I am sitting at my computer and looking out my window at a spring snow storm. Things have improved and I can see the house a bit down the street that an hour ago was engulfed in white. The blowing wet snow reminds me of storms when I was a girl. It has me thinking about my parents and my extended family. I am supremely grateful that even in the days when I could have been resentful and expressed that resentment to my parents I did not. It makes me wonder if most children feel resentful as I have occasionally done, and if most parents fall short of what their children wished they were. I decided when my father was still alive, that since I loved him, it was only self-defeating and negative to let his short-comings, which he had in abundance, overwhelm my good feelings. He was a bit of a riddle and I now think he had some definite mental health challenges that overwhelmed HIM in the last years of his life. His advancing negativity had caused him to frame many things in a light I don't believe was true for him when the events really happened. I had been there for some of those times and the stories he told then made no sense. However, no one should be judged by what they are post-stroke, or in the last years of a long, successful life. However I have seen this tendency to re-write the past in others, some much younger and I think it leads to unhappiness for everyone involved. I wonder if the negativity and criticism of parents by their children has little to do with any real hardship, slight, abuse or neglect. I have seen it come from children, who in my view, had very little to complain about.
One of my current projects for family history is to digitize the pictures we took when our children were growing up. As I look at those pictures, my oldest child at his first birthday, our children hanging upside down from a jungle gym or climbing trees, I think of how I felt in those years. We, my husband and I, were immersed in making our dreams for ourselves and our children come true. We were both children of a different generation, one that believed that food on the table, a roof over their heads, and some moral instruction was all that was required of parents. We, however, believed that supporting and encouraging our children in their activities, which our parents had shown little interest in doing, was also necessary. I'm not sure now where this idea even came from. Whatever its source, it made us provide lessons and drive them, attend their games, swim competitions and recitals, encourage and cheer them on in everything. WE even told them that we would try to give them everything they wanted that we could. We wanted them to know that the world would respond to them in a positive way. We thought this would ensure the self-esteem and confidence they would need to succeed in life. Realistically, it should have been impossible to spoil them since we could not have given any of them everything they wanted. That, too, mirrors life, in my view.
As an adult child I had a firm handle on what my responsibilities were toward my parents. When my children were small, we visited their grand-parents up to six times per year each, when we could, and tried to teach them that their grandparents were important people in their lives, people deserving of love. As I look at my children's generation now grown-up, I have some real worry about the unintended consequences of our generation's choices as parents of these children. I now see that it is possible to have a child bent on asking for things we could not give, who feels what seems to be an overwhelming resentment for things wanted and denied. From this perspective, anything done, any advantages given, can be minimized and the things missed resented. I also see children who seem to have no desire and feel no obligation to put anything into their relationship with their parents. It is almost as if our generation, by trying to give our children as much as we could of our time and energy, not only raised their expectations to an unrealistic level that now results in criticism not love, but contributed to the attitude that our value as parents was to help them and to do things for them. Now that they no longer need our help they no longer need us. Once a friend asked me if I thought it was worth it to have six children. I replied that it certainly increased the odds that you would have one who would care about you when you were old. I did not know at the time how prophetic that was. I feel very lucky and greatly blessed to have more than one. I try not to focus on the children who break my heart but instead count my blessings.
I see my children following our example in the degree of unselfish involvement they have in their children's activities and interests and I wonder what heartache is in store for them as parents of their own offspring. It gives new personal meaning to the concept of irony.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Mental Health, Evil and Personal Choice
I have been extremely busy at work for the last three months, and haven't written a blog for awhile. However, I have been thinking a lot about a number of issues, some of them quite philosophical. One of them is the issue of evil. What is evil and just how does it impinge on our lives?
Many philosophers have discussed the role of evil and I can't say that I am an expert on what other 'experts' have said. But I come from a philosophical tradition (Mormonism) that believes in evil and the influence of the Adversary, Satan, Lucifer, whatever you want to call him, in our lives. He tempts us to make 'wrong' or evil choices and we have the agency to personally choose to resist that evil or to give in to it.
Recently I have run across a couple of people who seem to be making evil choices is the sense of doing things, whatever it takes, to advance their own self interest. In one case, a friend of mine married a man with more severe 'mental health issues' than she understood before the marriage. Recently he became quite abusive and violent, punching the wall, throwing furniture, etc, and finished by calling an ambulance "because he was having a heart attack." That was the third time in just over a month for this kind of ambulance ride.His heart was normal. It was all triggered because his new wife had tired of waiting on him, sympathizing with him, and devoting her whole attention to his tantrums. Fortunately, because both his hands were in casts from punching the wall, and she suggested to the people in ER that he needed a psych evaluation, he was admitted to a psych ward. There had been other recent problems with lying and gambling, in addition to the name-calling, threats, and shouting that I would call emotional abuse. The psychiatrist informed the wife that these were all symptoms of his mental condition. He hoped that the medications would make these symptoms less severe, but told her that if she stayed married to him she could expect to be emotionally abused for the rest of her life. He also said that these problems get worse as aperson ages.
I tell this story because recently I had some experiences that were more personal with someone who lied to and manipulated me - quite successfully I might add - in order to get me to give her a substantial amount of money. I am not sure what the money was to be used for, except that I found out for sure that it was not for the purpose she explained to me. There were big promises of repayment "next week when we get a pay cheque." If the reason given for the need being so desperate and temporary was a lie, it is more or less a given that the money would never be paid back. I have tried to think of what that quantity of money would be spent on, and can only suspect, once the obvious things like rent, utilities, car, clothes and other forms of shopping, are eliminated, it is likely some form of gambling. As I talked with my friend about her mental husband, I began to see a huge number of parallels in behaviour - lying, gambling, abuse, although at this point her abuse is veiled as 'joking'. I began to see her as probably having the same mental health issues as my friend's husband. In some ways it has been easier to view this behaviour, not as a huge issue of disrespect, or total lack of empathy for my very real needs, or as the sign of a totally corrupt person, but as the evidence of a mental health condition which may very well increase with age.
However, how does the concept of evil fit into all this? The meds my friend's husband was prescribed have indeed made him more calm and less apt to break into violent outbursts of name calling or throwing furniture. However, it is evident that his high level of self-interest is his greatest motivation, and his ability to show concern for his wife's needs is still obviously lacking. In the beginning days of their marriage, he was kind and almost loving. That was when he was having heart problems and she was devoting all her spare time to waiting on him. He obviously liked that and wanted to keep their relationship on that basis, even when he was recovered. When she asked for a more reasonable balance, he flipped out and faked heart problems. The meds helped but that balance didn't happen. So where does brain chemistry as a cause end and personal choice take over? It seemed like he was able to choose to be 'nice' when he was getting what he wanted and became nasty when he didn't. Was it true that, in the words of that sixties comic Flip Wilson, "the devil made me do it" ? AND does the person in my life have similar "mental health issues"? Or is she giving in to a high level of self-interest that cannot consider the valid and real needs of others, that is, did the 'devil make her do it', or does she have serious mental health issues?
I know that there probably is no firm answer for me to these questions. I am likely to attribute personal choice to a number of the small sins that people commit. However, when the offenses are serious, I am less able to make them responsible, since doing so may be admitting the presence of evil in their lives, and consequently thinking they are bad. THAT makes me uncomfortable. I am not a judgmental person and I have had a number of people tell me that I am the least judgmental of anyone they know. It very often happens that when someone has 'wronged' or cheated you in the way she has, they then have to justify themselves by pointing the finger at you and criticizing you, even talking about you behind your back. Then they can feel like you deserve their treatment of you. I accept that. I can at that point avoid contact with them since they have become incapable of being one of my friends, but can only pretend to like me while being compelled to criticize, discredit, and lie about me. If they are a person who lies anyway this is easy for them. That I can deal with. But the larger issue of how to account for it remains. Is it evil and the personal choice to embrace it, or a mental health issue that drives their behaviour and which they cannot be responsible for? If it is 'mental health' then it will probably not change much, and if it is an evil choice, then until the choices radically change, it will probably not change much. I was discussing the problem with a close friend recently, and she said that it doesn't matter - my response to it has to be the same in either case. However, I have to think something. For me personally, it is easier for me to choose mental health issues since that is the least judgmental way. I just am not willing to judge.
Only God knows what personal responsibility either of these people, or anyone for that matter, bears. I am glad He actually knows and has the wisdom to make the judgment fairly. I am glad that I am not God.
Many philosophers have discussed the role of evil and I can't say that I am an expert on what other 'experts' have said. But I come from a philosophical tradition (Mormonism) that believes in evil and the influence of the Adversary, Satan, Lucifer, whatever you want to call him, in our lives. He tempts us to make 'wrong' or evil choices and we have the agency to personally choose to resist that evil or to give in to it.
Recently I have run across a couple of people who seem to be making evil choices is the sense of doing things, whatever it takes, to advance their own self interest. In one case, a friend of mine married a man with more severe 'mental health issues' than she understood before the marriage. Recently he became quite abusive and violent, punching the wall, throwing furniture, etc, and finished by calling an ambulance "because he was having a heart attack." That was the third time in just over a month for this kind of ambulance ride.His heart was normal. It was all triggered because his new wife had tired of waiting on him, sympathizing with him, and devoting her whole attention to his tantrums. Fortunately, because both his hands were in casts from punching the wall, and she suggested to the people in ER that he needed a psych evaluation, he was admitted to a psych ward. There had been other recent problems with lying and gambling, in addition to the name-calling, threats, and shouting that I would call emotional abuse. The psychiatrist informed the wife that these were all symptoms of his mental condition. He hoped that the medications would make these symptoms less severe, but told her that if she stayed married to him she could expect to be emotionally abused for the rest of her life. He also said that these problems get worse as aperson ages.
I tell this story because recently I had some experiences that were more personal with someone who lied to and manipulated me - quite successfully I might add - in order to get me to give her a substantial amount of money. I am not sure what the money was to be used for, except that I found out for sure that it was not for the purpose she explained to me. There were big promises of repayment "next week when we get a pay cheque." If the reason given for the need being so desperate and temporary was a lie, it is more or less a given that the money would never be paid back. I have tried to think of what that quantity of money would be spent on, and can only suspect, once the obvious things like rent, utilities, car, clothes and other forms of shopping, are eliminated, it is likely some form of gambling. As I talked with my friend about her mental husband, I began to see a huge number of parallels in behaviour - lying, gambling, abuse, although at this point her abuse is veiled as 'joking'. I began to see her as probably having the same mental health issues as my friend's husband. In some ways it has been easier to view this behaviour, not as a huge issue of disrespect, or total lack of empathy for my very real needs, or as the sign of a totally corrupt person, but as the evidence of a mental health condition which may very well increase with age.
However, how does the concept of evil fit into all this? The meds my friend's husband was prescribed have indeed made him more calm and less apt to break into violent outbursts of name calling or throwing furniture. However, it is evident that his high level of self-interest is his greatest motivation, and his ability to show concern for his wife's needs is still obviously lacking. In the beginning days of their marriage, he was kind and almost loving. That was when he was having heart problems and she was devoting all her spare time to waiting on him. He obviously liked that and wanted to keep their relationship on that basis, even when he was recovered. When she asked for a more reasonable balance, he flipped out and faked heart problems. The meds helped but that balance didn't happen. So where does brain chemistry as a cause end and personal choice take over? It seemed like he was able to choose to be 'nice' when he was getting what he wanted and became nasty when he didn't. Was it true that, in the words of that sixties comic Flip Wilson, "the devil made me do it" ? AND does the person in my life have similar "mental health issues"? Or is she giving in to a high level of self-interest that cannot consider the valid and real needs of others, that is, did the 'devil make her do it', or does she have serious mental health issues?
I know that there probably is no firm answer for me to these questions. I am likely to attribute personal choice to a number of the small sins that people commit. However, when the offenses are serious, I am less able to make them responsible, since doing so may be admitting the presence of evil in their lives, and consequently thinking they are bad. THAT makes me uncomfortable. I am not a judgmental person and I have had a number of people tell me that I am the least judgmental of anyone they know. It very often happens that when someone has 'wronged' or cheated you in the way she has, they then have to justify themselves by pointing the finger at you and criticizing you, even talking about you behind your back. Then they can feel like you deserve their treatment of you. I accept that. I can at that point avoid contact with them since they have become incapable of being one of my friends, but can only pretend to like me while being compelled to criticize, discredit, and lie about me. If they are a person who lies anyway this is easy for them. That I can deal with. But the larger issue of how to account for it remains. Is it evil and the personal choice to embrace it, or a mental health issue that drives their behaviour and which they cannot be responsible for? If it is 'mental health' then it will probably not change much, and if it is an evil choice, then until the choices radically change, it will probably not change much. I was discussing the problem with a close friend recently, and she said that it doesn't matter - my response to it has to be the same in either case. However, I have to think something. For me personally, it is easier for me to choose mental health issues since that is the least judgmental way. I just am not willing to judge.
Only God knows what personal responsibility either of these people, or anyone for that matter, bears. I am glad He actually knows and has the wisdom to make the judgment fairly. I am glad that I am not God.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
fundamental attribution error
I myself am guilty of committing the "fundamental attribution error" on a number of occasions and see others do it too. It is called 'fundamental' because so many people do it so regularly - in fact most of us. It is called an 'error 'because we are almost always wrong. It is a social psychology term and 'human attribution' research has confirmed its commonality. So what is it?
In short, "a fundamental attribution error," is an error in judging the reasons for another person's actions, attributing (hence the word attribution) internal processes: their personality, thinking, motivation, character. etc. Here is an example used by the authors of the book Influencer. They describe a study in the field of 'human attribution' that went this way. Suppose you are in a grocery store check-out line and you notice a man with a toddler in his cart coming towards you. From the way his cart is pointed you begin to think he plans to butt into the line. He leans over to talk to his toddler as he comes and looks over at the magazines seeming to study the headlines. He makes eye contact with no one in the line. You watch him closely; sure enough he goes directly to the front of the line and begins to put his items onto the conveyer, ignoring everyone else. Why do you think he did this? In the study, various people were asked to say what they thought. Very rarely did anyone in the study attribute positive reasons, of give him a break. Almost overwhelmingly they said things like: "He thinks he is too important to take his turn. He thinks he is more important than anyone else. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Etc." When people who actually did butt into line were confronted about it, generally they seemed surprised and gave as a reason that they actually didn't notice the line. Lack of mindfulness was by far the most common reason.
Think of a time when someone cut you off in traffic. What was your first response to him? How did you describe him in your head? I know - "Jerk." We instantly attribute personal negative motives, thinking the person did it on purpose. Now think of a time when YOU cut someone else off in traffic. Maybe you noticed what you had done when they honked or gave you the finger, and if you saw their face, you knew approximately what they were thinking - and it wasn't good. Now what did you say to yourself about it? "Oops, shouldn't have done that, should focus more on my driving, shouldn't be driving when I feel unwell, really I didn't notice him until it was too late because of that guy changing lanes ahead of me. It's just that I am so pre-occupied with what happened at home/work/school/etc." We all tend to excuse ourselves for mistakes because we know we didn't INTEND to cause anyone trouble but it was just the circumstamces we were in. In a course I teach we use a saying: "We judge other by their actions, we judge ourselves by our intentions."
Unfortunately the fundamental attribution error can cause a lot of pain to others. For example, once almost 20 years ago, I was asked to substitute for someone playing the organ in Sacrament meeting. I want to say right now off the top, that I am not that good and I get extremely nervous. But the regular organist had experienced trouble finding someone to do it for her, so I agreed. I made the one hour drive to the church twice that week to practice, even though I had children at home. One of the hymns chosen was fast and tricky. I practiced that one the most but still didn't feel really confident. On Sunday, the chorister - I don't remember her name but I can still see her face - tried to lead the hymn much faster than I was able to play it. She turned around during the hymn and glared at me when I didn't keep up and continued to lead faster than I was playing. After it was over, she glared at me walking back to her seat and after the meeting she glared at me again, jumped up and stomped off. No doubt in my mind what SHE thought. Ask me if I have ever let myself be in that position again? When I moved to my current Ward, because a member of the bishopric helped to move my piano into the house, he subsequently asked me how I would feel about a calling playing the piano/organ. I told him in no uncertain terms that I DID NOT play.
Often when we commit an attributiion error, we become indignant about how we were treated and incensed that anyone would deliberately treat us like that. We tend to tell others about it and the words we use influence others to think negatively of the person as well. "This jerk cut me off in traffic today; there could have been an accident." It is one thing when we don't really know the person, but what about - "That so-and-so thought her speed playing the organ was better than mine and deliberately ignored me. She is just so arrogant. I hope no one asks her again!" Or "So and so thinks they are so important, but they really are just arrogant and selfish." So we share our judgments with others and commit the sin of gossiping without thinking whether there could be other less personal reasons.
Why do people do this if they are mostly wrong? Sometimes, very occasionally, we are dealing with a selfish person and we are right; this encourages us as humans to see things this way despite the fact that most people have positive intentions and a truly selfish person is rare. The fundamental attribution error also offers a simple explanation and our brains like simplicity. We are then not required to find out more about the person's context. Some cultures tend to the fundamental attribution error more than others. Studies have shown that people in oriental cultures are more likely to give contextual factors than person internal factors. They tend to attribute factors happening outside the person , or to simply say they don't know enough to make a judgment.
Once we have committed the error, it is hard to talk us out of it. In one study in the US, college students were assigned to write an essay about Fidel Castro. Half were asked to write a favourable essay about him and half were asked to write an unfavourable one. Test subjects were asked to read the essays and comment on the writers. In nearly all cases, the writers of the favorable essays were judged to be 'Castro lovers', sympathetic to him. When the test subjects were told that the writers had no choice and were assigned to write a favourable essay, it made NO differencethe test subjects' judgment of the writers. My own personal experience in dealing with people in conflict, even family members who are supposed to love each other, is that explaining to one person the context the other person is in that may have contributed to their behaviour makes no difference in their judgment. They still insist that the other person was being judgmental, selfish, rude, or whatever; even if they don't say it, behaviour over time demonstrates that they still think it..
The moral of this story? I guess we all need to be less quick to judge another person by assigning personality and character defects like selfishness, self-importance, etc, which are rarely the reason. We should try harder to give them a break because like us, they are working from the best of intentions and sometimes get overwhelmed or make mistakes. We likewise need to take greater responsibility for our own internal processes that may have contributed to the situation. Even though this course of action is consistent with the dictum: "judge not that ye be not judged," it is not as easy as it sounds. However it is possible. So good luck with that!
In short, "a fundamental attribution error," is an error in judging the reasons for another person's actions, attributing (hence the word attribution) internal processes: their personality, thinking, motivation, character. etc. Here is an example used by the authors of the book Influencer. They describe a study in the field of 'human attribution' that went this way. Suppose you are in a grocery store check-out line and you notice a man with a toddler in his cart coming towards you. From the way his cart is pointed you begin to think he plans to butt into the line. He leans over to talk to his toddler as he comes and looks over at the magazines seeming to study the headlines. He makes eye contact with no one in the line. You watch him closely; sure enough he goes directly to the front of the line and begins to put his items onto the conveyer, ignoring everyone else. Why do you think he did this? In the study, various people were asked to say what they thought. Very rarely did anyone in the study attribute positive reasons, of give him a break. Almost overwhelmingly they said things like: "He thinks he is too important to take his turn. He thinks he is more important than anyone else. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Etc." When people who actually did butt into line were confronted about it, generally they seemed surprised and gave as a reason that they actually didn't notice the line. Lack of mindfulness was by far the most common reason.
Think of a time when someone cut you off in traffic. What was your first response to him? How did you describe him in your head? I know - "Jerk." We instantly attribute personal negative motives, thinking the person did it on purpose. Now think of a time when YOU cut someone else off in traffic. Maybe you noticed what you had done when they honked or gave you the finger, and if you saw their face, you knew approximately what they were thinking - and it wasn't good. Now what did you say to yourself about it? "Oops, shouldn't have done that, should focus more on my driving, shouldn't be driving when I feel unwell, really I didn't notice him until it was too late because of that guy changing lanes ahead of me. It's just that I am so pre-occupied with what happened at home/work/school/etc." We all tend to excuse ourselves for mistakes because we know we didn't INTEND to cause anyone trouble but it was just the circumstamces we were in. In a course I teach we use a saying: "We judge other by their actions, we judge ourselves by our intentions."
Unfortunately the fundamental attribution error can cause a lot of pain to others. For example, once almost 20 years ago, I was asked to substitute for someone playing the organ in Sacrament meeting. I want to say right now off the top, that I am not that good and I get extremely nervous. But the regular organist had experienced trouble finding someone to do it for her, so I agreed. I made the one hour drive to the church twice that week to practice, even though I had children at home. One of the hymns chosen was fast and tricky. I practiced that one the most but still didn't feel really confident. On Sunday, the chorister - I don't remember her name but I can still see her face - tried to lead the hymn much faster than I was able to play it. She turned around during the hymn and glared at me when I didn't keep up and continued to lead faster than I was playing. After it was over, she glared at me walking back to her seat and after the meeting she glared at me again, jumped up and stomped off. No doubt in my mind what SHE thought. Ask me if I have ever let myself be in that position again? When I moved to my current Ward, because a member of the bishopric helped to move my piano into the house, he subsequently asked me how I would feel about a calling playing the piano/organ. I told him in no uncertain terms that I DID NOT play.
Often when we commit an attributiion error, we become indignant about how we were treated and incensed that anyone would deliberately treat us like that. We tend to tell others about it and the words we use influence others to think negatively of the person as well. "This jerk cut me off in traffic today; there could have been an accident." It is one thing when we don't really know the person, but what about - "That so-and-so thought her speed playing the organ was better than mine and deliberately ignored me. She is just so arrogant. I hope no one asks her again!" Or "So and so thinks they are so important, but they really are just arrogant and selfish." So we share our judgments with others and commit the sin of gossiping without thinking whether there could be other less personal reasons.
Why do people do this if they are mostly wrong? Sometimes, very occasionally, we are dealing with a selfish person and we are right; this encourages us as humans to see things this way despite the fact that most people have positive intentions and a truly selfish person is rare. The fundamental attribution error also offers a simple explanation and our brains like simplicity. We are then not required to find out more about the person's context. Some cultures tend to the fundamental attribution error more than others. Studies have shown that people in oriental cultures are more likely to give contextual factors than person internal factors. They tend to attribute factors happening outside the person , or to simply say they don't know enough to make a judgment.
Once we have committed the error, it is hard to talk us out of it. In one study in the US, college students were assigned to write an essay about Fidel Castro. Half were asked to write a favourable essay about him and half were asked to write an unfavourable one. Test subjects were asked to read the essays and comment on the writers. In nearly all cases, the writers of the favorable essays were judged to be 'Castro lovers', sympathetic to him. When the test subjects were told that the writers had no choice and were assigned to write a favourable essay, it made NO differencethe test subjects' judgment of the writers. My own personal experience in dealing with people in conflict, even family members who are supposed to love each other, is that explaining to one person the context the other person is in that may have contributed to their behaviour makes no difference in their judgment. They still insist that the other person was being judgmental, selfish, rude, or whatever; even if they don't say it, behaviour over time demonstrates that they still think it..
The moral of this story? I guess we all need to be less quick to judge another person by assigning personality and character defects like selfishness, self-importance, etc, which are rarely the reason. We should try harder to give them a break because like us, they are working from the best of intentions and sometimes get overwhelmed or make mistakes. We likewise need to take greater responsibility for our own internal processes that may have contributed to the situation. Even though this course of action is consistent with the dictum: "judge not that ye be not judged," it is not as easy as it sounds. However it is possible. So good luck with that!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
What is it about home?
Yesterday at about 9:00 p.m. I arrived home after 18 days of travel. We left for South Carolina on January 4th and arrived back in Calgary January 16th. Then I had to go straight to Edmonton for a course, had one day in between and then spent all day yesterday in an Examination for Discovery about the accident a friend had in 2003. I arrived home tired and a little bit sick. Just a bad cold from not sleeping well for at least a week. So you can imagine how good my own bed with the nice warm, thick mattress pad felt to me. Not to mention how the other nice warm comforting body with his arm around me felt while I slept.
What is it that makes me wake up at 4:30 am or even earlier when I am not in my own bed? Is it that I'm not used to sleeping alone and I need that 'heavy breathing' in my ear? Is it that the bed doesn't feel right? Or that I don't have my own pillow? True it is that I normally carry my own pillow with me when I travel but didn't have it this time. I did sleep significantly better in South Carolina even though the bed was narrow and a lot harder than I am used to. But I had a feather pillow, and, of course, the 'heavy breathing.'
If it is the actual bed and other creature comforts I need, I guess that means I am either very spoiled, or else not very adaptable. When children are fussy about the food and don't want to eat, we tell them they must not be very hungry. The same thinking would lead to saying I must not be very tired. Would that were true and I wouldn't have this chest cold right now. I rarely get a cold, less than one time a year. I am certainly tired enough to fall asleep rapidly when I get into bed. I just wake at an uncomfortablly early hour guaranteeing that I will be in truly awful shape before the day is done.
If this sleeplessness is the result of being forced on occasion to sleep alone, that leaves me with a few uncomfortable realities:
1. My bed partner better outlive me since if he doesn't, I would die soon after him anyway, the victim of insomnolence.
2. I better convince him somehow that he has to follow me around. Since I am obviously more effective when not tired, this could be classed as a professional necessity. So far I have had poor success at this, since he does himself have a life and sometimes needs to work -- and works better at home.
3. I should just give it up and follow him around. However, even if this meant better sleep, I too have a life and really enjoy my work. So sometimes I have to be away from home. Not a good choice to give it up.
4. Resort to medication -- well, no, I don't think so.
5. Just get used to being tired sometimes. This week in spite of insomnolence, I did rather well except for the increasing severity of the cold. I guess I will just have to organize things so that I have adequate recovery time after and try to log in extra sleep hours ahead of time.
Unfortunately, I think the last choice is the only one that has any practical value on a consistent basis.
Just in case you think this is a bit trivial, the side effects of chronic sleep deprivation are not nice: suppressed immune response, increased rate of aging (like wrinkling - yuck), weight gain, reduced cognitive function (i.e. you get stupid), that old favorite irritability and in my case, fibromyalgia or aching muscles and increased blood pressure. In addition, sleep deprivation is assiciated with increased risk of type II diabetes and psychoses like bipolar disorder. Linked to aging, animal studies suggest that sleep deprivation increases stress hormones, which may reduce new cell production in adult brains. Since most growth in children occurs during sleep, sleeplessness can result in suppression of growth hormones and therefore of growth in children and aging in adults. These effects are pretty much backed up by research. And it is true that total sleep deprivation results in death for lab animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Counteracting_the_effects_of_sleep_deprivation
On the more cheerful side, although sleep deprivation is a common interrogation/torture technique, and it does feel like torture to me, just one night of good sleep can counteractsthe negative effects.
So sleep tight.
What is it that makes me wake up at 4:30 am or even earlier when I am not in my own bed? Is it that I'm not used to sleeping alone and I need that 'heavy breathing' in my ear? Is it that the bed doesn't feel right? Or that I don't have my own pillow? True it is that I normally carry my own pillow with me when I travel but didn't have it this time. I did sleep significantly better in South Carolina even though the bed was narrow and a lot harder than I am used to. But I had a feather pillow, and, of course, the 'heavy breathing.'
If it is the actual bed and other creature comforts I need, I guess that means I am either very spoiled, or else not very adaptable. When children are fussy about the food and don't want to eat, we tell them they must not be very hungry. The same thinking would lead to saying I must not be very tired. Would that were true and I wouldn't have this chest cold right now. I rarely get a cold, less than one time a year. I am certainly tired enough to fall asleep rapidly when I get into bed. I just wake at an uncomfortablly early hour guaranteeing that I will be in truly awful shape before the day is done.
If this sleeplessness is the result of being forced on occasion to sleep alone, that leaves me with a few uncomfortable realities:
1. My bed partner better outlive me since if he doesn't, I would die soon after him anyway, the victim of insomnolence.
2. I better convince him somehow that he has to follow me around. Since I am obviously more effective when not tired, this could be classed as a professional necessity. So far I have had poor success at this, since he does himself have a life and sometimes needs to work -- and works better at home.
3. I should just give it up and follow him around. However, even if this meant better sleep, I too have a life and really enjoy my work. So sometimes I have to be away from home. Not a good choice to give it up.
4. Resort to medication -- well, no, I don't think so.
5. Just get used to being tired sometimes. This week in spite of insomnolence, I did rather well except for the increasing severity of the cold. I guess I will just have to organize things so that I have adequate recovery time after and try to log in extra sleep hours ahead of time.
Unfortunately, I think the last choice is the only one that has any practical value on a consistent basis.
Just in case you think this is a bit trivial, the side effects of chronic sleep deprivation are not nice: suppressed immune response, increased rate of aging (like wrinkling - yuck), weight gain, reduced cognitive function (i.e. you get stupid), that old favorite irritability and in my case, fibromyalgia or aching muscles and increased blood pressure. In addition, sleep deprivation is assiciated with increased risk of type II diabetes and psychoses like bipolar disorder. Linked to aging, animal studies suggest that sleep deprivation increases stress hormones, which may reduce new cell production in adult brains. Since most growth in children occurs during sleep, sleeplessness can result in suppression of growth hormones and therefore of growth in children and aging in adults. These effects are pretty much backed up by research. And it is true that total sleep deprivation results in death for lab animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Counteracting_the_effects_of_sleep_deprivation
On the more cheerful side, although sleep deprivation is a common interrogation/torture technique, and it does feel like torture to me, just one night of good sleep can counteractsthe negative effects.
So sleep tight.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Masters Degree finished!
I did it! I submitted the last output this week. The official title is Masters Professional Certification in Adult Learning. It only took me a year to do the work and study and the outputs amounted to more than 30,000 words of writing. In the beginning the guidelines were that it could be finished in 6 to 9 months and the writing had to be at least 20,000 words. I don't feel too badly about 12 months, or fourteen if you count from the time I registered. It has been fun and I learned lots. It was not only about having that MA thingey after my name, although I won't mind that. It is really about staying young, always learning new things, and about progress and becoming more competent..
Once many years ago I started a Masters Degree in Guidance and Counselling but had a baby instead in the middle of it. It would not have been as useful to me now as this one anyway, and I am much happier to have that particular daughter. Since nothing is ever wasted however, it was good background for some of the things I studied in the last year. Who knew that Carl Rogers, who had quite a controversial counselling theory, also did a lot or writing about experiential and transformative education? I am now quite a fan of his.
My last output was about my plans for future learning. I guess it should never stop. Realistically we are all learning in some way until we die. The converse of that must be that not learning is like being "not all dead, just mostly dead." Here's to life.
Once many years ago I started a Masters Degree in Guidance and Counselling but had a baby instead in the middle of it. It would not have been as useful to me now as this one anyway, and I am much happier to have that particular daughter. Since nothing is ever wasted however, it was good background for some of the things I studied in the last year. Who knew that Carl Rogers, who had quite a controversial counselling theory, also did a lot or writing about experiential and transformative education? I am now quite a fan of his.
My last output was about my plans for future learning. I guess it should never stop. Realistically we are all learning in some way until we die. The converse of that must be that not learning is like being "not all dead, just mostly dead." Here's to life.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Activity, faith and what they mean
As an LDS person, I have really never made a secret of the fact that the church is very important to me. I don't always talk about it, or I talk about it only in certain circumstances, but if you are around me very long, you will have no doubt about my priorities. When I was a child, maybe 7 or 8 years old, I remember walking to Church by myself. I can't say what the rest of my family were doing at the time, why they didn't take me or weren't going themselves; that's not important. What is important is that I was going because I wanted to and wasn't waiting for someone else to make it easy.
It was important to me because even at that young age, I knew that it was right. I remember sitting in a Sunday School meeting when I was about five years old on a bench with no back with a lot of other kids. Sister Ursenbach, I think her name was Jessie but I am not sure, was speaking. She was the wife of the temple president at that time and she was talking about the importance of the temple and how we should all prepare to go there by living the gospel. The interesting thing about her was that she seemed to have no chin, or maybe a huge double chin, and it jiggled a lot as she talked. I was fascinated watching her. In spite of this distraction, I had a strong feeling, all encompassing, that what she was saying was true. I knew it was. I knew it, not only at that moment, but forever after, and not only about the temple, but about all that it represents.
On different occasions members of my family have talked to me about being actively involved in the Church and about faith. I mentioned that one of my relatives who is not "active," meaning he does not attend meetings, said to his mother about his reasons, "What has the Church ever done for me?" This is a question I would never have thought to ask, not ever in my life. I wouldn't have thought of it. It just seems irrelevant. It makes out that the point of the Church is that it does something for you. If the Church is truely of God, and I know it is, then the real issue is about God, about faith, and about He wants us to do for Him. In the particular conversation where I mentioned this, the other person, Andy, mentioned a "less active" person in his ward who said, complained really, that he has never had a home teacher who made efforts to seek him out and encourage him to activity. Sometimes he didn't even get a visit from his home teacher. Andy thought an appropriate question to ask him might have been, "Well, have you done your home teaching?"
Later Dawn, who is a Primary President told me that one of her teachers laughed on the way out of Primary and said, "You've got to be kidding if you think that our family will be able to do regular scripture reading." I guess she was too busy, or it was too hard to even try. The very idea was a joke. Dawn was a bit appalled at the message she was sending her children about the gospel, about living the gospel, and about its importance. This all calls to mind President Kimball's motto "Do it." That sounds simple, but obviously it is not. Being "active" is about doing things: going to meetings, paying tithing, reading scriptures, giving service, trying to be Christ-Like, trying and trying to do ALL the things actively that we know we should.
It seems that lots of people have gotten things so turned around that they have completely lost this concept and think it is about other people doing things for them. What can a Church do for you? The LDS church is simply an organization composed of people, and are you not then saying that other people should be doing things for you? If that is what you think, then it follow that YOU should be doing things for other people. This may mean paying tithing which helps fund building and programs for people, supporting your bishop, teaching a Primary class, helping in the nursery. These things are ALL about helping others in some way. There is no Church, or if there is I am not sure what it is - the building, those who preside who are really just volunteers. Tthere is only an organization of imperfect people trying to help each other in an organized way. If anyone thinks that this collection of imperfect volunteers is not doing enough helping, then maybe the solution is to roll up one's sleeves and make a contribution.
I once gave a talk about dealing with adversity. I felt like I was dealing with adversity at the time and didn't really want to give a talk about it. But one thing I remember having to say that was one solution was, "Keep on keeping on." In other words, "Be actively involved." If things are hard, be more active not less active. Be actively engaged in a good cause - helping others.
Since then it has been confirmed to me many times over, that faith is not just a principle of power, it is a principle of action. And action leads to more faith. Sometimes we look for signs: "Show me a lightning bolt, have an angel appear to me, give me a profound 'spiritual experience' and then I will believe." I think, at least for me, that those startling experiences come rarely and only after sacrifice and intense 'activity.' What does come - after days, months, even years of daily committment, daily sacrifice and service to others, daily prayer and all the other signs of 'activity - is the assurance in your heart of God's love. I felt it at age five, and I feel it now. Maybe people who say that God is within you have gotten it right. The trick is knowing how to make it happen and to keep on keeping on.
It was important to me because even at that young age, I knew that it was right. I remember sitting in a Sunday School meeting when I was about five years old on a bench with no back with a lot of other kids. Sister Ursenbach, I think her name was Jessie but I am not sure, was speaking. She was the wife of the temple president at that time and she was talking about the importance of the temple and how we should all prepare to go there by living the gospel. The interesting thing about her was that she seemed to have no chin, or maybe a huge double chin, and it jiggled a lot as she talked. I was fascinated watching her. In spite of this distraction, I had a strong feeling, all encompassing, that what she was saying was true. I knew it was. I knew it, not only at that moment, but forever after, and not only about the temple, but about all that it represents.
On different occasions members of my family have talked to me about being actively involved in the Church and about faith. I mentioned that one of my relatives who is not "active," meaning he does not attend meetings, said to his mother about his reasons, "What has the Church ever done for me?" This is a question I would never have thought to ask, not ever in my life. I wouldn't have thought of it. It just seems irrelevant. It makes out that the point of the Church is that it does something for you. If the Church is truely of God, and I know it is, then the real issue is about God, about faith, and about He wants us to do for Him. In the particular conversation where I mentioned this, the other person, Andy, mentioned a "less active" person in his ward who said, complained really, that he has never had a home teacher who made efforts to seek him out and encourage him to activity. Sometimes he didn't even get a visit from his home teacher. Andy thought an appropriate question to ask him might have been, "Well, have you done your home teaching?"
Later Dawn, who is a Primary President told me that one of her teachers laughed on the way out of Primary and said, "You've got to be kidding if you think that our family will be able to do regular scripture reading." I guess she was too busy, or it was too hard to even try. The very idea was a joke. Dawn was a bit appalled at the message she was sending her children about the gospel, about living the gospel, and about its importance. This all calls to mind President Kimball's motto "Do it." That sounds simple, but obviously it is not. Being "active" is about doing things: going to meetings, paying tithing, reading scriptures, giving service, trying to be Christ-Like, trying and trying to do ALL the things actively that we know we should.
It seems that lots of people have gotten things so turned around that they have completely lost this concept and think it is about other people doing things for them. What can a Church do for you? The LDS church is simply an organization composed of people, and are you not then saying that other people should be doing things for you? If that is what you think, then it follow that YOU should be doing things for other people. This may mean paying tithing which helps fund building and programs for people, supporting your bishop, teaching a Primary class, helping in the nursery. These things are ALL about helping others in some way. There is no Church, or if there is I am not sure what it is - the building, those who preside who are really just volunteers. Tthere is only an organization of imperfect people trying to help each other in an organized way. If anyone thinks that this collection of imperfect volunteers is not doing enough helping, then maybe the solution is to roll up one's sleeves and make a contribution.
I once gave a talk about dealing with adversity. I felt like I was dealing with adversity at the time and didn't really want to give a talk about it. But one thing I remember having to say that was one solution was, "Keep on keeping on." In other words, "Be actively involved." If things are hard, be more active not less active. Be actively engaged in a good cause - helping others.
