Archive for the ‘Biological Psychology Articles’ Category

Dualism, Incompatibilism, Vitalism, Non-Self: One Fallacy?

Monday, December 12th, 2011

When, in 1995, David Chalmers outlined what he believed to be a distinction between the “easy” problems of consciousness and the “hard” problem of consciousness, Daniel Dennett was quick to point out a fundamental flaw in his reasoning. I suggest that this same flaw exists in the logic of a whole range of philosophical positions concerning philosophy of mind.

Chalmers and Dennett

The philosopher David Chalmers has argued that the problem of explaining why human beings possess subjective experiences (which he terms the hard problem of consciousness) is distinct from other problems of conscious (e.g., how the brain focuses attention or reacts to environmental stimuli), in that these second kinds of problems can be solved by elucidating the neural mechanisms by which they take place, whilst the hard problem cannot be solved by invoking a mechanism.

The philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett published a response to David Chalmers, in which he argued that a complete understanding of all of the “easy” problems of consciousness would provide an explanation of the hard problem.

Dennett further elaborates on his position with the following analogy, taken directly from his paper “Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness”:

“Imagine some vitalist who says to the molecular biologists: The easy problems of life include those of explaining the following phenomena: reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair, immunological self-defence… These are not all that easy, of course, and it may take another century or so to work out the fine points, but they are easy compared to the really hard problem: life itself. We can imagine something that was capable of reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair and immunological self-defence, but that wasn’t, you know, alive. The residual mystery of life would be untouched by solutions to all the easy problems.”

Dennett’s point is obvious: that “life” is merely the sum total of all the biological processes he lists. It is not some mystical, transcendent property of matter which exists above and beyond the physical processes which life demonstrates. By analogy, consciousness is not some mystical, transcendent property of the brain, existing above and beyond the physical processes of firing neurons.

I believe that this same fallacy exists in many philosophical positions, and is the root cause of much disagreement among philosophers, scientists and other commentators.

Free Will

I have previously outlined my stance on free will in my article “Free Will: Libet and the Readiness Potential”. I cannot see any logical reason why either determinism or neuroscience should invalidate the idea that humans have free will. Essentially, I am a compatibilist.

This position has perhaps best been expressed by Jack Copeland in his book “Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction”. Copeland’s writing is too long to quote here in full, but to summarise:

The idea that free will does not stand up to modern scientific analysis has become an orthodox opinion in AI. It is widely believed that neurophysiological determinism means free will is an illusion. Since each of your decisions is the inevitable outcome of preceding causes, you can never choose contrary to the way you are caused to choose. How then can you be free?

To demonstrate the fallaciousness of this position, Copeland describes two kinds of choices: “nil preference” choices and “outstanding-candidate” choices.

Imagine you are torn between two options: whether to order a chocolate cake or a blueberry cheesecake. After a moment, you suddenly and for no apparent reason choose to order the cheesecake.

This is a nil preference situation. Free choice, in this situation, consists of making a random selection between two equally preferable alternatives. Determinism (in the form of your personal tastes, past experience, emotional state, etc.) narrows down your choice to two options, while the final selection is made randomly.

In a nil preference situation, and only in a nil preference situation, choosing randomly is choosing freely.

It could be argued that if decisions arise spontaneously and randomly, then the agent is helpless to control his own behaviour. However, in a nil preference situation, behaviour is still under the control of the agent. The chooser’s deliberations produce a number of alternative schemes of action, all of which are equally preferable to the agent. The random “coin flip” of choosing is merely a tiebreaker.

However, random selection only constitutes free will in a nil preference situation. In all other circumstances, conscious deliberation leads us to pick one particular course of action. This is an outstanding-candidate situation.

There is no room for randomness here. The agent’s choice is determined by their emotions, their reasoning, their memories, etc. They choose the best possible choice given their current knowledge. It would be possible for the agent to choose a course of action which they did not consider the best option, but not without some reason.

In this situation, given the laws of physics, determinism rules. Since it is impossible to violate the laws of nature, it would be impossible for the agent to decide on an option without that choice being the result of a causal chain. In fact, if some exterior force were to cause the agent to randomly pick an option against their own reasoning, then this would be the opposite of free will.

Say that after some deliberation, I choose to learn to play an instrument. Since this choice is caused by my emotions, reasoning, and so on, it is the inevitable result of the physical processes of my brain.

Some might argue that, since I cannot violate the laws of physics, I cannot choose other than to learn the instrument. But this is fallacious. It is within my power to choose otherwise, if I have some reason for doing so. I myself am a deterministic process, and my reasoning determines the choices that I make. This, in essence, is free will.

I am able to deliberate about my future and make decisions on the basis of that deliberation. If this is not freedom, then what is?

The Incompatibilist Fallacy

I suggest that incompatibilists – those who believe that free will is incompatible with determinism, and is therefore illusory – are labouring under the same fallacy that Daniel Dennett accuses David Chalmers of falling prey to.

When I think about my options, assess my emotions, recollect past experiences, follow a chain of reasoning and then make a choice, the feeling that I have that I am consciously choosing my own actions is not an illusion. That deterministic process is itself the process of volition.

Free will or volition is merely the sum total of all the psychological processes involved in making a choice. It is not some mystical, transcendent thing which exists above and beyond the deterministic processes of brain function.

Admittedly, the waters are muddied by the philosophical position of libertarianism, according to which it would be possible to make a different choice given the exact same set of causes: something which is clearly impossible. This false libertarian conception of free will is in the same category as Chalmers’ conception of consciousness and the hypothetical vitalist’s conception of life.

However, incompatibilists take this transcendent, libertarian idea of free will, and use it to argue that there is something delusional about the idea that we are freely choosing our own actions when we deliberate and make choices. This is a fallacy.

The Self

Numerous philosophers have argued that the concept of the self is intrinsically fallacious, while many modern psychologists and neuroscientists have argued that there is no room for the self in theories of mind and brain function.

Some arguments are based on a conception of the self as a homunculus – an inner being, living within the mind, who perceives the objects of consciousness and in doing so facilitates experience. This conception is fallacious, since postulating an inner being to explain perception leads to an infinite regress (what component inside the inner being leads that being to perceive?).

Other arguments against the self focus on the fact that the self is not reducible to its constituent parts. The Brahmin and Buddhist sage Nagasena, who lived around 150 BC, compared the self to a chariot. Nagasena reasoned that a chariot is built from a number of separate components, none of which is the essence of the chariot.

Similarly, he reasoned that the self does not exist, since there is no part of a person which can be pointed to as the essence of that individual. However, we can only accept that this implies there is no self if we also agree that there is no such thing as a chariot; in fact, we know that the word “chariot” is the name for a certain structure which is irreducible to its parts.

I could lose my legs and still be myself. Similarly, I could lose my arms and still be myself. I am still myself when I am not thinking, or when I have no emotion, or when I am asleep and possess no consciousness at all.

The fact that any one aspect of myself could be removed and yet still leave my self as the whole of what remains does not disprove my existence, it merely demonstrates that a whole cannot be reduced to its parts. Nagasena’s example is a critique of reductionism, not a critique of the self; the self is merely the sum total of an individual’s attributes.

More recently, Susan Blackmore has argued against the existence of the self, using arguments much like those above. We feel as if we are conscious beings experiencing a stream of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc., but when we attempt to look at the “self” experiencing these things, we can only find the stream of experience itself. Hence the self is an illusion.

Others have argued that the feeling we have of being an observer of experience comes from our memories (i.e., the fact that we remember our past actions and exhibit consistent behaviour), and thus the self is illusory.

The Non-Self Fallacy

I hold that these arguments are based on the same fallacy as incompatibilism. Just as determinist arguments against free will begin with the libertarian, physics-defying, transcendent conception of free will, arguments against the self begin with the idea that “I” am somehow distinct from my brain function: either an independent observer who does the actual experiencing, or some other transcendent part of the whole.

The fact that my sense of being a singular entity from one moment to the next is derived from my memories and the fact that I am a single, physical body does not somehow mean that sense is illusory. An individual’s self is the sum total of their physical and psychological attributes, in the same way that life is the sum total of biological processes, or free will is the sum total of all the psychological processes involved in making a choice.

Conclusions

I suggest that in all of the examples above, the illusory, transcendent concepts of life, consciousness, free will and the self are all primitive relics of our historical belief in souls. The soul was believed to be the animating force that separated live things from dead things. It was also believed to be the source of consciousness.

The soul was tied up with the belief that free will was a gift from god, setting man apart from the deterministic laws of the universe, and it was also true self of a person, merely housed in their physical body until the time of death.

In explaining the physical processes behind these various phenomena, science has demonstrated that they are not the result of a soul. But we have retained an aspect of this false belief system in the idea that this phenomena are in some way transcendent. In doing so, we are forced to falsely conclude that these phenomena are illusions.

This single fallacy underlies a great deal of misconceptions in philosophy of mind, and must be abandoned if we are to genuinely understand things like consciousness, free will and the existence of the self and appreciate them for what they are: integral parts of what it means to be a human being.

Copyright © Dan Haycock 2011. For similar articles and information about Dan’s book, Being and Perceiving, visit http://www.DanHaycock.co.uk or http://being-and-perceiving.weebly.com/

Practical Applications Of Sociodrama Techniques In Our Day To Day Life

Friday, December 9th, 2011

A common saying goes “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Similarly when a concept is explained along with practical explanations it is understood well and retained by the person for a longer duration. This fact was the foundation stone for the revolutionizing concept of sociodrama. This concept was first developed by Jacob L. Moreno. His idea was to resolve real life situations through a dramatic play. A group of individuals pick up a common problem and distribute the roles between the members. They set up the stage and enact the drama to communicate the message to a group, organization, community etc.

Sociodrama techniques are generally presented by a group of well trained professionals. It is a part of phycotherapy during which the professionals try to recreate a real life situation. The subjects are able to understand and relate to their role in a better way and can also try to correct it. Many of our normal day-to-day life situations can be handled well with the help of sociodrama techniques. Trained professionals are not really required in all the situations. We can adopt these practices to make learning more simple and easy. Cited below are few examples which explain how well sociodrama techniques can be used in our daily life.

Sociodrama Techniques and Class Room Teaching

Any concept is better explained through audio and visual medium rather than a simple explanation in the classroom. Abstract concepts also need to be correlated with some real life situations so that they leave a long lasting impact on the students. For example when a group of young kids have to be explained about healthy eating habits, a teacher can prepare a small skit involving a group of students. Each student can act like a vegetable or fruit and narrate its significance. This method will help students to understand better in a playful manner.

Sociodrama Techniques Help in Creating a Social Impact

Awareness of AIDS is very essential to the youth of today. Many people do not know the primary cause and means of transmission of this disease. An organization involved in an AIDS awareness campaign can explain the modes of transmission of AIDS through a drama. A person acting like an AIDS patient can explain the symptoms where as one acting like a doctor can tell when to raise an alarm. This dramatic method would create a social impact.

Involvement of Sociodrama Techniques in Professional Life

These techniques are used in a number of professions like during the training sessions given to marketing students or to the management trainees. A marketing person has to efficiently sell his product. He should make a customer feel that without his product he will miss something very important in his life. A customer may behave in different ways. This entire concept can be explained using sociodrama techniques where in one can act like a salesman and other students can act like customers. The salesman has to answer to all the questions posed by the customer and mould the customers’ opinion from negative to positive.

Training Sessions Given To the Policemen And Army-Men Through Sociodrama Techniques

People who chose these professions need to be tough, both physically and mentally, and be prepared to face any kind of odd situations. During their training sessions, they are actually made to conquer obstacles. An artificial situation is created where in a group is divided into two batches, one being the enemy for another. An artificial target is set which can be attained only after crossing the hurdles. This makes them to handle real life problems like a war or a terrorist attack.

Sociodrama Techniques Trains a Person To Meet Emergency

Calamities like flood, earthquake, fire etc can be well handled by the disaster management group after sufficient training. This training will be more successful with the help of sociodrama techniques. For example a simple fire drill tells people how to escape the situation of fire. They come to know about the emergency exits and also learn that it is safe not to use the lift during fire.

Summary

Many concepts are difficult to be explained with the help of black board, chalk and a duster. These concepts can be well explained with the help of sociodrama techniques. Learning becomes a pleasure and one becomes more interested in the topic. Many social issues can be resolved using these techniques. So let us implant these techniques in our daily life.

Anna Purna is a freelancer writing articles about her favourite interest, Health and Nutrition. She also works on home-based jobs. Before this, she has worked fulltime for about 2 and a half years in the annotation of Biological databases in various organizations. She holds a Post Graduate Degree in Biochemistry and a PG Diploma in Bio-informatics. For more information, please visit her website on http://purnasrinivas.webs.com.

The INFJ Temperament

Monday, October 10th, 2011

If you’ve done the Myers Briggs test and know you’re an INFJ, then hopefully, this discussion will be interesting for you. It assumes a working knowledge of Jung’s typology system as adapted by Myers Briggs and also an understanding of the basic markers and characteristics of the INFJ temperament.

The Introversion/Extroversion Issue
The E/I issue has been debated ad infinitem in many places but the primary difference for the INFJ is biological (i.e. cannot be changed). It boils down to how much stimulation you can take in and still remain comfortable. For INFJ’s, this threshold is low and you are going to have to accept this fact, frustrating though it is. Your ability for laser focus on one thing for long periods; your tendency to observe and reflect, and your need for time alone are all a direct result of a lower threshold for receiving external environmental input. If you take in too much, you will become overloaded. Because you don’t depend as much on external stimuli for motivation as other types, you come to regard your internal concepts about life as primary and even once this picture this looks pretty solid, it is, in fact a work in progress that will never be complete. Why? Because introverted intuition is your dominant function.

Introverted Intuition
What is introverted intuition? It is the process of recognising and interpreting information you take in. It is a perceiving left brain function. What’s interesting about this way of viewing the world is that you take in the material facts as do all the other types, but you are immediately aware of an ability to organize them in more than one way. You form many different conceptual patterns with information which changes its meaning and gives new options or potential outcomes. Your direct opposite, the extroverted intuitive types, do this too but unify information into multiple “outward” patterns or possibilities. For INFJ’s the patterns aren’t out there but inside and part of themselves. Everyone will at some time use introverted intuition to contend with some serious ambiguity in their life but what’s unusual about the INFJ is that they use introverted intuition as their “dominant” perceiving function all the time! It is their primary method of understanding reality.The extreme end of this perception is experience of psychic phenomena. Something that seems to result from the combination of the F and introverted N function.

The immediate problem you face as an INFJ utilising your dominant function is that you are going to see things from many, sometimes conflicting points of view all at the same time! This can paralyze you from taking any action or expressing an opinion though usually your J function will overcome this problem. It’s a rather strange combination of vision and practicality. You won’t necessarily feel a need to declare that one opinion is inherently better than another. The great thing about this though is that unlike most other types, when you face what appears to be an insurmountable problem, it is often possible to solve it by just changing your perspective and defining the situation in some other way. The world could do with more people who have the ability to think this way. INFJ’s make great councillors, teachers, mediators, managers, editors and even politicians for the very reason that if they can get another person to see beyond the fixed subjective paradigm of their own typological reality; there is the chance to move them past an unhelpful gridlock pattern of thought. It is so important for INFJ’s to develop their secondary and tertiary functions because if they can do this, they become prepared to surrender some of their inner world and share their skills.

A major pitfall to watch out for as an INFJ is that because it’s so instinctual to see the systems or the scaffold that underlies cultural, religious and personal assumptions you will immediately see the flaws in these structures. You see the aspects of reality that aren’t being acknowledged. INFJ’s can get stuck in the habit of mentally tearing these away (whereas others will just consider them fixed and live within them). However, unless you can articulate something better, and find the language to describe it, this part of the INFJ temperament turns into a pointless and unhelpful exercise. A lot of INFJ’s try to address this constructively in some form of art, poetry, music, writing or political commentary. Others will do it by trying to work within, and subtly alter, distorted economic or business structures. They will instinctively try to break through simplistic, fixed patterns and assumptions which create distortion, inefficiency or suffering of some kind.

Self Identity
From the INFJ’s perspective, the self cannot be defined by external circumstances. On the contrary, reality is what INFJ’s bring to something from within. You will, of course, create a personal external identity just as other types do but you tend to place much less importance on it, sometimes even seeing it as a kind of character to assume in certain circumstances. If, for example, you are at a party and you’re asked what you do (a perfectly reasonable conversation opener) you might find yourself struggling to give a suitable answer. This is because INFJ’s simply don’t view themselves in terms of externals (what they do or who they are in relation to others). To them, the self is something that cannot be explained in a sentence and involves not just the individual self but also the universal self that exists within the INFJ. To complicate things further, the line between the individual self and the universal self starts to get blurry as the INFJ gets older. This is complete lunacy to other types, particularly those who are dominant sensates but it is the reality of the INFJ.

Many INFJ’s long for some kind of religious/spiritual succour, but they will generally outgrow any belief system once structures creating separation (e.g. the saved and the sinful) are uncovered. This is because separation is fundamentally at odds with the inner world of unity that most INFJ’s ultimately arrive at. You won’t find it easy to explain all this to someone you’ve just met, while clutching a wine glass at a cocktail party. My advice on this? Get over it and tell them what they want to hear! What you can and will recognise about these types of social situations which all INFJ’s hate, is the underlying unifying need for all types including yourself to connect with others. You might feel horribly inauthentic expressing yourself in this way in a social setting that’s looking for a short sound bite of information that skims the surface but the world won’t grind to a halt. If you can begin to recognise that the majority of the population are E’s and sensate not intuitively based, then you’ll realize that most other people feel depleted and overtaxed by the kind of inner mental processes and discussions that motivate and energise yourself. INFJ’s are the rarest (less than 1% of the population) of the personality types and it really helps to remember that other people are not experiencing reality as you do.This sense of both the universal and the individual self residing within is both the curse and the blessing of the INFJ and the older you get the more important and insistent the universal part will become as you look to contribute in some way to making the world a better place. As you agonise your way through your early years, try to remember that the real beauty of The INFJ type lies in the fact you are not at the mercy of your external environment for your sense of identity and self in the way that extroverts or introverted sensate types are where things need to be reflected back to them in order to be real. Conversely, remember too that too much introspection on your part will deprive you of your ability to share your views and yourself with others. Some level of extroverting is important because it forces The INFJ to become aware of the reality of others and you need to understand clearly what exists in the external world in order to bring about any kind of change. You share this need to make a difference with many other types and while INFJ’s are idealistic, there is no naiveté (or even thoughts of success) attached to the INFJ’s perception of the process.

If you are young and struggling, just realize that many INFJ’s spend the first half of their lives just trying to work out what it is they are actually perceiving and then trying to coordinate it into a coherent big picture. Unlike ST’s or NT’s who tend to focus primarily on detail the NF is always striving for the biggest picture possible that they can create.This is a big job and many INFJ’s only start to feel comfortable as they enter midlife.

Extroverted Feeling the Secondary function
Each personality type has one dominant and one secondary function. The secondary function for the INFJ is “extroverted feeling”. The dominant function will come naturally and easily to you but the secondary function will be harder and take much more effort. Our two best functions are meant to work together but because their attitudes are directly opposed, their integration initially creates inner conflict. The attempt to use both creates a certain amount of mental and emotional friction. We need this friction to stay conscious no matter what type we are. An unopposed dominant function leads to a one dimensional life and a vague sense of feeling incomplete.

In some ways, it is easier for the INFJ type to assimilate the secondary function because they experience conflict all the time between their inner and outer reality and between their individual self (which can feel very different from others) and their universal self which feels intensely connected to others.

Regardless of what type you are, if you get stuck in your dominant perspective (refuse to grow) you tend to start to lose touch with who you really are and what you want. The problem is rectified (regardless of whether you are an E or an I) by some level of introspection to find out what is truly important to you and not just rely on feedback from others.

As an INFJ, one of the greatest challenges is finding out what feelings coming in are yours and what are not. You’ll have already worked out that picking up others feelings will often cause you a considerable level of pain and discomfort. Because you do this, it’s a very important discipline for the INFJ to come to understand that taking on other peoples pain will only weaken and distract from any assistance you can give. You need to recognise the feelings as not yours as they flow in, and then learn to immediately release them so you can focus clearly and objectively on the problem. At the same time when something is yours, you must somehow articulate and own it. The idea of being emotionally vulnerable is frightening to an INFJ because there are no natural filters. This can and does result in becoming very self protective in certain situations but your innate understanding and ability to experience the feelings of others provides a universal bridge that gives a unique ability to find common ground in resolving difficult, conceptually challenging problems of all kinds in all walks of life.

As a general conclusion, INFJ’s can sometimes feel a bit sorry for themselves with all this going on but the truth is that each personality type will face different and just as difficult challenges. All of them in some way ask us to take responsibility for taking raw unformed talents and transforming them into something beautiful. Often we stubbornly won’t develop our secondary and tertiary functions until the price of that imbalance becomes greater than we can pay. In other words a crisis of some kind. When we feel in conflict or stuck, this is the prelude, if we allow it, to re evaluation of our usual coping mechanisms and to further typological growth which can lead to a happier and healthier life.

Kristen Claire Jones

How Therapy Heals by Changing the Brain: Mindfulness, Attachment, and Interpersonal Neurobiology

Saturday, August 13th, 2011

This article explains how mental health and healing can be understood from an attachment and neurological perspective. Psychotherapy has the potential to change the brain through increasing neurological integration-allowing all parts of our brain to function as a whole. This type of functioning increases one’s capacity to regulate emotion, maintain a sense of self, connect and empathize with others, respond flexibly, manage fear, have moral awareness, and find meaning. The neurological underpinnings of this will be addressed, as well as how therapy, the practice of mindfulness, and having loving relationships can all work to impact our neurology, our ability to form healthy attachments, and our overall mental health.

Attachment Theory: In order to understand the process of healing (and that of psychotherapy), it is important to know a bit about attachment theory. This theory was developed by John Bowlby in the 60’s, but has more recently gained prominence, largely due to exciting developments within the field that shed light on how attachment (i.e. early childhood) experiences impact brain development. Attachment theory explores the critical importance of an infant’s early experiences with caregivers in terms of forming later patterns of relating that include sense of self (e.g., “I received lots of love, so I must be lovable”), expectations of others (e.g., “If I express need, I will be disappointed/punished”), and strategies for handling relationships (e.g., “I can’t expect consistent care from others, so I will learn to take care of myself”).

Children have little other choice than to base their understanding of reality, and their strategy for dealing with that reality, on what they experience at home. Perhaps the most important aspect of this learning is what they come to expect from other human beings. That is due to the fact that social relationships are so critically important to living. Because humans have a much better chance of surviving (and reproducing) in a group, we are literally wired to need relationships-for our sense of safety, for our psychological and physical health, and for our ability to find meaning. This wiring explains why so much of our sense of well-being is dependent on our relationships and why coming from a family that instills negative expectations of others (and the subsequent maladaptive strategies) can be so debilitating.

Because relationships are key to survival, a great deal of the brain is dedicated to monitoring and engaging in social behavior (determining safety or danger, expressing warmth or threat, etc.). According to Allan Schore, a nationally acclaimed researcher, the right hemisphere is more heavily involved in interpersonal processes. It is also the side of the brain that develops more actively in the first two years. During this time the brain is extremely plastic, with neuronal pathways being laid down and strengthened (or, without use, atrophying). This is a concept some may find surprising. It would be easy to assume that the brain is pretty much fully-structured at birth (like the hands and feet). But in fact, experience works alongside genetics to determine how the brain is wired. Because so much of the right brain is molded during the first two years, this period is particularly critical in terms of learning how to trust and relate to other people. Reading social cues, having empathy, even being able to like others and ourselves, is based on how the brain is wired. Although this wiring is largely determined by how one was related to as a child, corrective experiences in adulthood (such as therapy) can fortunately modify brain wiring as well, which I will say more about later.

Attachment and the Brain: The study of how attachment experiences impact the brain has been largely pioneered by a psychiatrist named Daniel Siegel, whose work many therapists, psychologists, and educators have grown interested in over the last 5-10 years. Siegel developed a field in the area of attachment research called Interpersonal Neurobiology, which addresses how the brain is wired through past experiences and how new experiences can help rewire the brain. In the last few years, interest in this field has rocketed, I believe because Siegel’s work confirms what psychologists have always known-that early relationships are important-while helping us understand why they are important from a biological point of view. Although specific knowledge of the brain may not be essential for therapy or counseling, I have found it extremely useful to orient clients to some of the general principles that Siegel (and Allan Schore, Steve Porges, among others) have discovered. There is something helpful about conceptualizing our behavioral/emotional problems as glitches in our nervous system. This can decrease shame (since it illustrates that our vulnerabilities aren’t “on purpose”) and be empowering (since understanding the science behind what we are experiencing can help us make shifts).

Because the field of Interpersonal Neurobiology and other advances in attachment theory are so groundbreaking, there is a tremendous amount of excitement about it in the therapeutic community. A number of approaches to therapy, including Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy, Sensorimotor Psychotherapy, Psychobiological Couples Therapy, Emotionally Focused Therapy, and Systems Centered Therapy, incorporate attachment ideas into their techniques.

Let me say more about what Interpersonal Neurobiology teaches us. According to Siegel, how the brain becomes wired is largely based on social stimuli (such as smiles, cooing, being rocked or held), that activate certain neuronal patterns. For instance, if a baby cries and then is picked up and soothed, the brain is learning how to move from a state of upset to a state of calm. In other words, neuronal pathways are being formed so that various parts of the brain can work together to deal with the upsetting emotion. On the other hand, if a baby cries and is ignored, or even punished, then the baby not only learns important “realities” (like that there is no point in reaching to others, and that emotions lead to disappointment, isolation, and being overwhelmed), but his or her brain is also left in prolonged states of chaos or upset-what therapists refer to as emotional dysregulation. Since “neurons that fire together wire together,” the longer the brain remains in certain states that lack integration (particularly when we are young), the more likely one will return to those states later on.

When parents are available, attuned, and non-intrusive, children are able to use them for emotional regulation. This type of support patterns the child’s brain toward healthy independence (where they can care for themselves, but also allow others to care for them when needed). When parents are inconsistent, a child might learn to cling to his or her loved one’s to get what she needs, thereby engraining a style of relating (or an “attachment style”) that is very sensitive to abandonment (this is called a preoccupied or ambivalent attachment style). On the other hand, a child may feel so neglected that he or she “gives up” on others and shuts down his or her need for support-to the point that it can be difficult to receive support much at all later in life (this is called an avoidant or dismissive attachment style). Though these adaptations may be necessary during childhood, they can be unfortunate later on, since having a secure connection to another can be a uniquely effective way to emotionally regulate.

To summarize, for people who did not have positive experiences of being regulated by their caretakers, it may be more difficult for them to effectively use others when dysregulation occurs. In couples counseling, teaching partners to successfully use one another for regulation is a key to therapy and can often make the difference between a safe, healing relationship, and an unsafe, damaging (or distant) one.

Emotional Regulation: Before I go on, let me say more about the concept of emotional regulation versus dysregulation, since it is one that is often the focus of therapy. Emotional dysregulation is the word used to describe a state in which the brain is having difficulty keeping emotion at a manageable level. It is extremely common (in fact, all of us get dysregulated at times). A person might be too “low” (collapsed, despairing, shut-off from feelings) or too “high” (flooded, agitated, overwhelmed). Building on this idea, Seigel has described emotional resilience as the ability to maintain a balance between states of chaos and rigidity. Chaos and rigidity are on opposite sides of a continuum in terms of brain state, and have to do with a lack of integration between parts of the brain.

Two types of integration are important in the brain–horizontal integration (between the right and left hemispheres) and vertical integration (between higher and lower centers). If either is missing, then chaos or rigidity occur. Chaos occurs when the brain centers in charge of emotional response (in the mid and lower as well as right brain) fire without modulation by the more calming and “thinking” (upper and left) parts of the brain. This happens when a person becomes flooded or overwhelmed with emotion. In these states of chaos, the therapist will try to bring the client back into a window of emotional tolerance by helping bring “higher” brain functions back on-line, thereby shoring up his/her sense of safety, structure, and stability. The therapist’s presence alone can act as a stabilizing force. Also, because the language center is in the left hemisphere, simply naming what one feels can activate the left brain, and thereby help create order out of chaos (hence the saying: “you must name it to tame it”).

In contrast, rigidity occurs when the left and higher brain’s analytical functions are activated with minimal input from the feeling, intuitive, empathic functions of the brain. People who tend towards rigidity often describe themselves as being too much “in their head.” They are able to rationally analyze a problem, but may have difficulty knowing what they feel or want, or lack a gut sense of what is right for them. In this case, a psychologist’s active support helps clients to access feelings they may have been ignoring or avoiding.

Most people tend toward either rigidity or chaos. It is also common to move between both states-perhaps getting overwhelmed when emotion comes up (chaos) to the point that one shuts down and becomes defended (rigidity). Obviously, the experience of chaos is very unpleasant and inhibits daily functioning. It is difficult to think straight, for instance, when we are very anxious or angry. For people who have trouble with chaos, it is as if the emotions “hijack” them-taking them somewhere unpleasant and where they have little control. These people may get stuck in feelings that they don’t know how to process to completion and by which they therefore feel disempowered. Rigidity, on the other hand, means loosing track of one’s emotions altogether or having little sense of one’s true self. While rigidity has the advantage of muting negative feelings, it has the disadvantage of muting positive feelings as well, including the feelings of connection and intimacy. I would describe these two extremes as two sides of the same coin, since people who cut off their feelings usually do so because they fear being overwhelmed by them.

In order for an individual to have more emotional resilience and flexibility, new neuronal connections need to be forged inside the brain such that soothing and organizing functions can come online when things are too chaotic, and enriching functions can come online when things are too rigid. This is integration.
How therapy helps: So how does therapy help with these issues? Therapy works (in part) by providing an individual the experience of first being aware of the emotion (by slowing down and sidestepping defenses) and then moving through the emotion without getting too dysregulated by it. Hopefully the therapists’ presence, tracking of the process, and ability to stay regulated themselves in the face of strong feelings can help clients pace, ground, and contain their experience. Think of how much learning can take place in these moments! Firstly, the brain is learning how to “ride the wave” of emotion. To use this metaphor, when someone is learning to surf, the more he or she practices it, the more it becomes engrained in the body-so that the body knows how to stay on top of the wave without thinking. That is because new neuronal connections have been formed in his or her brain. In a similar way, the body/brain needs to learn how to move through emotions in a smooth, manageable way that is not too intense (chaotic), without being too flat (rigid) either. In this metaphor rigidity might look like not getting in the water in the first place, while chaos would be having the waves crash on top of you.

Secondly, the therapeutic process should help the brain learn that it can be safe to share one’s self with others and that it can be helpful, even deeply satisfying, to do so. On this more subjective level, many of my clients have described the experience of having their real feelings, even painful ones, as beautiful. They say that it lends a sense of connection with me-another person (which we are predisposed to enjoy), as well as a deep sense of connection with themselves. This experience isn’t only on the level of intellectual insight (though often insights come out of this process); it is an experience of finally truly being with one’s self. Just this week I had a client tearfully tell me at the end of a session that she felt she had just experienced a “home-coming.” She did this by attuning to and listening to what was “inside.”

“Inside” might sound like a mysterious place, but there are ways to make it a bit more concrete. One way to do so is to orient one’s self toward the sensations in one’s body. The body, after all, is where we “feel” our feelings-just like we would a belly-ache or many other biological processes. Slowing down to check in with our physical experience is a concrete way to begin gaining awareness of our emotions. Any way we can tune into ourselves, in fact, can help with this process. We can listen to the nature of our thoughts, take note of our energy level or where we are holding tension, identify impulses, notice our breathing or heart-rate, pay attention to sensations of emotion-there are many ways to tune into one’s self. Paying attention to the body is a great place to start because inputs from the body come up first to the right brain and then to the left. This “up and over” motion fosters both vertical and horizontal integration.

Making the Implicit Explicit: The body also provides information that is more difficult to “analyze.” I’ve heard many clients say they’ve sought counseling because analyzing themselves hasn’t been very helpful. On the other hand, simply paying attention to ourselves can be very fruitful and give us a more honest picture. To clarify, the left brain is great at confabulating (coming up with fictitious answers, like “I snapped at you because xyz…”), while the body, on the other hand, doesn’t lie. When we listen to the body (or the right brain), we have realizations that feel “true”-like a gut sense or a knowing. These are usually more accurate and helpful. Allan Schore believes the information held in the right hemisphere is comparable to what has traditionally been called the unconscious. As therapists have always believed, making this kind of implicit information more explicit is very important. I like to think of this right brain information as the “raw data” about our experience that the left brain can then take and analyze. Without this raw data, the left brain creates likely, but not necessarily accurate, explanations.

Implicit Memory: Building on this idea, many of my clients have found the concept of implicit memory very helpful in understanding their experience. Implicit memory occurs when we are remembering something from the past without the sensation of remembering (in other words, we have no idea we are having a memory). The most extreme version of this is a flash-back. A flash-back happens when the brain remembers a traumatic event without the person knowing that it is just a memory. A person having a flash-back isn’t aware that he or she is remembering something from the past-rather, it feels as if the past experience is happening again in the present. This is because the brain processes information differently during particularly stressful (or traumatic) moments. More specifically, the overwhelming experience fails to be encoded into the part of the brain that is usually in charge of remembering, so that when it is recalled later, we don’t know we’re having a memory.

A similar process can occur for people who had stressful experiences during childhood. When these experiences are remembered implicitly, people can re-experience a certain feeling that they had during childhood without realizing that the feeling relates to the past. Rather, they believe they are having a feeling in relation to the present. This can be very confusing, leading people (and their loved ones) to wonder at the severity of their reaction. For instance, say a woman had a history of being demeaned by her father. When her husband gives her feedback, it is quite possible for the memory of being demeaned as a child to be triggered on an implicit level. If so, then she would suddenly re-experience painful feelings she had during childhood, and believe they were in response to her husband’s behavior. When members of a couple are aware of one another’s implicit memories, they can more easily understand, and deal with, their partner’s surprising emotional reactions. This is something addressed in couples counseling.

Making sense of implicit memories is another important reason for listening to the body/right-brain. To summarize, being able to know ourselves and our emotional world, without being overwhelmed with all the feelings that live there, allows for a sense of aliveness, richness, and self-understanding. Being present with the “realness” of this experience, while being able to contain and make sense of it, is what makes the counseling process empowering and healing, not to mention insight-producing. Being present is a key to integration, because it allows all aspects of ourselves to show up at once.

Mindfulness: If “being present” sounds a little “woo-woo” or vague, let me explain further by introducing the concept of mindfulness. Mindfulness is a process of observing one’s experience, in the moment and without judgment. This means just noticing what you are noticing without trying to change it or criticize yourself for it. Yes, this is similar to the idea of meditation, and is not a new concept. What is new is the understanding of how practicing mindfulness changes the brain, increasing frontal lobe activity, growing cells in areas like the hippocampus, and strengthening the insula (which facilitates compassion). While therapists can’t measure those physical changes during counseling, what counselors can see is clients being able to find equanimity and strength in the face of difficult feelings.

This strength is gained because the various parts of clients’ brains are learning to work together in an integrated, harmonious way. When therapists help clients be mindful of their feelings, they are allowing the emotional centers of the brain to be stimulated, while at the same time using other areas as well.
When we are able to “watch” our feelings, we are learning to hold onto more than one function at the same time. Sometimes it can be a bit of a jump for people to learn this on their own-it can be hard to feel the fullness of one’s feelings without external support. A psychologist’s or another person’s presence can provide a containing function. In other words, the other person’s brain works with ours to communicate safety and help with regulation. Therefore, when we can’t get our higher brain functions online, we can use other people as a crutch or a guide. When children can turn to their parents in this way, they not only receive temporary soothing, but their developing brains become more integrated.

For example, say that a six-year-old boy is upset because he got teased at school. He comes to his mother in tears, unable to deal with his feelings by himself. His mother takes him onto her lap, soothing him through her closeness, vocal tone, warmth, and touch. His brain has a chance to practice moving from a state of dysregulation to one of regulation (and as we know, practice grows neuronal connections). Additionally, the mother whispers to him, “I know-it is so upsetting to be teased. It really hurts. It’s natural to cry about it, and maybe that will help you feel better.” Her words activate the more thinking, understanding frontal part of his brain-not in a way that shuts down his feelings, but in a way that allows him to think and feel at the same time. The more he has this type of support, the less scary emotions will feel (in fact, they can be linked to the very positive experience of love and connection!) and the less likely that he will become confused and flustered by emotions as an adult (or need to shut them down entirely).

Rewiring the Brain: Although the brain becomes less changeable as a child grows older, even in adulthood there is the possibility for change (without which, counseling would be useless). As I said, experience is a powerful way to rewire the brain. The brain is particularly receptive to change when emotion is being experienced. A negative example of this would be trauma. We all know that powerful, traumatic events can affect a person’s future ability to regulate emotion, feel safe, and perhaps even connect with others. That is because strong emotion primes the brain for learning (as if the emotions signal that something important is going on, so the brain should “listen” and adapt accordingly). A positive interaction with a psychologist, then, can be seen as the opposite of a traumatic event, as it can be a powerful, yet positive experience-one of being cared for. The process of being helped, seen, and accepted in places of pain can rewire the brain, allowing the mind to realize that emotions can be safe and that there is no need to “freak-out” in the face of them. This understanding increases one’s ability to recover from difficult emotions, as well as relate to others in healthy ways. In case you ever wondered, this fact is why therapists are known for wanting clients to feel their feelings more fully. Many people assume that the purpose of encouraging feeling is purely cathartic. But in fact, without the experience of emotion, the brain changes very little (for reasons I just described). Of course it changes some-when we learn a new piece of information, for instance, new neuronal connections must be made. But only when we allow the actual neural nets associated with our painful patterns to fire can they begin to rewire in new and integrated ways.

Markers of Change: Related to the discussion of change, there seem to be two particularly powerful markers of change. One indicator is the ability to tell a coherent and meaningful story of one’s own life and how one developed into the person one is today. For people who have had to defend against their experience, they often lack access to the right-brain information/memory/processing that would give their story a sense of “realness,” and emotional coherence. I am amazed by how often people come into my office and say they don’t remember their childhoods much at all. When a psychologist helps you construct a more complete understanding of your life, it requires participation from so many parts of the brain that, again, integration is fostered.

A second indicator of growth is the ability to be in a state of mindfulness, as described above. To say a bit more, being mindful is similar to being a good parent to one’s self. It is soothing knowing we are being paid attention to without judgment, for both children (who often calm down as soon as someone is there for them) and adults. In many ways mindfulness is about learning to have a positive, caring relationship with ourselves where we are willing to “show up” and notice what is going on for us. I often try to take this a step further with my clients by bringing in an attitude not only of non-judgment, but eventually of compassion. At Deep Eddy Psychotherapy, we call this extremely healing relationship with oneself and one’s experience “advanced mindfulness.” I have many clients who enjoy using images to deepen this process, such as seeing their fear as a 4-year-old version of themselves whom they can then envision holding and comforting.

For those of you who are interested in a more in-depth understanding of mindfulness and the brain, I highly recommend Seigel’s book Mindsight. Obviously this is a skill that can be practiced in therapy, but mindfulness can also be practiced on one’s own. I often recommend that my clients have a daily mindfulness practice, even if just a few minutes before they go to bed. This process simply includes paying attention to whatever they notice inside without judging it. Doing a body-scan (taking one’s attention slowly through the body to see how each part feels) can be very helpful. Researchers have found that mindfulness practitioners have a thicker middle prefrontal cortex-an area that is key in “regulating the body, attuning to others, balancing emotions, being flexible in our responses, soothing fear, and creating empathy, insight, moral awareness, and intuition” (p. 9 in Seigel’s book Mindsight). In fact, engaging in 30 minutes of meditation practice for just 8 weeks has been shown to change the brain.

Role of the Therapist: Because of the reasons noted above, counseling with an emotionally-focused therapists is less content-driven (discussing events or receiving advice), and more about tracking one’s moment-to-moment experience in the room with the counselor. I italicized with the counselor because often having someone actively attune to and track our states and feelings is a new experience, and one that is critical to healing. This kind of interaction can link the experience of emotion with the experience of safety and connection (so that they become associated in the brain). It also templates a way of relating to one’s self and one’s feelings that is marked by curiosity and compassion. When others treat us with caring (or, using attachment language, with attunement), it helps us relate to ourselves in positive ways as well. (The reverse, as we too painfully know, can also be true…).

Group Therapy: I recommend group therapy as an adjunct to individual work for nearly all of my clients (or sometimes as an alternative to individual work for people who are looking for a lower cost form of treatment). Given all the information presented above, the reasons group therapy is so effective may already be clear. As I described, human relationships are such an impactful part of our lives-effecting the very functioning of our brains! Group therapy feeds our right-brains, giving us a place to practice skills such as resonating with others, relating in deeper ways, and, to use an attachment word, co-regulating (when two minds come together to make an emotional experience more manageable and less lonely). Group is also a place to understand our reactions to others and our relational patterns (defenses, roles we take on, imbalances in giving or receiving, etc.). Spending 90 minutes every week with a group of people who are all interested in expressing their real feelings and exploring whatever reactions they notice in the moment is enriching and transformative-it might be considered a type of mindfulness, but in this case practiced in a group where it is enriched by other people’s support.

Couples Counseling: For individuals who are part of a committed relationship, couples counseling cannot only help heal the relationship, but the individuals in the relationship as well. If you are thinking about beginning counseling, I would consider starting with couples therapy even over individual therapy (assuming one’s partner would be willing to be engaged in the process with you). I advise this because people are only with their therapists typically for one hour a week, whereas they are with their partners for many hours a day. I therefore see no reason for couples not to engage in their therapeutic journey together (if they can). In this case, the therapist can coach each partner in learning to provide their partner with positive, safe experiences of connection in states of distress.

For more information about psychotherapy, my practice, or myself, feel free to visit my website.

Tori Olds, Ph.D. is a psychologist who has a private practice in Austin, TX. For more information, visit http://www.deepeddypsychotherapy.com or http://www.deepeddypsychotherapy.com/tori-olds-phd.html.

UFOs: Their Motives Are Illogical, Therefore They Don’t Exist

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

There are various motivations why E.T. might be interested in our little patch of real estate – Planet Earth. Scientists interested in that issue, not to mention vastly more sci-fi authors and Hollywood producers, have given quite some considerable though to the question.

Diplomatic – The “Take Me to Your Leader” Scenario: If the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is correct then obviously the ‘land on the White House lawn with a take-me-to-your-leader’ scenario would be the obvious course of action for E.T. Translated, E.T. wants to not only establish diplomatic relations, but probably engage in interstellar trade as well. That hasn’t happened over six decades on; therefore the UFO ETH is ridiculous.

An obvious answer to that is we humans don’t come up to a flock of crows (rather intelligent birds by the way) or introduce ourselves to an octopus (invertebrate intelligences in their own right) with a wave and a handshake (wing-shake; tentacle-shake) along with a hi-ho “take me to your leader” or “let’s establish diplomatic and trade relations”.

By the way, why is the obvious landing site the White House lawn? Why not outside the walls of the Kremlin, or within the Forbidden City, or for that matter on Easter Island, the lawns outside of Australia’s Parliament House, or in nice sunny Bermuda?

Conquest – The ‘War of the Worlds’ Scenario: According to hundreds (probably thousands) of sci-fi writers and of course Hollywood (and Hollywood equivalents around the world), alien invasion is even a more viable and realistic scenario – as entertainment anyway. But that hasn’t happened either, but that’s no argument to suggest that because there’s been no alien invasion that UFOs can’t be alien technology. The U.S.A. hasn’t invaded Canada anytime lately and America has appropriate technology to do so if it wanted. Still, UFO skeptics who believe in the ‘Mars Wants Women’ scenario, say E.T. isn’t here because E.T. isn’t today our Imperial Leader Most High – our Global Head of State (Universal President, Master-of-the-World, Prime Minister Supreme for Life, or our Lord-on-High World Dictator; whatever).

The obvious answer to the lack of any invasion scenario is that E.T. could find whatever it wanted in terms of resources closer and far cheaper to home base. What can Earth offer that couldn’t be had closer to home at far less time and expense? – Certainly not water, or minerals or energy or real estate. If there is one end-of-the-world scenario that we don’t have to lose sleep over, it’s invasion and conquest by extraterrestrials. That’s unless one should suggest that E.T. will invade and conquer; rape and pillage just for the sake of invasion and conquest; rape and pillage. Maybe, but after six plus decades, E.T. is either rather unsure of itself or undecided about the merits of doing so. So, my guess is that if it hasn’t happened by now, it’s not likely to.

That leaves other motives – scientific, economic, etc. Let’s examine human equivalents. Humans have explored ever since we had the ability to explore. We’ve boldly gone, in person or via machine surrogates, to the depths of the ocean, to Antarctica, to the Moon, and to all of the planets (actual, or in the case of Pluto, on route). All this exploration for all practical purposes has been for the sake of just science, pure science, and nothing but the science.

Of course there’s usually an ulterior motive in the back of the mind – exploration leads to exploitation. We explore, we like what we see, we colonize, we exploit, we build resorts for R&R, we migrate to escape various forms of environmental/political pressures, we mine for resources, and we farm for food and do more besides. Today the Moon is for science; tomorrow we may exploit its resources. Why should the E.T.-Earth relationship be any different? Well I’ve already noted that when it comes to resources and exploitation of those commodities, Earth has relatively little to offer when looked at from the point of view of cost effectiveness. I mean you don’t go clear across country to pick up a loaf of bread you can find at your local supermarket several blocks down the road. But, when it comes to holidays, humans don’t always take the cheapest option. When planning that round-the-world trip, cost effectiveness isn’t an issue, otherwise you could just surf the world via the Internet as virtual reality from the comfort of your living room.

Tourism – The R&R Scenario: Being a rather nice sort of planet, perhaps one or more of our cosmic visitors from the distant past decided to set up shop on Earth, either as a place for a brief R&R (maybe they thought Mount Olympus, Mount Meru or the high Andes might make a nice resort location) or a ‘permanent’ home-away-from-home. Perhaps Planet Earth was colonized by extraterrestrials long before humans were dreamt of in anyone’s philosophy.

Going with that flow, E.T. would have had no moral or ethical qualms about using Planet Earth as an R&R resort and/or base of operations way back then. There was no intelligent life and indigenous civilization already present – the Prime Directive (assuming such a concept is real as opposed to the fictional “Star Trek” concept) would not apply.

So our advanced extraterrestrials set up shop on Planet Earth as an R&R home-away-from-home, sort of taking dominion over this paradise / nature reserve / national park, perhaps with a view towards eventual long-term colonization. Fast forward to today; once an R&R spot, always an R&R spot. And Mount Olympus certainly beats L.A. or Tokyo or Calcutta as a resort if your one of those extraterrestrial ‘gods’.

Science – The Curiosity Scenario: Visitations to Planet Earth whether they be 4.5 billion years ago; 450 million years ago, 45 million years ago, or 4.5 million years ago, probably were scientific expeditions – aliens exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life forms and new civilizations. We’re cosmically interesting real estate because we have a biosphere, and presumably planets with biospheres are relative rare in cosmic real estate terms. So, alien biologists will be rubbing their tentacles in glee when they get to explore a new biosphere. So once they have explored our strange new world and our new (if still primitive) life forms, then what? I suggest that initial random visits (as calculated by professional astronomers and physicists within the ballpark of one per 10,000 to 100,000 years) will translate into ongoing and ever more frequent and routine examinations. Perhaps science eventually translates into more commercial areas. Science finds the resources; business exploits them. Perhaps we (Planet Earth) are exploitable, not in terms of commodities like minerals, but as biological commodities. Those won’t be closer to their home since terrestrial biology is presumably only found terrestrially. Terrestrial life might be purely interesting in the way an ant colony is to an entomologist; it might be practically interesting in that, as we have found, biological organisms contain all sorts of valuable pharmacological chemicals. Presumably if E.T. biochemistry is akin to ours, perhaps some drug obtained from one of our magic mushrooms might cure their cancer.

I’d like to think that their agenda, the alien’s motive for being here is science, at least in the first instance. As noted above, Planet Earth is really interesting real estate in the cosmos since we have a biosphere. And like our wildlife biologists and anthropologists, etc. go out of their way so as not to disturb the objects of their study in their natural environment, so too might any extraterrestrial intelligence associated with UFOs try to keep to a minimum disturbing the natives. The aliens are harmless by deliberate design. Of course even wildlife biologists have to occasionally capture, study (maybe dissect), tag and release their subject – perhaps a parallel with the abduction phenomena?

We Are Property – The Alien Abduction Scenario: Since the UFOs agenda is apparently neither an invasion nor a take-me-to-your-leader scenario, and since we haven’t found any extraterrestrial R&R resorts on our planet (we have explored Mount Olympus – no extraterrestrials to be had), that leaves rather more a scenario of scientific study but embellished including the concept inherent in the ‘Zoo Hypothesis’. We are ‘animals’ – they are the zoo keepers.

A slightly stronger alternative scenario has us as being actually owned by E.T. – at least as far as E.T. is concerned. They bought the property rights to Planet Earth eons ago, so we are their ’slaves’; we are their property; they are the masters and the owners. But perhaps that’s too ‘invasion’ like, even though plausible.

So another argument against the UFO ETH is the absolute absurdity of UFO-related alleged abductions by alien beings.

Okay, we have this subset of the UFO phenomena called alien abductions – extraterrestrials (often called the ‘Greys’) have their wicked ways with their human property. Skeptics suggest that the question ‘what can it all mean?’ is none other than so-called UFO abductees are a bit touched in the head.

Apart from that, the sixty-four cent question is ‘why’. Why would aliens abduct humans? Certainly not for chit-chat or wild parties! And why have so many humans been taken for so long? Well, how long have humans studied rats, and how many hundreds of thousands have had to run the maze? That’s my answer. We’re just lab rats to the aliens. We’re not to be conquered, but we’re not going to be given the cure for cancer, the road to universal peace, and certainly not the “Encyclopaedia Galactica”. There will be no trade – their tribbles for our opals say.

What was it that the compiler of all things anomalous, the late Charles Fort said? “I think we’re property”. But is that such a strange idea really? We own land and by extension the plants and animals on it. Does a colony of wild turkeys comprehend that they are owned because they live on something called private property? They could be left in the main quite alone and undisturbed, except for the occasional one which might be harvested (abducted) around Christmas time!

The UFO abduction phenomena makes sense in that it mirrors what wildlife biologists often do in the field – capture, study, tag and release. The UFO abduction ‘Greys’ seem to be interested in humans mainly with respect to areas or aspects surrounding reproduction and genetics. These are the same sorts of areas required for our creator ‘gods’ (ancient astronauts by another name) to have ‘created’ humans in the first place, so maybe their grand plan is still unfolding!

There’s an obvious parallel with aliens abducting humans. If humans are anything to be judged by, we abduct animals for all sorts of reasons, from the illegal trade in wildlife, to animals for zoos and safari parks, for medical research and biological research. With respect to the latter, wildlife biologists will often abduct, tag and release animals. Sound familiar? If animals communicate among themselves, their verbal history must be chockfull of abduction tales with humans the abductors.

We might ask what right extraterrestrials have to own Planet Earth and by extension us. Our colony of wild turkeys could ask the same about us (or our domestic livestock or companion animals for that matter). Maybe it boils down to the Golden Rule – they who have the gold (or are the top of the food chain or have the biggest gun or the most advanced technology) make the rules. It does appear that, given the abduction (and perhaps the livestock/animal mutilation phenomena), Planet Earth and its contents are indeed alien property. Of course, as hinted above, it might have been the case that Planet Earth, as prime real estate, was obtained by extraterrestrials a billion years ago, way before the evolution of multi-cellular plants and animals, and of course humans.

Okay, we’re the property of the UFO ‘Greys’ and they feel they have every moral, ethical and legal right to have their wicked way with us.

The ‘we are property’ (whether in a zoo or as lab rats) hypothesis explains the Fermi Paradox (“where is everybody?” – they’re here); it explains the observations that UFOs are no threat to national security; it explains the lack of any alien invasion; it explains the lack of any alien’s “take me to your leader” scenario; it explains the general UFO abduction phenomena; it probably accounts for the overall animal mutilation phenomena. It doesn’t explain crop circles – unless one would equate them with the sort of diversions, toys, monkey bars, bird swings and other associated furniture you can find in any pet store that we give to amuse our own owned animals. Or, alternatively, perhaps crop circles are akin to the sort of symbols (pictograms) behavioural scientists have used in experiments in communicating with apes and monkeys – lab rats, albeit higher IQ lab rats.

The upshot is that UFOs, if extraterrestrial, have motives that UFO ETH skeptics find a bit suspect, therefore UFOs aren’t extraterrestrial. However, going beyond the obvious diplomatic, trade relations, invasion, and R&R scenarios which apparently aren’t, one can still find parallels between what our alleged aliens do, and what humans do. That alone makes the UFO ETH a plausible one IMHO.

Science librarian; retired.

Purity of Purpose Defining the Unsettled Areas in Ourselves Relationships Careers and Lives

Friday, June 17th, 2011

MODE of Cosmic Therapy Esoteric Psycho-Analytic Observation Application Demonstration

We none know what we are doing. Though we go about our days with full intent, saturated purpose and determined objectives, the real sublime reason why we are motivated to act remains hidden from view. We awake in the morning with a concentrated objective, having calculated the outcome and minimized the barriers; we proceed as if what we will achieve has something to do with us. So much so, we either take blame for the mishaps or bask in the glory of the success. Neither response is accurate or appropriate. “IF at any time, we think we know what we are doing, cease immediately.” In other words, we never know; we only project and in those projections, we are wrong.

There’s much more to the picture left unseen, than seen.

So much is hidden from view. It’s simply amazing how we go about our days denying how much crucial information we don’t have access to. We work with what with have in an obscured partial light; though, we attack the problems as if we have all the goods available. The truth is our present knowledge and insight {no matter how much we’ve paid for the expert guidance} is limited and biased.

Yet, we continue to make all of these unnecessary plans and believe that unless they unfold exactly and precisely as we have ordered (constructed), we have in some way failed to accomplish our preset goals. Needless to say, when it appears as if our specific goals have not been met, we have in no way failed. On the same token, when it appears as if what we set out to do was fully satisfied, the end is not in sight, either.

‘Nothing’ is at it appears to be. And, we have very little to say or do about whatever occurs.

But, ’say’ we do! That falls under the category of tenacious gossip.

There is a subtle esoteric law of inference that is applied to each and every act we undertake: purity of purpose. It’s totally impersonal and some may say, irrational, but none the less effectual. Beyond our physical ability, mind’s intellect, and emotional barrage of thwarted desires (enacted to interfere), a governing hallowed force guides and directs all of our actions. We are not consulted on the matter, nor are we given the privilege to decide if the outcome is needed or not. These sacred acts are decreed from a much higher sphere of authority which bypass the normal functionability of man. Does this mean all of our actions are predestined? In a vehemently resisted word: yes. {Look at it more like we are prodded like cattle into a specific sphere of pre-chosen activity of earth experience.}

We were born with an explicit destiny, a sublimely definitive work to accomplish while on earth. We will achieve that definite purpose. Whether or not, we ever see the picture clear enough to appreciatively discern our personal effort’s output, remains irrelevant. “Purity of Purpose’ determines the result of every single action we administer. IF it falls out of line with that celestially projected intent, it’s simply not going to happen. Now, we may wonder (humans continually question everything; it’s part of our curious nature), if will we be able to discern when we have ‘Purity of Purpose’.

In a definitively resisted word: no. IF we could see ‘IT’, it wouldn’t be ‘IT’.

In addition to the ‘curiosity seeking creature’s mind’ we inherently imbue, we are just as impatient, IF not more so. And, IF we were left to our own gluttonous appetites of unrestrained pleasure, to indulge in so many variant earth experiences, we would certainly move prematurely into areas not necessarily suitable for our evolvement and soul’s preference. Oh. Did I not mention IT is our Precious Ruthless Soul which has the definitive say about what will be and what will not be?

Again, a matter of Semantics, the term ‘SOUL’ can be viewed, argued, and defined in many different philosophical, scientific, religious, ethical, cultural, environmental, psychological, biological and mental constructs.

However, for brevity of purpose: ‘much more remains unseen than seen’.

IF, in fact, we are on earth to make some sort of evolutionary progress (again, we can’t gauge it), we would only be able to do that by and through isolated (personal) incidences where we had no way or knowing, explaining, defending or excusing what took place or did not occur. In other words, it would be in those indescribable times, when and where, we were unable to logically deduce any practical means (commonsense) for what had occurred and were simultaneously driven to find either resolution or solace from within that the inexplicable becomes acceptable.

IF, in fact, we are all on some sort of spiritual journey, the tolerable foundation of our ‘inches in steps’ to our so-called pre-set established directions become vitally necessary discipline. The deal for real is plain and simple. MASTERY. We are working on ourselves, in as much, as we are learning to surrender to a much higher force of operation. {Who incidentally remains privy to much more elaborate information than we are capable of realizing.}

In no way, am I attempting to personify this ineffable energy, I simply am using the restricted barriers of language to convey a point. Through a laborious solitary journey, the seeker (human being) learns as many techniques, practices and skills (much like an adept musician) in order to finely tune, manipulate, orchestrate and demonstrate his enriched abilities. Not without countless hours of careful observation, dedication and consecration of committed study to bring about a much deeper understanding and comprehension of the higher self in operation while alive.

All action, thought and gesture is geared toward breaking through the superficial mask of personality which so easily confuses, disturbs, depresses and overwhelms us.

“Purity of Purpose”, the definitively prescribed apparatus instilled in every Master of Divine Essence (god in the making) who inhabits earth as a human being, resides as the severing mechanism to split open the core. It’s all a matter of becoming conscious of the sacredly inflamed power of sensually inspired, sublimely sexual, creatively artistic talent that lies within. But moreover, with the acknowledgment, embracing and acceptance of these miraculous talents, gifts and abilities, learning how NOT to push circumstances, relationships, situations and events into existence before it is time, simply because we believe we can. {As if we could, anyway.}

It is written in the ancient texts, “above all, get thee understanding.”

To understand that we are not to look outward for the manifestation of results as a sign of our progress but to remain firmly rooted turning away from the distracting voices of either praise or condemnation (filled with fear, regret, remorse and anticipation) to the ’still silent small voice’ of knowing everything is exactly and precisely as it should be for reasons we can’t see propels us to move, breathe and have our being.

Purity of Purpose stimulates us to experience without any trace of a lust of result. Therein lies the secret of man’s esoteric enhancement without a coveted design.

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Passionate about love, living, laughter, liberty, learning, listening, loosening up, lounging, lunch, liveliness, literacy, lip stick, letting my hair down, leaping, leaning, libido, lifting, linking, looking, lodging, luxury, lemons and lyrics.

BS in Communication MA in Art Education currently pursuing a Ph.D in Educational Psychology. Executive MODE of Cosmic Therapy Therapist, Esoteric Sexual Psycho-analyst, artist, author, entertainer, motivational speaker, teacher, singer/songwriter, perfumer, dream interpreter, musician, composer, playwright, professional astrologer, tarot consultant, numerologist, poet and self-taught chef. (Avid student of life and lover of humanity)

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

Values, Morals, and Ethics: Oh My!

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

Volumes and volumes of philosophy have been written about the concepts of values, morals, and ethics. These concepts date back thousands of years to Aristotle, Socrates, and Kant. Their wisdom has spread and been internalized by cultures and societies, who passed down their values throughout the generations until today. Our future consists of continuing this process as long as humans survive. Unlike many aspects of mental or physical wellbeing, values, morals and ethics are not biological or genetic. They are primarily societal, human constructs that keep large groups of people peaceful and safe. Many times, those three words are used interchangeably without regard to any difference between them. However, to study these concepts, and incorporate them into ones behavior requires an understanding of what each individually is.

Every person has their own innate virtues. They are unique to each individual person, and describe what they deem to be important in their personal behavior. Virtues are personal judgements that compare possible behaviors with an innate understanding of right and wrong. A virtue typically regards a single or limited theme in the realm of life, and involve the notion of I or me. How should I behave? For instance, “I will only touch another person when they agree to it.” This creates of direct statement to a specific action. Though virtues relate only to an individual, they stem from both the individual, and the larger culture.

Morals look outside the individual at the behavior of others. They are judgements of how others should act in various situations. Humans are programmed to view other humans as kin, and thus created of similar substance. In essence, morals take personal virtues and place them on the shoulders of others to determine right and wrong. Unlike the concept of a virtue, morals can stem from individuals, cultures, or societies. They are often posed as black and white issues with a definitive right and wrong. For instance, “They should not steal what doesn’t belong to them.” Similar to virtues, morals are a personal viewpoint that are held by that individual, culture, or society. Though personal (meaning to the individual, culture, or society), morals are often considered to be universal, and are thus urged onto others.

The broadest concept is that of ethics. Unlike the previous two, ethics are not individual, they are only created by a group, and imposed on members of that group. Ethics constitute a collection of morals that are then turned into principles which govern the behavior for each member of that group. Ethics acknowledge that there is rarely a black and white situation. Instead, there are grey areas that make right and wrong an elusive concept. One aspect which sets ethics apart from the other concepts, is the motivation of protection. Ethical principles typically incorporate morals and virtues to create a set of guiding principles which protect the inhabitants of the group along with the ones they interact with. For a person to be included in the group, they must follow the ethical principles embodied by the group. An example, is a mental health professional must do everything in the best interest of their client. The emphasis switches away from individual statements to broader concepts without exact actions. The participant then relies on their inherent virtues and morals to guide their decisions.

To see the original article, go here: http://www.integratedpathways.net/Integrated_Pathways/Dancing_Mind/Entries/2011/5/26_Values_Ethics_and_Moral__Oh_My!.html

Bryan Aldeghi is a Life Coach at the Integrated Pathways Center for Personal Growth. He works with a dynamic team to help clients overcome their challenges through enhanced communication, goal completion, and increased self-awareness.

Bryan Aldeghi CLSC
Certified Life Strategies Coach
Integrated Pathways Center for Personal Growth
Many Paths…One Goal…Integrating Body, Mind and Soul
http://www.IntegratedPathways.net

Free Will? Why Libertarianism Fails

Sunday, May 29th, 2011

It has come to me via suggestion that I would write this paper on my knowledge and understanding of free will. The motivation is, for the most part, to clarify confusion that has generally intoxicated my argument, typically from all of our fundamental bias of things. The first bias seems to come from our inability to see outside ourselves. I will further this argument later, but for the sake of now, we need to understand that there exists a corporeal world outside of our natural understanding. From mankind’s dawn, the stars in the sky as well as the sun and moon were all thought to be angels, gods, or some other supernatural force at work. All works of nature were thought to be so. What we find is that as human understanding increases, so does the works of the supernatural diminish. Why can the same not be for the mind? As it is towards our current understanding our conscious is of supernatural origin. This concept that we are somehow in control of our actions and thoughts suggests an uncaused cause, something that no other tangible object possesses. This would only assume our conscious (including our wills, desires, and behaviors all within it) to be of supernatural origin because nature does not allow for uncaused causes.

My main argument is that free will, in this sense of the term (uncaused cause) is impossible logically, philosophically, and scientifically. However, my pending argument will proceed as follows:

  • Prove that mind and body are not separate, but rather the mind is a function of the brain.
  • Show that causality rules physical nature and our brains, thus our minds.
  • Discern the difference between causality’s determinism and the controversial fatalism and show how the complexities of our mind- and of nature- rule out fatalism.
  • Show that free will is a necessary illusion that makes ethics, civilization, and day-to-day life possible.

The main purpose of this essay is to make clearer the ambiguities that follow along with the claim that free will is an illusion. This is a theory of mine that is similar to many scientists’ and philosophers’, but my logical basis has been influenced by facts and theories alone, linked together by my own logical process.

Pt. 1: Mind and Body

An essential item to be fond of here is the computational theory of the mind, for that is where my first argument will spring. The computational theory of mind mixes our sensual gained information with the mind’s ability to compute, much like a computer. However, many psychologists, like Steven Pinker, despise the metaphor comparing the mind to the computer simply because it is clearly a superfluous oversimplification. To fix this logical fallacy, I would like to present a metaphor of the brain as a computer rather an a metaphor. This works simply because with analogies are there proportions. We can then take the vast complexities of the mind, and compare them to the vast simplicities of the computer because we are not then concerned with the specific functions of each, but rather the general functions thereof, and how their situations (not functions) are similar.

The computational theory of mind presents a very interesting solution for many problems, including will, desire, and perception. The solution we will focus on here is the solution to perceptions. If the human mind was a blank slate, and our perceptions were what we received purely from our sensory organs, then we would be nearly incapable of determining between objects in certain situations. What the problem holds here is the discernment of inverse optics. We should all be familiar with optics, that’s the study of how light comes together to make certain objects viewable. Well, our mind deals with just the opposite of that. Our mind sees the light, but must discern what the object it is seeing really is.

This is a major problem in some instances. The difference in lighting could make some objects seem similar; even have a ball of snow seem as black as a lump of coal. What goes on? How are we able to determine one object from another? The computational theory of mind states that the human brain fills in information that is missing when we perceive things. Our brain literally assumes that an object has certain qualities because of the environment of which it’s in. Clearly, this computational trait is evolutionary, for how else would our minds be able to fundamentally “know” what kind of world we live in? But notwithstanding, it is essential for us to even discern objects in day-to-day life.

Before I go on to the implications of this, I would like to make a touch at perhaps clearing some minds that may doubt such a theory. If the theory is correct, then the mind could be fooled by a pre-lit background into thinking objects are there, but in reality they aren’t. Well, this trickery occurs every day when we watch the television. All a television is, is a contrast of different colors that gives our mind the illusion that objects and people are there simply because our mind fills in the missing information on the assumption that they are there. Also, how would optical illusions like those presented in the Gestalt School be possible if our brains just didn’t assume information? This assumption is our mind computing the information from the sensory input, with information already in the brain. This is why it is titled “the computational theory of mind.”

But what does this mean? Well, this is where I bring in the computer analogy that I had mentioned earlier. If the brain computes information, like a computer does, then what we see is only a representation of what’s really there. It’s our conscious understanding of we simply cannot (the computation in our brain). Well, in the computer analogy, the computer screen is a visual representation of what we cannot understand. This brings the analogy that if our brain were a computer, then our mind (or our conscious) would simply be the computer screen. That is the computer screen functions as a part of the computer, and cannot work separate. It’s nearly completely useless when separate from a computational source. When the computational theory of mind is taken into consideration, then so is the analogy. With these two are in mind, we can make the conclusion that mind and body are not separate, but rather together.

Another argument I have comes in the form of correlation:

  • The mind begins with the formation of the brain
  • It grows with the brain
  • Its sole function depends upon the function of the brain
  • The maturity of the mind depends upon the maturity of the brain.

I think we find that as all of this is true, the mind must be a function of the brain, rather than the two being separate.

There are other points of view concerning the conclusion I have just recently presented. For example, take the purely fascinating neurological condition known as alien hand syndrome. Alien hand syndrome is the condition where a person literally feels as if he has no control over the usage of his arm. How could this be possible if our conscious was directly the cause of our action? The person with this condition has no conscious of his actions but just know that they happen. He in a sense lost his will to control his arm. Why is this? Because our actions, and our will thereof, are located in the brain (this argument will be held later on in proof of my argument against free will).

I believe it is clearly seen logically that our mind (our consciousness), is not separate from the brain (or body in this sense), but rather it is a function of it. This concludes the first argument.

Pt. 2: Causality and the Impossibility of Free Will

Imagine now stepping on a piece of glass. Where did that glass come from? You look towards your window and you see the glass broken. You then realize that the class came from the window being broken. You just discovered the cause. But what then caused the window to break? Well, on your counter you realize there’s a baseball there that doesn’t belong? Noting previous knowledge of those breaking windows, you then discovered the cause of the broken window. But what then caused the baseball to travel at such momentum to break your window? Well, you know that there’s a baseball park located just across the street. Perhaps a kid hit a well-appreciated home run, and the ball smashed through your window. Well, then, you now have the cause of the balls momentum.

As the previous paragraph shows, our universe is built from the law of cause and effect. Whenever something happens, we know there was something to cause it. Kant says this is a good example of knowledge known a priori. With that notwithstanding, we ultimately know that every effect has a cause, and it is this knowledge that we will never part with. Our universe is a reality ruled by causality. Even the arbitrary actions of the quantum mechanical world are ruled by causality; it may be a different form of causality, one of which we’re not familiar with, but it’s causal nevertheless.

However, it’s this causality that brings us to the purpose of this entire work: what caused the bat to swing? Well, the bat swung by the actions of muscles in the kid’s arms, however, that’s not what we’re focusing on. The bat swung because it was willed to be swung. It was the desire of the young kid to swing the bat, and so it was swung. Any analytical mind would ask the question: what caused one to will? Did the kid will himself to will? Is that even possible to do? If so, then what caused the former will? And then on to the one that caused that! The question we’re seeking is the question that posed this entire work to come about: what is will?

The libertarian viewpoint is that our will is simply ourselves. It is an uncaused cause; something that no other objects in the universe possesses. However, like I mentioned before, this is a quality that no other object in reality possesses. It’s completely incompatible with science, philosophy, and logistics in general. The only accurate means of which we can conclude for the source of such a quality is supernatural means. For the sake of knowledge all together, we must search for a different origin.

This brings us to a second viewpoint: the deterministic viewpoint. Determinism is very simply cause and effect. It’s the idea that we are not in control of our actions, but rather our actions are determined through cause and effect. If our minds are a function of our biological brain, and our biological brain works through causal means, then our mind should also be causal. This is actually shown neurologically. The existence of the very bizarre alien hand syndrome is validation of deterministic will. Alien hand syndrome is the condition where one ceases to be conscious of willing their hand to move. It’s twitching to a whole new level. Their arm moves as if ruled by another mind. You can slap your spouse and not have even willed it to happen. The reason for this is neurological. Neurology also shows us another very interesting phenomenon. As studies show, one’s will to move or act is available, at the most, ten seconds before we become conscious of it (“The Moral Landscape, pg. 103; report found by Soon, Brass, Heinze, & Haynes 2008 “Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain). How is it we can be in control of our actions if clearly our actions are determined by biological means?

The world of determinism brings by consequence another theory. If everything is determined by cause and effect, and the cause was then derived from an effect, then what happens now is caused (by transition) by the very origins of our reality. This is fatalism: the idea that things happen because they have to happen that way. Everything is caused by a prior cause, and in that sense everything is “predestined”.

At first glance, determinism and fatalism seem less like just brethren theories, and more like the exact same thing. However, there is a vital difference between the two. According to fatalism, one cause has one effect. However, there are multiple ways to arrive at the same effect, and also, depending on condition, one cause can have very different effects. What it comes down to is that determinism allows enough leeway for there to be some form of will. Perhaps it’s not in the libertarian sense of the word, but it is will nonetheless.

Behaviorism- however barbaric the theory makes humans seem- is validated in some areas. The theory that we, like other organisms, respond to a stimulus is without a doubt a reasonable theory and also validated in some way by observations (Skinner’s experiments with the baby and the hammer). There cannot exist both libertarianism and behaviorism. By this we can conclude that libertarian free will is not only inapplicable within our philosophy and reason, but within nature itself.

Pt. 3 Why Free Will?:

What we find with all of this is that according to determinism and fatalism, “we” are not in control of our actions, but rather our biology is. What does this mean for crime and punishment? Does this mean that people cannot be punished because they are not in control of their actions? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, when we take behaviorism back into consideration, we find that to respond to stimuli is to learn from said stimuli. Punishing crime is the stimuli, developing social norms to respect morals is the response to thus said stimuli.

“Free will is an illusion that makes the game of ethics possible.” ~Stephen Pinker

Such systems of logic, utilizing psychology and a vast range of science is what is used in modern philosophy. Its what I use throughout all of my philosophies. If one wanted to pursue philosophy without science, whats the point? If one wanted to pursue science without philosophy, then where is it going? Explanations on this an a whole range of philosophy, science, history, and even art can be found, all free, at http://www.philosophicminds.com.

In Defense of The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Introduction

Psychology, the scientific discipline of the study of human and animal behavior, is a young science. Prior to the late 19th century, the study of “mind” was a discipline practiced as a philosophical or spiritual endeavor. Because Psychology is a new science, we should expect a continuing evolution of psychological theory as well as tweaking and revision of existing theories.

A Brief History of Psychology

In 1879, German physiologist Wilhelm Wundt used the laboratory setting to perform psychological experiments. He is known as “father of experimental psychology”, also then referred to as Structuralism.

William James, American scientist, psychologist, and philosopher introduced the concept that the practice of psychological theory should have practicality. That is, use psychological theory to bring tangible benefits to people.

Sigmund Freud introduced the psychoanalytic techniques to uncover first causes of behavior. One of Freud’s proteges was psychiatrist Carl Young who later broke with Freud and developed his own theory of analytical psychology. Carl Jung was first to declare a person’s psychological makeup religious by nature. He defined the process of a person becoming whole as “Individuation”. Individuation is the process of balancing opposites, i.e., unconscious with the conscious, but still keeping a measure of separateness. In fact, the core concept of analytic psychology is Individuation.

Jung then posited the reality of two distinct groupings of psychological functions: The Judging “rational” functions- feeling and thinking, and the perceiving “irrational” functions- intuition and sensing.

Jung then stated that the dichotomies are projected in either an extroverted or introverted fashion.

An analogy of these dichotomies is seen in the expression of right handedness or left handedness. One either develops it early in life or is born with it

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

From Jung’s original concepts, Myers and Briggs developed their own theory of psychological type, on which the MBTI is based.

They worked on the MBTI during WWII as a tool to help women in wartime industry zero in on the quality of work they would be most satisfied with. The first test evolved into the MBTI in 1962.

Isabel Briggs Myers mother Katherine Briggs started investigating personality traits in 1917. She saw personality differences between members of the same family. She identified the connection between Jung’s theory and her own. Katherine Briggs four personality types were then matched to Is, EPs, ETJs and EFJs.

Daughter Isabel advanced her mother’s work, which she entirely took over when her mother retired.

The MBTI has been used for over 50 years as a tool to bring tangible benefits to people. It is a measure of personality preferences. That is, how the relative strength of a person’s personality preferences is used to psychologically navigate in the world.

One enduring use of the MBTI is in the field of career counseling. The MBTI Career Report helps people zero in on fields of work that others with their same personality type have reported a high degree of satisfaction with. As such, The MBTI Career Report is a statistically valid testing instrument.

It can be used as a starting point for career search and one of many tools career and guidance counselors, life coaches and corporate managers can use to help others achieve a higher degree of job satisfaction.

Criticism of the MBTI is centered on two points of contention. (1) Over the decades, the MBTI has sometimes been used in inappropriate ways such as a psycho-therapeutic tool or as a forced testing instrument within the corporate environment. (2) Conflicting studies question the validity of the MBTI as a predictor of job satisfaction.

The MBTI should not be used as an end all and be all in gaining understanding of personality preferences. The same can be said of any testing instrument in the field of psychology. Human behavior is a manifestation of complex web of biological imperatives, psychological drives, and intangible yet identifiable motivations based on values, ethics, morality, and spirituality. Use of the MBTI needs to be kept in perspective and applied within the framework of such complexity.

For many, job satisfaction can be an ideal, a goal that is never fully reached. Many factors can affect career satisfaction over and above working a job that is complementary to a person’s personality preferences, including the relative health of a person’s interpersonal relationships and the age of the person. A job that’s appealing to a 20 year old may prove less fulfilling to a 40 year old.

Conclusion

Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a career satisfaction predictor is one of a number of tools a person can use in gaining perspective on what career may prove fulfilling. Likewise, the MBTI is a useful and interesting tool to help gain insight into how one psychologically navigates through life. Using the MBTI ideally should be combined with other tools and guidance to help a person identify fulfilling careers.

Stephen R Tiebout has over 20 years experience helping people discover their personality preference type using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. He is the administrator of Ransdell Associates.com, a testing portal for the MBTI. For more information on the MBTI and personal relationships, visit http://ransdellassociates.com/.

The Mind: Explaining ‘The Inner You’

Monday, April 25th, 2011

‘You’ is the physical or physiological you. ‘The Inner You’ is the nebulous (apparently non-physical) psychological parts of you. That is, those bits not considered physiological and which you can not hold in your hand or see with a microscope – for lack of a better word, your mind or your personality. For example, things like free will, creativity/ideas, likes and dislikes, a sense of humor, memory, emotions, the thought process, understanding/comprehension, dreaming, morality/ethics, the state of being conscious, consciousness, sense of self, beliefs/faith, personal philosophy and knowledge.

If any of these attributes can generate a physiological reaction, then that attribute of mind, or of ‘The Inner You’ must also be physiologically based – or, vice versa. Can anything physiological, or biochemical influence ‘The Inner You’ attributes given above? In both cases, I suggest the answer is ‘yes’. Translated, there is no actual separation between the physical you and ‘The Inner You’ components.

You exist in time and space in a self contained physical body comprised of various biological systems, in turn composed of various body organs, hence cells, complex organic molecules, not so complex organic (and inorganic) molecules, atoms, and those fundamental particles (and forces) from which all else flows.

Of course ‘The Inner You’ within the physical you also consists of more nebulous things like your awareness, comprehension or understanding, creativity, consciousness, dreams and nightmares, emotions, hallucinations or visions, knowledge, instinct, intellect or IQ, interests, logic, memory, mind, morality, perception, personality, reasoning, sense of self, spirituality, etc., etc.

‘The Inner You’ still remains even if some of the physical you is removed or altered like loosing a tooth, or having your appendix or tonsils removed or having an artificial hip replacement. All of the above (mind, etc.) however somehow do reside in a physical structure called the brain, which, being a bodily organ, is ultimately composed of a combination of biochemical substances, in turn composed of simpler molecules, hence atoms and those fundamental particles and associated forces (in this case mainly the electromagnetic force). ‘The Inner You’ in other words exists as a subpart of the physical you – the brain. In fact, if I understand correctly, some of the specific aspects of ‘The Inner You’ have been found to be associated with specific locations within the brain complex. If the brain is removed or altered, then aspects of ‘The Inner You’ will cease to exist or (probably) be altered. This also suggests that all those aspects associated with ‘The Inner You’ are internal to the physical you and don’t have any sort of separate and apart existence outside of the physical you. Since ‘The Inner You’ vanishes if your brain is removed or dies, let’s concentrate on alterations instead that show that the electro-chemical brain is the be-all-and-end-all of ‘The Inner You’.

Changes to the brain (temporary or permanent), whether induced by physical injury, physical medical procedures, or via exposure to various chemicals (say drugs of any nature, legal or illegal) can result in changes to those ‘The Inner You’ attributes listed above. Blows to the head can affect memory. Surgery can cure or modify various personality disorders. Drugs ditto – but sometimes for the worse. The upshot is that for ‘The Inner You’ to be subject to natural physics and chemistry, strongly suggests that those nebulous qualities that are ‘The Inner You’ are grounded in physics and chemistry and therefore can’t really be all that nebulous.

For example, take the commonly used recreational drug alcohol. Alcohol can alter your sense of morality or moral conduct, as in having too much to drink at the office Christmas party – conduct unbecoming! There’s no disputing that it is the alcohol that is the cause of the (temporary) personality change. There’s no disputing that alcohol is matter – organic molecules comprised in turn of atoms and those fundamental particles. To be physically or chemically acted on, or physically affected by, your morality or personality must also have a physical or chemical basis. Matter such as alcohol can’t influence things that have no nuts-and-bolts physical reality, like the nebulous concept of Wednesday or citizenship.

Turning things around, from personal experience, some of ‘The Inner You’ attributes can cause physical (physiological) changes in other parts of the physical you. Emotions, dreams, etc. can cause accelerated heart beats or sweating or abnormal secreting of digestive juices. ‘The Inner You’ can cause the physical you to become unwell – ulcers perhaps. Again, how can something intangible cause something tangible? Therefore, I must conclude that these apparently nebulous ‘The Inner You’ attributes must be based on physics and the laws, relationships and principles of physics (and chemistry).

Because all of ‘The Inner You’ resides in the brain, and because the brain can be observed, measured and experimented on, and because the main force operating within the brain (as a result of observation, measurement and experimentation) is electromagnetic, and because all of this is on a micro level, then quantum effects could rule. So, to understand the workings of your inner self ‘The Inner You’ or your mind as it were, you need to understand quantum physics. The relationship(s) between quantum physics and ‘The Inner You’ aren’t readily understood. If they were, ‘The Inner You’ attributes wouldn’t be as nebulous as they currently appear to be. Nevertheless, that’s where the ultimate explanations lie. One interesting bit, a connection perhaps, is that at the very heart; the fundamental property or nature of quantum physics is uncertainty or unpredictability or indeterminism. If quantum events rule ‘The Inner You’ then perhaps it’s not surprising that most aspects of ‘The Inner You’ (personality, emotions, creativity, etc.) are also fundamentally uncertain or unpredictable or are indeterminate. ‘The Inner You’ is not consistent. Seemingly identical situations can (and probably will) produce differences in ‘The Inner You’, which is why humans can be so unpredictably exasperating to other humans.

I kind of wonder whether the physical you (or in this case the specific part of you called the brain or brain structures) can be equated to hardware, whereas ‘The Inner You’ is akin to software. Unlike a strict analogy with computers however, in that computers have their software installed in one go (with periodic updates perhaps), ‘The Inner You’ software has evolved over time, just as the physical you has, only in the case of the physical you, it’s called aging! The aging process in turn can have rather dramatic impacts on several of ‘The Inner You’ attributes – memory or creativity for example. That’s just further evidence that there is a physical (physiological) relationship that is probably quantum in nature between the physical you and ‘The Inner You’.

Of course the physical you has many types of software ‘installed’ within you, of which one happens to be collectively ‘The Inner You’. Another type of software in the physical you, for example, controls the involuntary nervous system; another is responsible for the aging process.

One (of many) interesting evolutions of ‘The Inner You’ could be considered a form of immortality. While nearly everyone wishes for immortality, whether they realize it or not, this is a case of be wary of what you wish for, least you get it. Immortality (which doesn’t preclude death by accident or design – just natural [aging] death), if achieved, would be a very boring existence as you’d end up spending trillions of years in a dark, intensely cold, lifeless Universe that keeps expanding, and accelerating expansion at that, ever cooling and dying as stars exhaust their fuel and galaxies pass out of sight of one another. Such is the predicted fate of our cosmos. The Universe ‘ends’ as it were, not with a bang but with a ‘heat death’ whimper.

Anyway, that aside, how could you (actually ‘The Inner You’) achieve if not infinite immortality, at least near quasi-immortality? After all, you really don’t want to achieve immortality if the only part of you that achieves immortality is your nose or thumb or liver; what you want to be immortal is ‘The Inner You’ – the rest of your physical body is pretty much irrelevant.

Let’s say you have an intense personal desire to have a career exploring the planet Jupiter – not via telescope, but in person. Today, for various reasons, your prospects are bugger-all. There’s no way to get you there at the moment, and you couldn’t survive the hostile environment even if you did. There’s no part of your organic body that would survive the Jovian environment. And if you wanted to explore, in person, extra-solar ‘Jupiters’, in addition to hostile environments, you wouldn’t survive the time frames necessary to get you to them which would be measured in tens to hundreds of thousands of years at projected relatively near future interstellar spacecraft velocities.

So, even a combination of your biology coupled with machine technology (you’re say becoming a cybernetic bio-mechanical hybrid for example) wouldn’t ultimately help your goal. What would work would be an entirely technological or mechanical ‘organism’ – a robot with artificial intelligence – one that could survive the lengthy journey times and the hostile environments. But that doesn’t do the physical you (or more to the point ‘The Inner You’ within the physical you) any good – unless you became that robot! But then one needs to get the organic ‘The Inner You’ into an inorganic form.

Just as it’s currently possible for one to transfer or download the contents of one computer into another computer, and just as your brain (which contains ‘The Inner You’ is an advanced type of computer – it’s ‘The Inner You’ software (or wetware) that controls the physical you, so too might it be eventually possible for the organic ‘The Inner You’ to be downloaded into a nuts-and-bolts computer which could then be merged with an appropriate mechanical body or other technology specifically designed to achieve a particular goal unachievable by actual flesh-and-blood. Examples are exploring Jupiter, interstellar space travel to distant stars and solar systems, or even deep sea exploration here on Planet Earth. You can’t currently walk around the ocean bottom exploring the wreck of the Titanic in your birthday suit! But a robot could.

The upshot is that if ‘The Inner You’ were part and parcel of, and inside inorganic (silicone and steel) bodies, given that inorganic materials last a hell of a lot longer than organic bodies, then you’ve achieved quasi-immortality! That’s ditto the case in that when ‘The Inner You’ becomes software in an inorganic computer, that ‘The Inner You’ software can be later transferred to another computer and then another and then another – on down the line. This can also lead to lots of copies of ‘The Inner You’ around. Not only quasi-immortality, but non-biological cloning as well!

Apart from transferring the organic ‘The Inner You’ into an inorganic ‘The Inner You’, in your organic state, well, as they say, ‘life’s a bitch, and then you die!’ However, there’s immortality, the hard way, because there could be a resurrection, the hard way.

It’s a principal of physics that information can not be destroyed – scrambled, yes; lost from view, yes; but ever destroyed to the point where it can’t be reconstructed even in theory. Since you are but a packet of information encoded in flesh-and-blood form, you, as a packet of information, can not be entirely destroyed.

Now your squishy wetware brain-thingy contains a lot of information. It seems however pretty obvious that when you die, your brain will be attacked, fed upon, will decay and ultimately be consumed and destroyed by those ultimate scavengers, bacteria. The information in your brain packet has been lost to all and sundry still in the land of the living. Or has it?

If information can not be destroyed then in theory you can not die – the information that is ‘you’ forever exists. It may be next to impossible to recreate or reconstruct, but in theory not impossible. How is it so? One could take your blueprint, highly complex but in theory knowable, and rebuild you up, via nanotechnology, subatomic particle by elementary particle by fundamental particle back into ‘you’.

The implications are that you are one with universal physics – energy and matter; forces and particles. There is nothing nebulous about you, your mind, “The Inner You”, whatever. Your most basic bits, your emotions, your memories, your sense of self, your morals and ethics, your ’soul’ if you will, can all be boiled down into the relationships between elementary particles and the four fundamental forces of nature.

Conclusions: All of the various personal attributes you acknowledge as being ‘The Inner You’ all started to accumulate and evolve from the moment of your conception onwards. You had no memory, no personality, no ‘The Inner You’, no nothing prior to that event. As you grew and matured and aged, your inner self further developed and matured. Alas, when your physical body kicks the bucket, the vase that houses ‘The Inner You’ dies as well. Dust to dust; ashes to ashes, or in this case the complex bio-molecules that make up your physical body including ‘The Inner You’ break down into simple molecules, atoms and elementary particles that get recycled onto their next destination or port of call, which may or may not include becoming part of another living organism; perhaps part of that organism’s ‘The Inner You’. Regardless, ‘The Inner You’ has now been lost, but not destroyed. Normal biological cloning can’t restore the original ‘The Inner You’; that cloned brain would be virgin and an empty vase ready for new inputs. But high technology, many years down the track might be able to duplicate or transfer ‘The Inner You’ prior to your biological death; maybe, albeit far-fetched, reconstruct ‘The Inner You’ after that fact.

Science librarian; retired.