Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘psychology’ Category

Look at the colour of this water. It’s an amazing colour isn’t it?

water green from reflected leaves

Why is it that colour? It’s the effect of all the leaves on the trees of the forest through which the stream is flowing. On another day, in another season, this very water (well, actually, this very stream, not this very water!), looks an entirely different colour. In fact, a few hours earlier, or a few hours later, it looks completely different.

This got me thinking. Not just thinking how beautiful it is. It is stunningly beautiful. But how change is a such a constant, and, how whatever we see is the result of many factors, and how everything needs to be understood in it’s context, and how nothing can be reduced to some simple set of data, or simple description, without, in fact, obscuring its reality.

Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but it also got me thinking about the interactions between the environment and the elements of the environment. I’ve just taken out a subscription to a new journal titled Ecopsychology. I’ve never come across this term before, but its the area of study which looks at the interactions between behaviour and the environment. I love it when I come across these whole new fields of human exploration and knowledge.

Read Full Post »

the need to belong

Everyone has to deal with this paradox – how can I preserve my individuality, yet not be isolated? I think of it as a spectrum, with individuality at one end of the line, and shared membership of a group at the other. Our immune systems are designed to recognise anything that is “not me” and reject it, so our prime defence mechanism is to reject anything that we don’t recognise as consistent with our individuality. We all need a coherent sense of an individual self. We create that through the stories we tell ourselves and others. At the other end of the scale, solitary confinement is one of the worst imaginable punishments, used to control prisoners since time began. We need to belong. We need to know we are not isolated, unrecognised or unloved. I think we all juggle that paradox throughout our whole lives. It’s a dynamic. Some of us hover mainly around the individuality end of the spectrum and others hover around the group end, but we all need to satisfy both needs in our lives.

It’s this photo I took in Japan earlier this year which got me thinking about this. See how almost all the turtles are trying to crowd onto the one little rock! They need to be together! I say “almost all”, because if you look closely you’ll see one little guy out there on the right happily paddling his own way.

Read Full Post »

That famous line from Burns’ “To a Louse”…….Oh wad some power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us – lovely sentiment, but just not possible! I was reminded of it as I read two related articles by Emily Pronin recently (published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,Vol. 28 No. 3, March 2002 369-381 and the 30 MAY 2008 VOL 320 of SCIENCE Magazine)

Do you ever think why am I only person to see something rationally and reasonably, and everyone else seems biased?
Well, that’s a common experience. It’s also common to wonder why nobody really understands you, and to always fail to completely understand another person.
Why is that?
The practice of medicine is based on understanding……trying to understand what another person is experiencing in order to try and identify whether or not they are ill, and what kind of help they might need. Sounds simple, but it’s far from it.
I recently read two related articles which explain these difficulties very clearly. As with most insights, what they have to say seems clear and obvious once you read it. Both articles deal with the differences between self-knowledge and the knowledge of others.
In essence they show that for self-knowledge we have continuous access to our inner subjective experience of reality, including the full range of sensory inputs, our emotions, and our thought processes. However, when we try to have knowledge of another person we have no direct access at all to any of these phenomena. How exactly does another person perceive and experience a particular colour, or sound, or smell? What emotional experience are they having? And what are they actually thinking? We don’t know. We can’t know. We have to listen to what they have to say and watch how they behave then make our assumptions. Our assumptions, of course, are based on our perspective, not on theirs.
So it isn’t possible to know another person the way can know ourselves. On top of that, our subjective experience conveys a degree of authenticity to our sense of self, which can never be matched when interpreting the language or behaviour of another.
It’s just how things are. We function in a way which gives great weight to our subjective experience…..even our opinions and assumptions about others gain, for us, this high degree of authenticity. We have a tendency to think we can understand another person better than they can understand themselves. The reality, however, is just the reverse, and we should always doubt our understanding and judgement of others more than we do. That’s why true empathy requires a high level of humility.

Read Full Post »

A study by psychologists has looked at the common recommendation found in self-help books – affirmations. You know the kind of thing…..where you are encouraged to repeat over to yourself phrases like “I am a lovable person”, or “I accept myself completely.”

