacities” – these are human qualities or characteristics which have evolved either genetically or culturally. They are language, recognition memory, object tracking, imitation and feelings like love. He makes a good case for the uniqueness of these capacities in human beings (claiming that neither other animals nor computer-based Artificial Intelligence have or ever will have them).

His model of intuition (or “gut feelings”) is that these evolved capacities interact with environmental structures around the individual and are processed through simple rules of thumb to produce what we recognise as gut feelings. I like this model. It fits well with discoveries in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and complexity science. I’m sure others will identify other qualities which fit with his idea of “evolved capacities” and I think the adaptive nature of rules of thumb applied appropriately in different contexts really works.

There’s no doubt that rationalism and logic are only two of the tools we use to understand things and I think Gigerenzer’s model of intuition highlights a major other set of tools which we use (maybe even more frequently than we do reasoning and logic). I also think it’s good to take the mysticism out of intuition and to distinguish it from simple guess work.

In this way of thinking intuition can be both developed and taught and I find that pretty exciting.

One of the key points he makes is that intuitive processes are especially helpful when dealing with situations which are very uncertain – prediction for example. This highlights a role for intuition in everything from health care to investment decisions.

I’ve long been aware that the practice of acute medicine in particular requires rapid intuitive skill – an over-reliance on data collection and analysis in these situations can be fatal. Right off the top of my head I can recall a child with meningococcal meningitis, a young farmer in rural Ayrshire with malaria and man with toothache who turned out to be having a heart attack. In all three of these cases I’m sure it was instant (and I do mean instant!) decision making that saved their lives. In each case the diagnoses were unusual for a general practitioner and none of them would have survived had I waited to do some tests before acting. I’m sure all doctors have had similar experiences – those instants where you “just know” that this is a serious life-threatening situation despite the lack of detailed evidence!

Uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of  our lives and intuition is one of the key tools we need to deal with it.

Read Full Post »

 

 

I enjoyed this.

 

You might too

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

30,000 days

I stumbled across this 30,000 days figure the other day. Apparently its about how many days there are in an average life. Well, I thought, never being one to take what I read completely on trust, is this right? So I popped over to the General Register Office for Scotland website where they’ve just published the latest life expectancy figures for Scotland and it turns out that for Scottish males its currently 74.6 years. My Dad was 80 at the end of last year and is alive and well so I’m hoping that, like him, I won’t be average! (Don’t we all?!). Let me err on the side of cautious optimism though and assume the average. I then went to timeanddate.com which has all kinds of date calculators for you to use. I fed in the figures.

For the average Scottish male you can expect 27,035 days of life (quite a lot short of the 30,000!)

For me, today, 8th September 2007, I’ve lived 19,391 days! Wooosh!!!! Where did THEY go??!!

If I can reckon on the average, I’ve 7,644 days left to enjoy.

This is where I turn to Seneca who wrote The Shortness of Life

You are living as if destined to live for ever, your own frailty never occurs to you; you don’t notice how much time has already passed, but squander it as though you had a full overflowing supply – though all the while that very day which you are devoting to somebody or something may be your last.

People often ask me how I manage to do so much, but I don’t think I do so much. What I do is to live life passionately, living as the hero of my own personal story, trying as little as possible to fall into zombie mode.

And, you know what? The numbers aren’t that important, they’re only an estimate after all, but the quality certainly is. I can’t control the numbers but I can choose to live a passionate life. Today.

Read Full Post »

Good post today on iwillchangeyourlife.com about how people go through life on “autopilot” with some points to make you ask yourself how much of your life is on “autopilot”.

This idea is right alongside my basic premise for this blog – living life unconsciously – whether you call that being on “autopilot” or living like a zombie – is just not a rich or healthy life.

The answer lies in recognising yourself as the hero of your own story – becoming more aware, engaging with life more consciously and actively creating your own path.

Read Full Post »

Do you know about The Secret? This was originally produced as a TV series by an Australian TV producer called Rhonda Byrne. It wasn’t shown by the TV channel which commissioned it and was turned into a DVD, book and now a whole movement it seems. Wikipedia has a pretty thorough article on the background story plus a presentation of the views of people for and against The Secret. According to their article, the book which inspired Rhonda Byrne was the 1910 The Science of Getting Rich by William Wattles. They also say the principles espoused are pretty much the same as those of the New Thought movement.

What is The Secret?

Well, it’s the “Law of Attraction” – which is the belief that if you ask for something, then the Universe will deliver it. Of course this will strike a chord if you ever read “Ask and you will receive” in the New Testament of the Bible, or if you came across the New Age “Cosmic Ordering” idea. These ideas have been around a long, long time but “The Secret” has packaged it up in a DaVinci Code kind of way to sell it to a new market.

I watched the film recently and found I had an enormous mix of responses. You can find a whole range of views and opinions about this film on the net – everything from the view that “The Secret” is the answer to life, the universe and everything to the view that’s it’s psychobabble nonsense. Actually, I think it’s neither of these things.