Since then it has been confirmed to me many times over, that faith is not just a principle of power, it is a principle of action. And action leads to more faith. Sometimes we look for signs: "Show me a lightning bolt, have an angel appear to me, give me a profound 'spiritual experience' and then I will believe." I think, at least for me, that those startling experiences come rarely and only after sacrifice and intense 'activity.' What does come - after days, months, even years of daily committment, daily sacrifice and service to others, daily prayer and all the other signs of 'activity - is the assurance in your heart of God's love. I felt it at age five, and I feel it now. Maybe people who say that God is within you have gotten it right. The trick is knowing how to make it happen and to keep on keeping on.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
New Year's Resolutions? Not really
Today is January 2nd, the day to confirm the New Year's Resolutions formulated yesterday. Well, not for me. I have been on such a steep learning curve that I have no desire for resolutions. I am, however, looking over my past year. What a year it was too. I didn't make a lot of money, didn't get published, except for this blog. Didn't become famouns. So what did I do?
1. Finished four parts of my Master'sThesis. That doesn't describe all the work and study I did to learn the stuff to write it. As part of that I also became certified in Equine Assisted Learning and participated in delivering a program or two - quite a steep learning curve. Really read up on Adult Learning Theory and feel llike I really am smarter because of it. I wouldn't have had time to makelots of money evcn if I had had the opportunity, not and get all this done. If there is a resolution it might be to help with the marketing of the EAL programs.
2. Became trained in delivering an additional workshop for the GOA - Resolving Conflict. I know a lot more about resolving conflict, that's for sure. I have read two good books, "Crucial Conversations" and "The Bully at Work." I have learned a lot about the things people do when they are in a conflict to make themselves look better or to win. It is not a pretty side of human nature and really does require skills to deal with it.
3. In August I started a shift at the Alberta Temple. It is marvelous to be there every Tuesday for the afternoon/evening shift. However, if my business gets much busier I may not be able to do it and 2011 is not looking good. (Or it is, however you want to look at it.) How many times will I have to get a sub before I have to admit I don't have time right now? The general idea is that when you get a sub, you are agreeing to sub for them later, which for me could also be a challenge. This job really is for retired people and I am far from retired. If I do careful scheduling I might be able to leave Tuesdays free but even then the real challenge is to fit all the other work I do into one less day a week! So I will just have to see how it goes. The real truth is that they need men more then they need me. I know for certain that single women who want to work at the temple go onto a waiting list. Jim could keep going. However, it would be a real shame to waste the learning I have done to be an ordinance worker . That was a VERY steep learning curve.
I noticed during the year that my right eyelid droops quite a lot. If I am very tired both eyes droop, but I have thought on several occasions that it was odd for only the one to be droopy. I was talking about this with Esther and she said her left eye gets droopy, and she thinks hers is because she worries. The right brain (the side that worries) controls the left eye, ergo her droopy left eye! If my right eye droops that must be because the left brain, the part that is responsible for logic, ideas, reading, and therefore academic learning is tired. Now when that eye gets droopy I take a rest.
So what do I expect for 2011. Back to GOA, perhaps more courses, since I can now deliver three instead of two. More work editing and course design. There are already a couple of projects in the works. And Jim has contracts lining up and when he is busier, so am I. Roxy is getting busy marketing EAL and wants to do Every Wednesday with school students and one more day a week with corporate clients. We could do it. So busy busy busy. Certainly no time for New Year's Resolutions. I guess my one resolutions is to keep on top of what I already know, do, or have planned. Sounds very satisfying.
1. Finished four parts of my Master'sThesis. That doesn't describe all the work and study I did to learn the stuff to write it. As part of that I also became certified in Equine Assisted Learning and participated in delivering a program or two - quite a steep learning curve. Really read up on Adult Learning Theory and feel llike I really am smarter because of it. I wouldn't have had time to makelots of money evcn if I had had the opportunity, not and get all this done. If there is a resolution it might be to help with the marketing of the EAL programs.
2. Became trained in delivering an additional workshop for the GOA - Resolving Conflict. I know a lot more about resolving conflict, that's for sure. I have read two good books, "Crucial Conversations" and "The Bully at Work." I have learned a lot about the things people do when they are in a conflict to make themselves look better or to win. It is not a pretty side of human nature and really does require skills to deal with it.
3. In August I started a shift at the Alberta Temple. It is marvelous to be there every Tuesday for the afternoon/evening shift. However, if my business gets much busier I may not be able to do it and 2011 is not looking good. (Or it is, however you want to look at it.) How many times will I have to get a sub before I have to admit I don't have time right now? The general idea is that when you get a sub, you are agreeing to sub for them later, which for me could also be a challenge. This job really is for retired people and I am far from retired. If I do careful scheduling I might be able to leave Tuesdays free but even then the real challenge is to fit all the other work I do into one less day a week! So I will just have to see how it goes. The real truth is that they need men more then they need me. I know for certain that single women who want to work at the temple go onto a waiting list. Jim could keep going. However, it would be a real shame to waste the learning I have done to be an ordinance worker . That was a VERY steep learning curve.
I noticed during the year that my right eyelid droops quite a lot. If I am very tired both eyes droop, but I have thought on several occasions that it was odd for only the one to be droopy. I was talking about this with Esther and she said her left eye gets droopy, and she thinks hers is because she worries. The right brain (the side that worries) controls the left eye, ergo her droopy left eye! If my right eye droops that must be because the left brain, the part that is responsible for logic, ideas, reading, and therefore academic learning is tired. Now when that eye gets droopy I take a rest.
So what do I expect for 2011. Back to GOA, perhaps more courses, since I can now deliver three instead of two. More work editing and course design. There are already a couple of projects in the works. And Jim has contracts lining up and when he is busier, so am I. Roxy is getting busy marketing EAL and wants to do Every Wednesday with school students and one more day a week with corporate clients. We could do it. So busy busy busy. Certainly no time for New Year's Resolutions. I guess my one resolutions is to keep on top of what I already know, do, or have planned. Sounds very satisfying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)