What they found was that in people who had high self-esteem, these affirmations helped them to feel slightly better, but in those who had low self-esteem, the affirmations made them feel worse!

As the authors concluded, “Repeating positive self-statements may benefit certain people [such as individuals with high self-esteem] but backfire for the very people who need them the most.”

As I’ve said before, one size fits all interventions are not what they claim to be. They don’t fit all at all!

Read Full Post »

Here’s an interesting study published in the journal, “Brain, Behaviour and Immunity”. In a nutshell, they’ve found a relationship between personality traits of extraversion and the levels of an inflammatory chemical in the blood (Interleukin-6). The more extraverted, the lower the levels of this chemical. Why’s that a good thing? Well, the higher levels are indicative of increased inflammatory activity (in aging women the difference between high and low levels can result in a two fold increase in mortality over five years). Many serious chronic conditions are thought to result from increased inflammatory activity.

There’s a reassuring increase in studies of this type (in PNI – “Psychoneuroimmunology”) and they’re beginning to give us a better scientific understanding of the interconnectedness of all our body systems, and to break down the rather naive idea that the body and the mind are separate.

This particular study has hooked my attention because of its focus on extraversion. I suppose neither extraversion, nor intraversion, seem, on the face of it, to be healthy characteristics, so I was keen to understand exactly what the psychologists were interpreting as extraversion. Apparently Karl Jung described extraverts as focused on the world around them and happiest in the presence of others. Psychological models of character have come a long way since his day and this particular group of researchers worked with a model known as the “Five Factor Model” of personality. The five factors are –

  1. Extraversion
  2. Emotional Stability
  3. Agreeableness
  4. Conscientiousness
  5. Openness to Experience

Here’s one definition of extraversion

Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say “Yes!” or “Let’s go!” to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.

The particular element of extraversion associated with the lower inflammatory markers is “dispositional activity” – which the researchers are also dubbing “life force” (its the extent to which you wholeheartedly engage with life really)

I think that’s fascinating. As you know, my three key characteristics of health are adaptability, creativity and ENGAGEMENT, and my palette of factors for a good life includes a sense of wonder in the everyday (“emerviellement” in the “quotidien”)

I was intruiged to learn more about the Five Factor model. Wikipedia, as usual, has a good entry. But if you want to find out what the five factor analysis says about your own personality, try here where they have an excellent, free online, instrument.


Read Full Post »

Here’s an interesting piece of research.

Psychologists decided to study how mood affected a sense of identity. The first thing they did was split the volunteer subjects into two groups – European and Asian. They claim that Europeans culturally value individuality and independence most highly, whilst Asians rate community and harmony most highly. I can see where that comes from but it’s one of those rather sweeping generalisations, isn’t it? However, let’s assume they actually checked out to see if their particular volunteers rated those characteristics in those ways.

They conducted two studies. In one, each group had to first list to Mozart (described as uplifting) and then Rachmaninov (described as mood lowering) [yet another BIG generalisation, huh? Again, let’s presume they had some way of checking that out on their subjects]. In the second, they had to hold a pen in their mouth, first between their teeth (forcing a smile), and second between their lips (forcing a frown)!

The groups were then tested in a variety of ways to see how strongly they expressed either individualistic or group values.

What they found was interesting – the mood elevated groups expressed more highly divergent values, and the mood lowered groups reverted much more to cultural stereotype, as if good moods lead to a freedom to explore a wider sense of self, and low moods did the opposite.

As is often the case with these reports, I particularly liked the conclusion –

They conclude that the findings also suggest that the “self” may not be as robust and static as we like to believe and that the self may be dynamic, constructed again and again from one’s situation, heritage and mood.

It’s just that……are there still people around who think the “self” is a static entity?

Isn’t it now widely understood that the sense of self is an act of continuous creation?

Read Full Post »

Because I deal with stories every day, I decided to learn more about the place of narrative in human experience, but coming from a medical perspective I couldn’t find much about narrative, even though there are emerging disciplines of “narrative-based medicine” and “narrative-based research”. Instead, I found the best thinking on storytelling lay in the world of the Humanities. In fact, Richard Kearney’s “On Stories” gave me more insights than any other single work.