When I watched the film, which is basically a talking heads documentary, I enjoyed the graphics, but didn’t enjoy the rather trite little “drama” scenes used to illustrate the points, and the speakers, for me, ranged from inspiring to PU-U-U- LLEEEEZE – Let me OUT of here!!! (I’ll leave you to make your own judgement on exactly who fell into which category!)

It is EASY to be critical of this film – you could easily say it is simply positive thinking embellished to the point of magical thinking. However, there are useful and inspiring messages in it –

  • Starting your day with thoughts of gratitude orientates you towards an awareness of the positive in your life.
  • Having a positive mental attitude is likely to help you to greater happiness.
  • What you focus is on is what you experience most in life.

But where it goes wrong for me is pushing it into the magical realm of a belief system that we entirely create our own reality and that our thoughts will be responded to by the universe which will give us exactly what we think. This lends itself to a blame-the-victim mentality where suffering is seen to be a result of the person’s own thinking – they brought cancer, or violence, or abuse, or whatever, down on themselves. This is distasteful and naive. It also lends itself to the no-effort-required view that you don’t have to strive for anything you can just lust after it hard enough and the universe will deliver it!

And yet, and yet……….

Here’s the most interesting thing for me about it so far. It’s not the positive thinking bit. I reckon that idea is difficult to challenge. There’s ample evidence from psychologists and philosophers that taking a deliberate focus on the positive can be beneficial not just in terms of mental health, but in terms of physical health, and recovery from serious disease. It’s also quite evident in life terms – from personal to business success.

Now it is quite clear to me that just thinking you can be whatever you want to be will bring that about is nonsense – as a 53 year old, 5 foot 5 inch man I will never get to play for the Harlem Globetrotters and I won’t run in the British 400 metre Relay Team at any Olympic games! You can NOT just “be whatever you want to be” – there ARE limits!

No, the interesting bit to explore is the idea that you create your own reality. I think this cosmic ordering kind of idea has got it the wrong way round. It doesn’t seem credible to me that there is some mysterious magical force in the universe which delivers your every wish if only you visualise it clearly enough and apply a type of faith to believing that whatever you visualise will come to pass. I do believe, however, that if you focus clearly on something, you raise your awareness to daily phenomena, events and circumstances which are relevant to that focus. I also think if you apply a highly motivated creativity to your focus then you are way more likely to actually achieve your goals. But I think this direction of flow is the opposite to that espoused in The Secret.

Stuff happens. Good stuff and bad stuff. We live in a chaotic universe. The development of scientific understandings of chaos and complexity shows us that chaos has both features of cause-and-effect and of randomness. Some things happen as a consquence of the actions of ourselves or those of others. But some things happen that are literally random. Nothing to do with anyone’s thought processes. How we cope with that stuff, how we adapt to that stuff……..that’s what radically alters our experience.

So our reality is created both by our experiences and by our reactions to our experiences. It’s not created by an intelligent or magical universe and it’s not created just by our thinking.

I’m glad I watched The Secret. Yes, its tacky focus on materialistic consumerism feels small-minded and is uncomfortable. But, it’s also thought-provoking and inspiring.

Read Full Post »

It is impossible to understand anything in isolation. If you really want to understand something you have to consider it in its contexts or environments. I think that plants make that point beautifully. Think how a plant cannot exist all by itself. Think how it connects to other parts of nature in order to live, to grow and to reproduce.This time of year you can see an amazing diversity of strategies that plants use to spread their seeds.

Wind dispersal

Wind dispersal can carry the seeds to some pretty unusual places –

Plant gutter from afar

Some of those places are more useful to the plant than others –

Seeded web

A quite different strategy is to hook onto passing animals. I’m not sure if this is a Scottish term or not but we call these “burrs” –

Burrs

These are such vivid ways of showing us the interconnectedness and interdependences of nature.

Humans are the same. We spread ideas, thoughts and even feelings. We can spread them deliberately, or randomly, but in neither case can we control where they’ll end up!

Read Full Post »

Wesley Fryer’s excellent Moving at the speed of creativity blog has an interesting post today on “Measuring Engagement“. Engagement is, I think, a key quality of a healthy life. But what does it mean exactly?

I think of it as being in active exchange with your environment – both consciously and unconsciously; physically, emotionally and spiritually. There are three elements to this –

  1. the environment
    We are embedded in multiple environments. By that I mean you can’t see who you are in isolation. Nobody exists out of all context. Our environments are multiple – the physical environment of air, light, heat, noise and so on; the relationship environment of our place in our own personal networks of people (family, friends, colleagues, society etc); the semantic environment of meaning – the sense we make of the signals and symbols around us; and so on…multiple life contexts.
  2. being in exchange
    Within our environments we are continually receiving and responding to signals – detecting changes and adapting to them.
  3. active
    By active I especially mean conscious – the greater our awareness, the greater our ability to choose between possible responses to the changes in our environments. In addition, by active, I mean creatively active, because when well we don’t just respond to changes in our environments, we initiate changes too.

Wesley Fryer’s area of interest is education. I’m primarily a physician but a significant part of my job is education so that perspective interests me too. I share his interest in web technologies and it’s a Facebook development that seems to have stimulated this particular post. Facebook has measured applications on the basis of numbers of users but is now changing that to measure “engagement” instead – by this they really mean they are measuring a number of ways users interact with an application. Jeremiah Owyang argues that this is not really “engagement” but just “interaction”. Whatever you think about the Facebook model, Wesley goes on to consider how teachers measure engagement in the classroom (as opposed to just participation).

So, all this got me thinking. If I believe that engagement is a key quality in health, how do I know how well that is functioning in a particular patient’s life? Let me explain a little further…….

When someone has chronic suffering, be it pain, breathlessness, depression, whatever, their lives can become much smaller. They can retreat from work, from social interaction, and even from the basics of life – not noticing the world around them, collapsing further and further into a deep, black, hole. As they start to become well again they begin to notice more and respond to more around them, become more active socially and their lives gradually expand. This expansion is one of greater engagement (in illness, the contraction of life is a loss of engagement).

So, here’s my query – how do you know you are more or less engaged in life? Are you aware, when your world is either shrinking or expanding, of what it is that’s changing? What does “engagement” mean to you?

Read Full Post »

Life

What are the characteristics of Life? (as opposed to those of inanimate objects and the dead?)

It’s a strange truth that if you consult a textbook of biology you probably won’t find an entry in the index for “life” (it’s equally strange that the standard medical textbooks, such as Davidson’s Principles of Medicine, don’t have an index entry for “health”)

Varela and Maturana at MIT invented a word – “autopoiesis” – for what they thought was the key characteristic of living organisms. They explain that autopoiesis means “self-making capacity” and say that only living organisms can do this.

I think Life has at least these two main characteristics –

  1. the capacity to detect and respond to change AND
  2. growth.

We are continually perceiving and sensing the world and constantly responding to all the signals we are picking up. We respond to maintain our health (a function known as homeostasis describes the organism’s capacity to maintain internal stability). But we don’t just maintain an adaptive status quo……we grow.

Growth involves development, expansion, and novelty. Growth is our creative function.

Zombies don’t perceive and adapt. Heroes are consciously aware, reflective and responsive.

Zombies don’t grow. Heroes accept challenges and grow in the process.

That’s why I think our true nature is as heroes, not zombies.

Read Full Post »

A couple of posts yesterday got me thinking about this whole “gut feelings” or “intuition” thing. First off, on the Petri Project, “No guts, No glory”, discusses the work of Gerd Girenzer, who has just published “Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious”. Apparently, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” was based on Girenzer’s ideas. He’s shown that the apparently “rational” approach of making big lists of pros and cons before making a decision can lead to worse decisions than following your gut instincts. I particularly liked this quote –

One should also not overlook that in science itself, you need intuitions. All successful research scientists function, to a degree, on gut instincts. They must make leaps, whether they have all the data or not. And at a certain moment, having the data doesn’t help them, but they still must know what to do. That’s when instinct comes in.

Then on Christopher Richard’s wonderful SlowDownNow site he’s written “Creativity, the slow way where he writes about Guy Claxton’s “Hare Brain Tortoise Mind”. Apparently, Guy Claxton has coined the term the “undermind” for that mental function of slow knowing, or intuition. Christopher is so right when he says –

I appreciate science. I don’t want to give the wrong impression. But the scientific way of thinking now dominates how we think about everything. We have become myopic. Mathematics and science are the most valued subjects, but the arts are now second-class.

There are many ways to know something. Rationalism is good and has its place but there’s a kind of approach to science these days that seems to say that all that matters is what can be measured. Well, love, passion, well-being, health, meaning, purpose, beauty, aesthetics…….I could go on…..are not quantifiable. Yet they matter to us. We make our choices using more than rational thinking (and, don’t make the mistake of saying the alternative is “irrational” thinking). Intuition, aesthetics, and emotions all come into play, along with logic, in trying to lead an examined, worthwhile life.

Science, however, shouldn’t be limited to what can be measured. I think Deleuze had it right – science is a way of thinking – a way of thinking about function. Science helps us to understand how things work. But we also need to think about concepts, percepts and affects. It’s not “anti-science” to be clear about the limits of science.

Read Full Post »

Great post (in fact great series) across on successfromthenest on creativity. It was the title of the post which caught my attention “Saying you’re not creative is like saying you’re not human.” I couldn’t agree more.

I do find it helpful to understand people by considering how they adapt to (or cope with) changes and challenges, how they engage with the world and how they create – I agree with Tony Clark about this – a lot of people think they aren’t creative because they don’t draw or write but we are all creative every day. How you make decisions, how you problem solve and how you express yourself is all based on creativity.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »