In his opinionated but interesting book, Thinking in the Shadows of Feelings, Bar-Levav discusses the overuse of running as a coping skill, with the help of an excerpt from an article that appeared in a popular running magazine. The article describes how a doctor who used long-distance running to keep intense depression and mania at bay came down with an injury, had difficulty running as much as he used to, and later killed himself. He left a note saying something to the effect that, "For me, running was everything." I haven't found a link to that article yet, but here is another, similar story.
Such deaths are clearly very unfortunate, but the least we can do is to learn from them. These days, running, along with exercise in general, is heralded as a silver bullet for physical and mental ills, and much of this is justified. Compared to sitting on the couch, moving does wonders for body and mind alike. But we must also remember to think clearly about the addictive tendencies we all have to varying degrees, and the risk of putting all our eggs of anxiety in a single basket. If that coping-basket breaks, then all of our anxiety may break open at once.
The addiction to running is still an addiction, but unique in being largely beneficial to most of those who have it, as long as their health, ankles, and schedules allow them to sustain it. It can also be a wonderful replacement for other, less kindly addictions, though it still has withdrawal effects.
But there is a possible second respect in which running addiction is unique, and it connects directly to the first. Insofar as runners correctly see running as a uniquely beneficial addiction, they may be even more likely than those with intrinsically destructive addictions to view their dependency as unconditionally healthy, even when it is not. That is, they may think running is healthy even if they are literally running away from problems they would be better off solving directly, or running as part of an eating disorder. In other words, it may keep them from the growth that would occur if they faced their problems and fears head-on.
Now, I am not anti-running by any means. I love to run, and think most people would benefit from doing more of it. But I also think Bar-Levav's concern is valid. Even something that is truly good for us can reach a point of excess. And what constitutes 'too much' may have more to do with the reasoning that leads us to engage in a given activity with a certain frequency and level of intensity than with the frequency and level of intensity itself.
Let's take someone who runs 1 mile a day because it is 'a godsend,' a way of skimming off excessive energy, and who is unable to cope without it. They may want to consider running more infrequently, perhaps every other day, and work on developing other coping mechanisms. Hopefully they will eventually reach the point that when they go back to running daily, days off are only a source of minor annoyance, rather than one of complete frustration.
On the other hand, consider someone who runs 3 miles a day, who finds it a pure joy to connect with their body and the world around them, in that steady succession of rhythmic motions and breaths. They often find days off a chance to enjoy the contemplativeness and relaxation of a bodily state that is less aroused, and have other, lower-intensity ways of releasing tension in their bodies when needed. As long as they are maintaining a healthy body weight and an adequate amount of body fat (and, in the case of pre-menopausal women, a key symptom of sufficient body fat is menstruating), such a person should undoubtedly continue as they are. For, they can enjoy running, enjoy not running, and remain healthy. This suggests they have other coping skills, and thus are more likely to retain their equilibrium even if injury strikes, and they cannot run for an extended period of time.
Still, there is such a thing as an extent of running that might be excessive in itself, even if days off are okay and the body is healthy, because the intensity of the experience is a thrill. And thrills, like all sensation-seeking, can make the rest of life seem more drab by comparison. Thrill-seekers have increased their tolerance to stimulation, and need more stimulation than daily life can reliably provide to feel pleasure. Therefore, post-race depression - which seems to have greater withdrawal effects than days off from a normal run - is not surprising. The intensity of the effort is greater than that which your body is used to, and the excitement (dopamine, adrenaline, endorphins, the whole shebang) is greater as well. If you deal with depression already, avoiding such intense workouts might not be a bad idea. This blog post in 'Runner's World' is a reflective, brief, personal take on the suicide of an ultra-marathoner, and mentions post-race depression as a possible issue.
Lastly, I would like to mention four interesting research-based findings related to running and high-intensity exercise in general. These may help to keep running in perspective. Running is a particularly effective tool in the toolbox of a balanced life when used moderately, but it is not a cure-all. Nor, as we have seen, is it without risks.
First, and perhaps surprisingly, the heart benefits from exercise based on distance, regardless of how fast you go (I wonder if this is true with swimming, too). Brisk walking is just as good for cardio health as running. This is not to say that brisk walking is superior to running in all ways, but this is at least one dimension of health where running is not clearly superior.
Second, as noted in Runner's World, "Last year, two large studies, including one in Copenhagen,
found that running extends life expectancy by as much as six years. But
there was a catch: People who ran 15 to 20 miles, or about two and half
hours, per week enjoyed the added years. Those who ran 30 miles or more
did not live longer." Research is being done to find out if normal longevity is par for the course for long-distance runners. It is possible that particular populations of runners, or runners with particular habits, can live longer despite running more than 30 miles weekly. However, the present research suggests that, for most people, running 15-20 miles per week is ideal.
Third, a recent, very small study showed that low intensity exercise provided the same 20% increase in energy levels as moderate intensity exercise over six weeks. Further, low-intensity exercise decreased fatigue by a whopping 65%, 16 percentage points more than moderate-intensity exercise. Since it is conceivable that experience of fatigue is lower in low- and moderate-intensity exercisers than high-intensity exercisers, it is unfortunate the study did not include high-intensity exercise as a basis for comparison. The fact that many runners seem to have high energy levels may be a testament to their endorphins, but these same endorphins may also, conceivably, mask a deeper bodily or even psychological fatigue that returns on days off. I know of no research on this, but it would be worth looking at further. Regardless, the study indicates that low-intensity exercise certainly has significant short-term benefits. For people who want an alternative to a daily run, low-intensity exercise still offers benefits.
Fourth, research also shows that walking is especially effective at inducing
creativity, which comes in handy for solving problems real or perceived.
Brisk walking gives us a chance to get out in the world, improve our
heart health to the same extent as running, if we are going the same
distance as we would when running, and think more creatively. For these
reasons, walking may be a particularly good mode of exercise for runners
who need to take a day off and think things through.
To sum up, running is a great thing. It can replace unhealthy addictions, help us feel wonderful, improve our physical health, and give us up to six more years of life. But it can also be a way of escaping from our problems, and become the only coping skill in the runner's toolkit. When that happens, withdrawal effects after running races or when taking days off seem to be able to bring about the return or worsening of depression.
Dedicated runners should make sure they have effective coping skills other than running, and can skip a day without excessive withdrawal effects. If their honest answer is that they do not have other effective coping skills, or cannot skip a day without intolerable withdrawal effects, they have three options. They can either gradually decrease their running mileage and substitute in lower-intensity exercises like walking instead; develop other coping skills in addition to running, but keep running the same amount; or, they can do nothing. The first two options will ensure that they will be prepared for the times when coping is needed and running is unavailable. The latter option will leave them just as unprepared as ever, and that lack of preparedness may, in some cases, be the difference between life and death. In this, Bar-Levav is correct.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Public comment to the FDA, concerning its 2014-2018 strategic priorities
As you may know, I am quite passionate about the role of effective regulation in helping everyday people - who do not necessarily have the time, energy, or interest - live physically and mentally healthy lives.
Though I am not big on big government, I think regulations are necessary to keep large corporations from misusing and exploiting us more completely than they already are. If there were no corporations, I would be quite content with a much smaller government, because the wolves among us would not be cheered on by their underlings and stockholders ('The Wolf of Wall Street' comes to mind, far too vividly for my tastes).
But, there are corporations, unfortunately, and they do not give a damn about us. Let's be real, here, bodies being buried by the bottom line is nothing new. The Vioxx fiasco, in which 60,000 people died unnecessarily, is just one instance among many. Therefore, let's make ourselves heard and comment it up!
Though you need not take my own comment as a pattern by any means, I do want to share it for two reasons. First, to share some of my own concerns with you; and, second, to show you how much ground you can cover, albeit briefly, in your comment. You also have the option to attach additional documents, and that may be useful for academics who would like to include reference lists and the like.
Thank you for reading, and enjoy the following!
***
To: Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA.
Though I am not big on big government, I think regulations are necessary to keep large corporations from misusing and exploiting us more completely than they already are. If there were no corporations, I would be quite content with a much smaller government, because the wolves among us would not be cheered on by their underlings and stockholders ('The Wolf of Wall Street' comes to mind, far too vividly for my tastes).
But, there are corporations, unfortunately, and they do not give a damn about us. Let's be real, here, bodies being buried by the bottom line is nothing new. The Vioxx fiasco, in which 60,000 people died unnecessarily, is just one instance among many. Therefore, let's make ourselves heard and comment it up!
Though you need not take my own comment as a pattern by any means, I do want to share it for two reasons. First, to share some of my own concerns with you; and, second, to show you how much ground you can cover, albeit briefly, in your comment. You also have the option to attach additional documents, and that may be useful for academics who would like to include reference lists and the like.
Thank you for reading, and enjoy the following!
***
To: Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA.
I am a concerned citizen who would like to see the FDA
continue to productively fulfill its mandate to regulate food and drugs on
behalf of the general public. As I see it, areas in which the FDA can
positively impact the public health in 2014-2018, and thereafter, include the
following:
*Improve testing and labeling procedures of pharmaceuticals.
With drugs like Vioxx, which killed over 60,000 people, FDA testing procedures
failed to ensure safety. Reforms since then notwithstanding, the best way to
ensure that trials are not biased is to change the way drug trials are funded.
*Fund drug testing trials differently. Allowing companies
whose drugs are being tested to compensate the FDA directly for the cost of
these trials carries the risk of bias. This is simply human nature. Funding by
a common pool of moneys paid into by all pharmaceuticals, to be used when they
are ready to bring a new drug to market, is a possible option. Another would be
shifting the burden to taxpayers. The latter may be politically difficult, but
would provide greater objectivity in testing.
*Prohibit off-label uses of pharmaceuticals, and require
separate tests for each usage included on the label. There are a variety of
drugs widely prescribed for off-label uses without adequate testing, such as
the use of Seroquel to aid in falling asleep. The only responsible courses of
action are prohibiting all off-label uses in marketing and prescriptions;
making companies who market drugs for off-label uses and doctors who prescribe
drugs for off-label uses accountable with large fines; and, allowing these uses
to be added to the label only after appropriate testing, specific to each use,
with the population intended to be targeted by that use.
*Review claims made for the efficacy, safety, and
non-addictiveness of antidepressant drugs. The dangers of serotonin syndrome
due to mixing antidepressants, and weaning effects when getting off them, are
insufficiently known. The usage of antidepressants by perpetrators of various shootings in this country also deserves serious investigation, and labeling to
the effect that even properly prescribed use of such drugs has been correlated
in practice with violent behavior in a very small minority of cases.
Long-term changes in neurotransmitter
production that make life without depressants harder than it was before them is
also possible, at least in some cases. This is not, I think, a comparison
effect (life after being worse by comparison with life on them), but an
absolute decrease in quality of life. David Foster Wallace's death while weaning from Nardil, after decades on this drug, may be cautiously advanced as
a possible example. The withdrawal of the brain from a medication, as long as
these effects are not due to the placebo effect or psychosomatic symptoms of
other sorts, is physical withdrawal (the brain is part of the body, after all),
whether it is felt in the limbs and torso or not.
Warn patients and
physicians more explicitly about serotonin syndrome due to antidepressant use,
antidepressant dependency, and antidepressant discontinuation syndrome (also
known as weaning effects).
*Discourage testing and marketing of pharmaceutical, high
side-effect, high-cost drugs for conditions that can be as effectively treated
by low-cost, high-safety treatments like exercise and proper nutrition, or
medical procedures that primarily or solely make use of the placebo effect
(acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, etc.).
Prescribing
exercise, for instance, should be preferred to prescribing Prozac. Exercise has
benefits in all of life (rather than mental health alone), fewer side-effects,
and a generally much lower financial cost. The cost-benefit profile of
prescribing exercise for depression is likely superior to that of prescribing
antidepressants in most patients. Advertisements for antidepressants should be
required to direct consumer attention to non-pharmaceutical alternative
treatments that have shown comparable efficacy.
The Hippocratic Oath, 'Do no harm,' should be applied to our use of treatments for
conditions of all types, including those treatments regulated by the FDA. If a
treatment may be harmful, its use should be encouraged only if less harmful
treatments have not brought relief.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
C.Z. Wilson
Also consider the following steps:
*Require warnings on products containing unfermented soy or
its derivatives, due to its endocrine-disrupting effects.
*Prohibit packaging materials, ingredients, and
preservatives with endocrine-disrupting and neurotoxic properties, particularly
in fragrances, body care products, plastics, and vaccines.
*Investigate the health effects of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the water supply.
*Conduct a double-blind test on the effects of water fluoridation, over the course of 5 years, in a study with over 1000
participants.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Thoughts on Truth and Science
The other day I was reading a wonderfully articulate excerpt of
a discussion on the nature of truth between Albert Einstein and the Nobel-Prize-winning poet
Rabindranath Tagore in Brain Pickings (http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/).
If you have never heard of Tagore, you might be interested in why Einstein was interested in talking with him. It is true that Tagore's poetry was impressive. Yeats helped with the translation of his work Gitanjali, and his work is well worth a read for those who like verse (http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article776938.ece). But Einstein was probably interested in speaking with him because of his reputation as a great Indian thinker on a variety of subjects, rather than simply because he was a fine poet. He was so influential that Gandhi (a contemporary of his) was acquainted with him, and sometimes sparred with him on politics. He was also a popular figure in European culture at the time as well, particularly for a foreigner, and seen as a representative of Eastern 'mysticism.' The prospect of the greatest physicist of the West talking with a renowned representative of India would have piqued the interest of many at that time, and perhaps intrigued the two men themselves.
But discussing history is not my reason for writing this. I, too (foolish man!) feel the need to put in my two cents. Needless to say, philosophical discussion of the matter will not end with this blog post.
Not to trifle with Einstein, I agree with Tagore, and think that facts exist apart from human beings, but truth does not. My grounds for this is that we use the word fact to suggest that something is the case independent of us, whereas by truth I think we mean to say, "I have good reason to think this, and it seems compatible with the facts as I understand them. If I come to understand that the facts conflict with this, then I won’t call it truth anymore." Though there are objectively existent things, what is true about these things cannot be apprehended outside of a conceptual frame, as put forth in one or more minds and communications. We make conclusions about what is compatible with the facts, and with our values – which is what allows us to differentiate between reasons based on whether they are ‘good’ or not – based on our conceptions of fact and value, and we cannot fully step outside these conceptions all at once. Nor can truth be known – produced, constructed – apart from a cognitive faculty that perceives that frame, and is able to recognize whether a given statement or other concept coheres with segments or patterns within that frame of facts and values which that faculty has deemed relevant.
Truth for a group, as for individuals, is also a matter of coherence. But it is a coherence that is found among the concepts in many communications, as those communications are represented in a single mind or group of minds, and not among the objective things those concepts or communications point to. Therefore, coherence among poor concepts and communications seems like truth, even if it is not. And it is important to recognize that the coherence we find in a community – say, the scientific community – is found among the communications of scientists, and not in their concepts themselves. Just as we cannot access the atom in itself, without indirect means of observation and measurement, so we cannot access the concepts of others directly.
This is relevant because most of the truths we take for granted in communicating each other are social truths – coherence among communications by more than one person – rather than personal truths, coherence among concepts in our own minds. Yet, neither social nor personal truth can be recognized apart from a particular individual, who sees the patterns within it, and puts some understanding of it forward.
Scientific truth, insofar as it is sought by a group rather than an individual in isolation, is a particularly (and, generally, deservedly) privileged subtype of social truth. In this subtype, more than in any others, it is critical that we attend to the ways in which we attempt to lead others to recognize the same patterns as us in the communications of the group as a whole, and gain a consensus. Given the recent controversies over the review processes of the most recent edition of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual in psychiatry, the DSM-5 (for an example of the critiques, the following was written by the chair of the team that created the DSM-IV: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes), this is particularly salient.
Insofar as scientific truth is sought by an individual, it has the same hallmarks of differing degrees of stubbornness and suggestibility as other kinds of individual truth, when it comes to accepting the facts and patterns that others see. For, we may be either too reluctant or too eager to adopt concepts suggested by others, and overly eager or reluctant to build on the foundation of the concepts we already have. But with respect to science, at least, individual truth is less and less of a concern, as the institutional approach to science – embedded in such venerable and admirable techniques as peer-review, when practiced anonymously, and including peers with non-majority conclusions but majority working methods – is dominant, and generally with good results. So, we shall put that aside.
But in either case, in either dichotomy – social or personal truth, scientific or non-scientific – there is no single truth, no single coherence, because the contents that that coherence must be found in are shifting. We refer to this as a shifting frame of reference, but this is simplistic; we only know the frame by the contents, and the contents, like those in cereal boxes, may settle in shipping. Unlike the contents of cereal boxes, they may also change dramatically. Reality surprises us in ways processed foods generally do not. And what that leaves truth-seekers with is a need to see a new pattern, or an old one, in the new set and arrangement of contents in question.
In short, we say ‘the truth’ to keep things simple – to stipulate, ‘the coherence I see among these contents, either in terms of the contents of my own head or the communications of this particular group, in a particular time-frame’ – not because truth or frames are singular. This is not to say that the facts are similarly shifting, but that our ability to see them is contingent on coherence among sets of information that we use to arrive at conclusions about facts, and our ability to recognize when they are relevant is contingent on our priorities, which is to say, on our values. These values include epistemic values, those that pertain to what we think to be useful to the cause of knowledge – but these are values nonetheless. And these values, without which we would be hard-discerned to determine truth, are present in the minds of human beings, and not in the universe apart from us.
Tagore would agree, it seems. Einstein prefers the view that truths, like facts, are objective. What do you think is a better definition of the word, based on how you and the people you know use it in everyday life, and in special contexts like scientific discussions?
If you have never heard of Tagore, you might be interested in why Einstein was interested in talking with him. It is true that Tagore's poetry was impressive. Yeats helped with the translation of his work Gitanjali, and his work is well worth a read for those who like verse (http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article776938.ece). But Einstein was probably interested in speaking with him because of his reputation as a great Indian thinker on a variety of subjects, rather than simply because he was a fine poet. He was so influential that Gandhi (a contemporary of his) was acquainted with him, and sometimes sparred with him on politics. He was also a popular figure in European culture at the time as well, particularly for a foreigner, and seen as a representative of Eastern 'mysticism.' The prospect of the greatest physicist of the West talking with a renowned representative of India would have piqued the interest of many at that time, and perhaps intrigued the two men themselves.
But discussing history is not my reason for writing this. I, too (foolish man!) feel the need to put in my two cents. Needless to say, philosophical discussion of the matter will not end with this blog post.
Not to trifle with Einstein, I agree with Tagore, and think that facts exist apart from human beings, but truth does not. My grounds for this is that we use the word fact to suggest that something is the case independent of us, whereas by truth I think we mean to say, "I have good reason to think this, and it seems compatible with the facts as I understand them. If I come to understand that the facts conflict with this, then I won’t call it truth anymore." Though there are objectively existent things, what is true about these things cannot be apprehended outside of a conceptual frame, as put forth in one or more minds and communications. We make conclusions about what is compatible with the facts, and with our values – which is what allows us to differentiate between reasons based on whether they are ‘good’ or not – based on our conceptions of fact and value, and we cannot fully step outside these conceptions all at once. Nor can truth be known – produced, constructed – apart from a cognitive faculty that perceives that frame, and is able to recognize whether a given statement or other concept coheres with segments or patterns within that frame of facts and values which that faculty has deemed relevant.
Truth for a group, as for individuals, is also a matter of coherence. But it is a coherence that is found among the concepts in many communications, as those communications are represented in a single mind or group of minds, and not among the objective things those concepts or communications point to. Therefore, coherence among poor concepts and communications seems like truth, even if it is not. And it is important to recognize that the coherence we find in a community – say, the scientific community – is found among the communications of scientists, and not in their concepts themselves. Just as we cannot access the atom in itself, without indirect means of observation and measurement, so we cannot access the concepts of others directly.
This is relevant because most of the truths we take for granted in communicating each other are social truths – coherence among communications by more than one person – rather than personal truths, coherence among concepts in our own minds. Yet, neither social nor personal truth can be recognized apart from a particular individual, who sees the patterns within it, and puts some understanding of it forward.
Scientific truth, insofar as it is sought by a group rather than an individual in isolation, is a particularly (and, generally, deservedly) privileged subtype of social truth. In this subtype, more than in any others, it is critical that we attend to the ways in which we attempt to lead others to recognize the same patterns as us in the communications of the group as a whole, and gain a consensus. Given the recent controversies over the review processes of the most recent edition of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual in psychiatry, the DSM-5 (for an example of the critiques, the following was written by the chair of the team that created the DSM-IV: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes), this is particularly salient.
Insofar as scientific truth is sought by an individual, it has the same hallmarks of differing degrees of stubbornness and suggestibility as other kinds of individual truth, when it comes to accepting the facts and patterns that others see. For, we may be either too reluctant or too eager to adopt concepts suggested by others, and overly eager or reluctant to build on the foundation of the concepts we already have. But with respect to science, at least, individual truth is less and less of a concern, as the institutional approach to science – embedded in such venerable and admirable techniques as peer-review, when practiced anonymously, and including peers with non-majority conclusions but majority working methods – is dominant, and generally with good results. So, we shall put that aside.
But in either case, in either dichotomy – social or personal truth, scientific or non-scientific – there is no single truth, no single coherence, because the contents that that coherence must be found in are shifting. We refer to this as a shifting frame of reference, but this is simplistic; we only know the frame by the contents, and the contents, like those in cereal boxes, may settle in shipping. Unlike the contents of cereal boxes, they may also change dramatically. Reality surprises us in ways processed foods generally do not. And what that leaves truth-seekers with is a need to see a new pattern, or an old one, in the new set and arrangement of contents in question.
In short, we say ‘the truth’ to keep things simple – to stipulate, ‘the coherence I see among these contents, either in terms of the contents of my own head or the communications of this particular group, in a particular time-frame’ – not because truth or frames are singular. This is not to say that the facts are similarly shifting, but that our ability to see them is contingent on coherence among sets of information that we use to arrive at conclusions about facts, and our ability to recognize when they are relevant is contingent on our priorities, which is to say, on our values. These values include epistemic values, those that pertain to what we think to be useful to the cause of knowledge – but these are values nonetheless. And these values, without which we would be hard-discerned to determine truth, are present in the minds of human beings, and not in the universe apart from us.
Tagore would agree, it seems. Einstein prefers the view that truths, like facts, are objective. What do you think is a better definition of the word, based on how you and the people you know use it in everyday life, and in special contexts like scientific discussions?
Saturday, June 28, 2014
The Ass and the Halo
I am
sitting on a glass skylight above the underground parking garage in Ann Arbor,
across from the public library, waiting for it to open. Any unfortunate soul
who happens to look up at this particular skylight while parking there, on this
beautiful Saturday morning, will see my ass – covered in polyester
basketball shorts, but its outline and substance no less – a story or
two above. But not only that. They will see it haloed by blue sky and sunshine.
Can you hear the angels singing? Oh poor soul, looking up the crack of another
son of God.
However, even
this unexpected witness may have a better insight into the heaven of atmosphere
here, than those who chance to look up at another skylight down the block.
There is the backside of the man who inspired me to set my burden down. He is
snoozing in public at 8:30 AM, the sun full in his face. His grey t-shirt is,
and has been, unable to cover his mighty stomach, now loosed from its
constraints with apparent relief and obvious abundance. Yes, he is a champion.
He looks like a great white whale, beached on a pedestal of concrete, a
veritable Moby Dick of skylight sitters. He looks human, and is wearing khaki
shorts, white socks, and black sandals, but I wouldn’t trust to appearances
overmuch. Captain Ahab sought him from public library to public library, and
now, he is found at last.
When the
sky rains fire, the monsters are unleashed from the sea, Revelation comes true,
and we all have the mark of evil on our right wrist and in our brains, still
the great white whale will sit and wait for his death, his nemesis, his deliverance.
All the crackers in creation will pray on loudspeaker systems, the microphones
in their hands, after eating some down-home cooking under the large pavilion
tents. And still, our sidewalk-sitting skylight-covering behemoth will sleep
on. And Captain Ahab is nowhere to be found, to harpoon the estate of
overnourished flesh.
Ah, I tell
you all this with a smile of mischief, but this is not all that there is to
life. We are not stuck with end-times or white whales or Melville. We are not
stuck with talk of angels, or of demons for that matter. We are only stuck with
realities. We are stuck with bodies; we are stuck with language; we are
stuck with weather, and needing to occupy some particular portion of the earth
while we live. We are stuck with judgment, to a greater or lesser degree, and we
are stuck with feelings. We are stuck with imagination, and stories, and
colorful turns of phrase, and colorful characters. We are stuck with humor, and
stuck together by it. We are made whole by the winking acknowledgment of
absurdity. We are made kinder by allowing ourselves, and each other, our
judgments as wit, rather than as definite. We are made clean by kind laughter.
Not all laughter is kind, but that which is has a cleansing effect, like letting
sunshine and a breeze into a dark and musty room.
We are released
from what frightens and disgusts us by making it safe. Humor is our way of
defusing ourselves with a general acceptance, rather than insisting on defusing
and changing what is around us. It is the greatest blessing god ever gave to us
holy fools, us human beings. Even that which is rude, risqué, intolerant,
objectifying, or stereotypical is better put into words that make us laugh
kindly and smile more widely than kept inside, or expressed with conviction.
With the exceptions of serious situations – which are far more rare than most
of us think – the truth, or a story or joke that is near to it, should be said
with a smile. And when a smile eludes us, it should be said in a way that makes
us laugh.
I am not
always a happy man, but I am in the sunshine now. And in the unlikely event
that someone is parking below me, may they hear the angels sing. I am singing,
too, and I’m not even an angel.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Main Lesson from the book 'Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard'
Have you ever struggled with changing your habits? Most of us have. But luckily, research can come into play in figuring out how to make the process less difficult than it might be otherwise. I found the premise of the book Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard, particularly interesting. (Being one of four brothers, I was also pleased to see that the authors, Dan and Chip Heath, are brothers who have learned how to play nicely and write books together.)
Basically the book Switch tells us that, to maximize the chances of motivating ourselves or other people to achieve a goal, we need to make that goal justifiable, desirable, and accessible. This process of mobilizing your audience (whether yourself, another person, a group of people) may involve, first, convincing your audience that a given outcome might be a good goal theoretically (reasons); second, motivating them to desire the theoretically reasonable goal, so that it becomes a personal goal that they want to work toward (desires); third, directing their attention to the concrete steps to the goal you have persuaded them to wish to seek out. If you have persuaded them effectively enough, supervision during implementation can be done with a light touch, because they will want to take those steps of their own accord; sometimes, perhaps, they will even have to be restrained from taking them too quickly.
The first two steps, convincing and motivating, constitute persuasion. But clearly, persuasion is not enough without direction. In the same way, direction is not enough to lead an audience to pursue a goal unless they are already persuaded of its value, whether by you or someone else.
For those who have read it already, the connection of this description to the metaphor used in the book is that reason is the rider you must convince, desire is the elephant you must motivate, and the steps to success are the path you must direct reason and desire to follow.
Though there are no silver bullets or magic potions for the difficult process of losing twenty pounds or getting a better job, persuasion and direction can help you direct the intelligence, desires, and skills you already have to better outcomes. Knowing what habits you need to change (reason), why you want to change them (desire), and how to change them over time (direction) are the first steps.
Feel free to email me at wilson_zach(at)yahoo.com, or comment below. What tips and books on change have you found most helpful? In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Or, as the Heath brothers might say, keep riding that elephant!
Basically the book Switch tells us that, to maximize the chances of motivating ourselves or other people to achieve a goal, we need to make that goal justifiable, desirable, and accessible. This process of mobilizing your audience (whether yourself, another person, a group of people) may involve, first, convincing your audience that a given outcome might be a good goal theoretically (reasons); second, motivating them to desire the theoretically reasonable goal, so that it becomes a personal goal that they want to work toward (desires); third, directing their attention to the concrete steps to the goal you have persuaded them to wish to seek out. If you have persuaded them effectively enough, supervision during implementation can be done with a light touch, because they will want to take those steps of their own accord; sometimes, perhaps, they will even have to be restrained from taking them too quickly.
The first two steps, convincing and motivating, constitute persuasion. But clearly, persuasion is not enough without direction. In the same way, direction is not enough to lead an audience to pursue a goal unless they are already persuaded of its value, whether by you or someone else.
For those who have read it already, the connection of this description to the metaphor used in the book is that reason is the rider you must convince, desire is the elephant you must motivate, and the steps to success are the path you must direct reason and desire to follow.
Though there are no silver bullets or magic potions for the difficult process of losing twenty pounds or getting a better job, persuasion and direction can help you direct the intelligence, desires, and skills you already have to better outcomes. Knowing what habits you need to change (reason), why you want to change them (desire), and how to change them over time (direction) are the first steps.
Feel free to email me at wilson_zach(at)yahoo.com, or comment below. What tips and books on change have you found most helpful? In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. Or, as the Heath brothers might say, keep riding that elephant!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Resources and Entertainment for Philosophers
Most people already involved in philosophy are going to be familiar with many of
these sites and other resources, but this list might be useful for
undergraduates and laymen interested in getting a look at either the academic
side of the subject from the analytic perspective, or the popular resources and
entertainment related to philosophy.
Rankings of philosophy departments, and other current information on academic
philosophy:
*Philosophy Gourmet: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/default.asp
*Leiter Reports: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/
Both of these sites are run by Brian Leiter at the University of Chicago
Rankings of philosophy departments, and other current information on academic
philosophy:
*Philosophy Gourmet: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/default.asp
*Leiter Reports: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/
Both of these sites are run by Brian Leiter at the University of Chicago
Online Encyclopedias:
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP): http://plato.stanford.edu/
*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): http://www.iep.utm.edu/
*Wikipedia, Philosophy portal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:
Philosophy
Wikipedia is not as technical and precise as the SEP or IEP.
Research Websites:
*PhilPapers: http://philpapers.org/
*EpistemeLinks: http://www.epistemelinks.com/
*Noesis: http://noesis.evansville.edu/
Popular Websites
*The Browser, 'Writing Worth Reading': http://thebrowser.com/sections
/philosophy-religion/philosophy.
Their interviews are particularly good.
*Brain Pickings philosophy articles: http://www.brainpickings.org/?s=
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP): http://plato.stanford.edu/
*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): http://www.iep.utm.edu/
*Wikipedia, Philosophy portal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:
Philosophy
Wikipedia is not as technical and precise as the SEP or IEP.
Research Websites:
*PhilPapers: http://philpapers.org/
*EpistemeLinks: http://www.epistemelinks.com/
*Noesis: http://noesis.evansville.edu/
Popular Websites
*The Browser, 'Writing Worth Reading': http://thebrowser.com/sections
/philosophy-religion/philosophy.
Their interviews are particularly good.
*Brain Pickings philosophy articles: http://www.brainpickings.org/?s=
philosophy
Popular Books:
*The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
*The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant
*Sophie’s World, Jostein Gaarder
Graphic Novels and Illustrated Books About Philosophy:
*Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth, written by Apostolos Doxiadis and
Christos H. Papadimitriou, illustrated by Alecos Papadatos and Annie Di
Donna
*Action Philosophers!, by Fred Van Lente, and Ryan Dunlavey*
*Epicurus the Sage, written by William Messner-Loebs, art by Sam Kieth
*Supergatari History of World Philosophy, Michael Gertelman*
Popular Books:
*The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
*The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant
*Sophie’s World, Jostein Gaarder
Graphic Novels and Illustrated Books About Philosophy:
*Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth, written by Apostolos Doxiadis and
Christos H. Papadimitriou, illustrated by Alecos Papadatos and Annie Di
Donna
*Action Philosophers!, by Fred Van Lente, and Ryan Dunlavey*
*Epicurus the Sage, written by William Messner-Loebs, art by Sam Kieth
*Supergatari History of World Philosophy, Michael Gertelman*
*Philographics, Genis
Carreras*
Movies related to philosophy or which may appeal to philosophers (search
Movies related to philosophy or which may appeal to philosophers (search
‘philosophical films’ for many
others):
*Waking Life
*Mindwalk
*My Dinner with Andre
*Agora
Starring Rachel Weisz.
*The Razor’s Edge
Starring Bill Murray. It's not a comedy, but it is beautiful.
*Vanilla Sky
It stars Tom Cruise, but no film is perfect.
*Stalker (Tarkovsky)
Very slow, with highly variable film quality, but strangely intriguing.
*Solaris (Tarkovsky)
*Waking Life
*Mindwalk
*My Dinner with Andre
*Agora
Starring Rachel Weisz.
*The Razor’s Edge
Starring Bill Murray. It's not a comedy, but it is beautiful.
*Vanilla Sky
It stars Tom Cruise, but no film is perfect.
*Stalker (Tarkovsky)
Very slow, with highly variable film quality, but strangely intriguing.
*Solaris (Tarkovsky)
Videos
*Animated Thought Experiments by the Open University:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/10/19/open-university-
thought-experiments/*
Products
*The Unemployed Philosophers Guild: http://www.philosophersguild.com
They are very amusing. Although many of their products are not related
to philosophy, their sense of humor is likely to appeal to those interested
in the subject.
Those suggestions with an asterisk at the end were found through articles at Brainpickings, especially the following: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/09/supergatari-history-of-philosophy/.
If you have anything to add, please suggest it in the comment section.
*Animated Thought Experiments by the Open University:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/10/19/open-university-
thought-experiments/*
Products
*The Unemployed Philosophers Guild: http://www.philosophersguild.com
They are very amusing. Although many of their products are not related
to philosophy, their sense of humor is likely to appeal to those interested
in the subject.
Those suggestions with an asterisk at the end were found through articles at Brainpickings, especially the following: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/09/supergatari-history-of-philosophy/.
If you have anything to add, please suggest it in the comment section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)