It was interesting, therefore, to read this perspective, from Scientific American, which describes how researchers are beginning to study the use of narrative in order to gain insights into the workings of the mind. “Why does our brain seem to be wired to enjoy stories? And how do the emotional and cognitive effects of a narrative influence our beliefs and real-world decisions?”

The first problem scientists face, however, is defining a story! What exactly constitutes a story?

Exposition contrasts with narrative by being a simple, straightforward explanation, such as a list of facts or an encyclopedia entry. Another standard approach defines narrative as a series of causally linked events that unfold over time. A third definition hinges on the typical narrative’s subject matter: the interactions of intentional agents—characters with minds—who possess various motivations.

I loved the conclusion they reached –

However narrative is defined, people know it when they feel it. Whether fiction or nonfiction, a narrative engages its audience through psychological realism—recognizable emotions and believable interactions among characters. “Everyone has a natural detector for psychological realism,” says Raymond A. Mar, assistant professor of psychology at York University in Toronto. “We can tell when something rings false.”

In other words……you just know! How often this applies in life! How do you know when you are well? How do you know when your energy levels are good? Guess it’s the same when it comes to recognising a story. It’s a function of human intuition.

Do you become immersed in stories? Completely absorbed by them? Well, it turns out that if you have prior experience which is similar to that of the characters in the stories then you are more likely to become immersed in those stories. This is kind of obvious. It means that you are more likely to become absorbed by a story if you identify with the characters. One step beyond this conclusion is interesting though…..those who become more easily immersed in a wider range of stories have been shown to be those who have the greatest capacity to empathise. Interestingly, this can work the other way too…….you can increase somebody’s ability to empathise by teaching them literature! The ability to empathise is the ability to imagine what’s going on in someone else’s mind – scientists call this “theory of mind”. Theory of mind develops in children around the age of 5 and is a key part of the human ability to live in communities. So, storytelling also has the possibility of improving our skills in living together.

Other scientists have studied stories to see what they reveal about human motivations and goals –

As many as two thirds of the most respected stories in narrative traditions seem to be variations on three narrative patterns, or prototypes, according to Hogan. The two more common prototypes are romantic and heroic scenarios—the former focuses on the trials and travails of love, whereas the latter deals with power struggles. The third prototype, dubbed “sacrificial” by Hogan, focuses on agrarian plenty versus famine as well as on societal redemption. These themes appear over and over again as humans create narrative records of their most basic needs: food, reproduction and social status.

Are these the basic, common themes we find in stories? Do you agree that stories reveal the common human patterns of motivation and desire?

Let me finish this post with the final point made in this interesting article – the power of stories to influence us. This is well understood by advertisers and PR companies, but this point really struck me –

…..labeling information as “fact” increased critical analysis, whereas labeling information as “fiction” had the opposite effect. Studies such as these suggest people accept ideas more readily when their minds are in story mode as opposed to when they are in an analytical mind-set.

Now isn’t that interesting! Stories are more likely to convince people than “facts”!

Read Full Post »

Juliette Binoche is one of my favourite actresses so I was delighted to read a short interview with her in “Psychologies” magazine this month. The article referred to her creative range – as an actress, a painter and, now in London, a dancer. Even if you just check out her filmography, it’s clear this is someone who likes to push against her boundaries. In the interview she reveals a number of her key beliefs –

  1. Risk taking. “It’s when you are taking risks that you know what you’re capable of. You discover your strengths, and your self. So that’s why sometimes you have to push yourself a little bit in order to surpass your expectations.”
  2. Non-attachment. “I like to leave habits behind. They scare me. Life isn’t about hanging on to things”
  3. Learning. She’s a great example of what Carol Dweck calls “the growth mindset“. Asked about her parents divorce when she was young and being sent away to school, she responded “I took it as a learning process”
  4. Living in the present. “It’s important to me to make the present as beautiful as I can”
  5. Potential. Asked if creativity can be learned she said “We all have potential. We just need to stop being afraid of exploring something new, something daring. Someone said “We’re more scared of our lights, of our possibilities, than of our darkness” Why are we so scared of new beginnings?
  6. Internal locus of power. Like William Glass she clearly believes in Choice Theory. “We always think the solution is external, not internal. But real change comes from an internal shift”
  7. Importance of human connections. “I cannot work and not feel connected. It would make no sense to me. I need the human connection, the complicity…..”
  8. No regrets. Asked “Do you ever regret your choices?”, she responds “No. This is my life. When you have dark moments, desire does return. Life surprises you all the time. I just wish for the best, open my arms and go for it.”

I recently read an interesting post about life lessons from Bon Jovi…….well, this makes a nice collection of life lessons from Juliette Binoche.

Read Full Post »

Stanford university psychologist, Carol Dweck has published a book entitled “Mindset. The New Psychology of Success” (ISBN 978-0-345-47232-8). Guy Kawasaki posted about it, and wrote a commendation which is printed on the front page. And Stanford Magazine did an article about it last year.

She’s identified two “mindsets” in relation to how people approach challenges and effort.

When you enter a mindset, you enter a new world. In one world – the world of fixed traits – success is about proving you’re smart or talented. Validating yourself. In the other – the world of changing qualities – it’s about stretching yourself to learn something new. Developing yourself.

One point she made which struck me as surprising at first was that people with a fixed mindset often have had lots of praise. She makes the point that just telling your child they are clever, or wonderful, or whatever, sets up a belief system in them which can become fixed and she recommends instead praising children for their effort, for what they’ve learned. This is her key point really – that when you have a mindset about loving learning you can grow, but when you have a mindset where you think talents are fixed then you get stuck.

The fixed mindset limits achievement. It fills people’s minds with interfering thoughts, it makes effort disagreeable, and it leads to inferior learning strategies. What’s more, it makes other people into judges instead of allies. Whether we’re talking about Darwin or college students, important achievements require a clear focus, all-out effort, and a bottomless trunk full of strategies. Plus allies in learning. This is what the growth mindset gives people, and that’s why it helps their abilities grow and bear fruit.

Read Full Post »

16 in 1

I’ve just embarked upon a study of the Abhidamma – it’s a Buddhist text which is referred to as THE main text on Buddhist psychology. Buddhist psychology is becoming more prominent in recent times because those who write about neuroscientific approaches to the Mind, researchers and philosophers interested in phenomena like consciousness and perception are discovering that many of the Buddhist insights help them with their more biomedical approaches.

This concept suddenly stopped me in my tracks – we tend to perceive reality as being like a series of events. We divide time into the past, the present and the future, and the present is the time period which is the hardest to pin down because as soon as you think about it, it’s slipped into the past! One way of modelling this concept of reality is the movie. We know that a movie is made up from a long series of still photos. When we run the film past our eyes quickly we don’t actually see any of the single frames. Instead, we see movement. So maybe the way to understand reality is to break down the flow of experience into events….like the individual frames of the movie. I’ve wondered about this a few times but the author of the text I’m reading suddenly turned it on its head and that’s what stopped me in my tracks.

He said, what if we think about it in quite the opposite way? What if reality is the flow, and the individual frames, or events are artificial? In other words, there are no events, there is only flow. Slicing the flow into pieces is artificial and gives us the impression that we can understand reality by considering disconnected small segments of it.

This is exactly the problem we have with materialistic, reductionist science. We are told that science can describe complete phenomena as entities, things, or “facts”. But that’s artificial. Reality is flow, is connection and process and cannot be reduced to fixed units. Fortunately, the new developments in science have taken this on board. The new ways include thinking about complexity, chaos, networks and systems. They have a dynamic focus, not a fixed one.

Oh, what’s that photo above? My camera has a function called “16 shot” – you press the shutter release and it takes 16 photos in rapid succession and shows you the results as a single image. This is a photo of a wave. Not only does the phenomenon of a wave act as an interesting example of how see “entitities”, of things, by slicing up the flow of reality, but it reminds us of the impermanence of everything and of the constancy of change.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »