Before the year was up I decided to read a book that I've been hearing about for several years, namely "Dianetics". In my last two posts I mentioned some of the controversial statements made in the book (released 60 years ago), and compared them with modern popular science. In particular, I found that:
1. science does show that human beings can find themselves compelled to behave in ways that they would actually prefer not to (despite financial, physical, and other detrimental consequences) even after making serious attempts to stop.
2. science does show that human beings can start to store and recall perceptions prenatally (before birth), and furthermore that human beings can store what they have perceived accurately, for the rest of their adult lives (although most are not expected to recall this data in day-to-day life).
In this post I will mention a third very interesting, controversial claim and take a look at how valid science has determined it to be, 60 years later.
3. That the "reactive mind" (as a flawed self-defense mechanism) can intercept the functions of one's rational "analytical mind", causing people to make up and believe amazingly sensible - yet completely false - explanations for irrational behavior. This is another major concept of Dianetics, which is paired with the idea that the "reactive mind" can compel the body to manifest very real physical problems, without external causes present (these are known as psychosomatic conditions).
- Have you ever tried to explain something you didn't understand, and come up with a very reasonable - but ultimately wrong explanation? I once thought someone stole money from me and told them (angrily) that they must have took it when I went to the bathroom. You can imagine my surprise when I found the money in one of my own pockets - LOL! Anyway, I've experienced how well the human mind can convince one of something that isn't necessarily true. Let's see what science has to say:
Professor Robert Sapolsky, who's work is the subject of a National Geographic documentary, has shown that stress is useful to animals in the wild. In the wild, stress helps shut down various parts of the body, and focus only on those that can help the animal get the heck away from whatever predator is trying to bite their head off (in layman's terms). After a few minutes the animal is dead or has escaped, and the stress response ceases. Sapolsky shows that humans use the same stress response based on elements of their every day environment, and unfortunately we (including the professor) don't seem to turn them off after a few minutes, which results in chronic health issues.
According to Dr. Ian Wickramasekera, writing in the Handbook of Mind-Body Medicine for Primary Care, "Somatization is the name medicine gives to the process by which an individual, 'hiding' from threatening psychological information, expresses... his or her emotional distress into physical symptoms of maladaptive behavior." He goes on to list several of the physical symptoms that result. In terms of how common this is, the Dr. states, "Somatization may sound exotic, a phenomenon to be found in only a small number of patients. Nothing could be further from the truth. Estimates have determined that somatizing patients probably represent as many as half of the people seen by primary care doctors."
Ian says something else pertinent to Dianetics in an online article, "Many people who have stress-related pain aren't even aware of what they're fearful or angry about." He also says that right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, "In 30 years of specializing in stress-related diseases, I've never seen more flare-ups of physical pain, even in people who'd been free of symptoms for years."
In 2007, researchers published a study regarding, "...a key mechanism by which the stress hormone noradrenaline - which floods the bloodstream during grizzly encounters and other stressful events - affects the brain's pain-processing pathway to produce such analgesia."
Scientists have known for years that nerve endings send messages to the brain upon being damaged (for instance by a hot or sharp object), and in return the brain sends pain to that area, as if to compel us to move away from the dangerous object. Notably though, it is not the object that puts pain into the human body, but the human body that generates pain to protect itself from that object. Now modern science has verified that the human body can manifest pain and other chemical, biological phenomena in order to protect itself from a source of pain - minutes, hours, and yes, years after the original source of pain is gone.
As for the mind's ability to come up with reasonable - yet wrong - explanations for irrational behavior, this is known in the field of psychology as "rationalisation". It is known to psychologists as the defense mechanism of providing socially acceptable reasons for inappropriate behavior. Although you can find plenty of examples in every day life, most of the scientific research on rationalisation comes from tests done on hypnotic subjects. In fact, hypnotism has often been feared, specifically because of it's ability to have a subject rationalize (after committing) otherwise unacceptable behavior. Over 100 years ago, George Du Maurier wrote a novel (fiction) alerting the public to this danger, entitled "Trilby".
Today there are hypnotists working as entertainers, as well as in the field of self-help. When I was in college, our student activities council hired a hypnotist to entertain the students. I remember him having a student remove their jacket and replace it repeatedly, when the hypnotist touched his tie, and then come up with all kinds of sensible reasons for why he was doing it.
As for the science, Carla Emery collected a huge amount of the research for her book, "Secret, Don't Tell: the Encyclopedia of Hypnotism". In this book, she quotes a Yale hypnosis researcher by the name of Clark Hull, describing one experiment:
"I give him a posthypnotic suggestion that after waking he shall pick up and examine a book on my desk when I sit down in a chair, but that he won’t recall anything about why he did it. I wake him as usual with a snap of my finger...A few minutes later I sit down in the chair. He casually walks over to my desk, picks up the book, and after glancing at its title lays it down. I say, ‘Why did you look at the book?’ He answers that he just happened to notice it lying there and wondered what it was about."
So after 60 years, modern science indicates that Dianetics was not merely a theory or a work of science fiction. As I mentioned, there is a lot more to the book, but I wanted to research a few of the highlights that most interested me, and share what I found with anyone interested:
In summary, human beings do exhibit the ability to do the following:
1. Shut down normal mental and physical functions of the body in response to pain. 2. Switch mental and physical functions in to a defense mode (sounds like what our government would do if declaring a state of emergency - LOL).
3. Continue recording words, sounds, and other information (even if unconscious or still in the womb).
4. Become unaware of these incidents, even while keeping them stored.
5. Access previous recordings that contain similar information or similar moments of pain (no matter how long ago they were recorded - even if it was prenatally).
6. Act out words or emotions contained in these previous recordings (just as a hypnotist would have a subject act on previous commands through posthypnotic suggestion).
7. Find ways to make sense of words contained in these painful moments even if they don't initially make sense, in order to act out the information within them.
8. Find ways to explain the irrational behavior, even if they don't realize they were responding to recordings made during earlier moments of pain.
Along with more details about the mind, Dianetics includes a process for locating these moments of pain with the aware, rational part of the mind, so that they are no longer hidden - and no longer compel any irrational behavior during actual or threatened moments of pain in the future.
The best part of the book to me, was the example of the "held down 7". A calculator can be in perfect condition, capable of quickly solving complex problems. Yet, if somehow the "7" button gets stuck, the calculator will continue throwing an additional 7 into the computations, resulting in the incorrect answers. More specifically, by including additional "7"s in the problems, the calculator arrives at CORRECT ANSWERS to DIFFERENT PROBLEMS than it's operator is asking it to solve. Apparently, the human mind may work in a similar way. Unfortunately, finding the buttons that are pressed in one's mind is not as easy as finding a stuck "7" key on a calculator, especially since the mind does such a good job of rationalising strange behavior.
My final thought on this book, is that it reminds me of a quote from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "There's nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Friday, December 25, 2009
What's the Deal with Dianetics? part 2
Continuing from my last post, let's get into another controversial highlight from Dianetics, and see how it stacks up against popular science 60 years later.
2. That the reactive mind can command people to behave irrationally based on recordings (which may include more than sights and sounds) that were stored in a person's mind several years ago is another major concept of Dianetics. Even more controversial was the idea that these reactive mind commands were often found to come from recordings taken around - and before - the time of birth.
- You might observe that even a modern reality TV show doesn't have time to play everything that is recorded in the lives of it's participants. Since it takes more time to describe what happens in your life, than it takes to live through it, we can't test whether someone's mind can retrieve every piece of information it ever perceived. However, let's take a look at what modern science has to say about how long we can store information:
Thomas R. Verny writes in "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The fetus can see, hear, experience, taste and, on a primitive level, even learn in utero..."
Research, experiments, and even courses proving the existence of prenatal memory have become available through professionals such as Rene Van de Carr, Dr. Anthony DeCasper and Professor Makoto Shichida.
Kim Peek (Rest in Peace), who was the inspiration for the movie "Rain Man" (starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise), was able to give the correct answers to questions asked at random, regarding anything he'd read about, as well as the dates of his own life experiences.
Brad Williams , Bob Petrella, and Jill Price (who was featured on NPR) are others who have recently been proven to have total recall of experiences dating back to the beginning of their lives.
Those interested kind find out more about the scientific research regarding the above cases. This second point seems to be valid under science after 60 years:
Modern science, through the research of doctors and professors, has proven that a human being can accurately store and recall facts (as well as events and the dates on which they occurred) for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, science has also shown that a human being can begin learning and responding to what is learned prenatally (before birth). As I previously mentioned, this post only touches on a small bit of what is contained in Dianetics, but it is significant to note that Dianetics doesn't refer to memories per se. Rather, it refers to the recordings of painful moments that make up the "reactive mind" (and force people to do irrational things in the presence of a perceived threat) as "engrams". An "engram" is not recorded or remembered in the way that a normal memory is.
According to Dianetics, the part of the mind that functions rationally, the "analytical mind", cannot access "engrams" as it can standard memory. When the "reactive mind" takes over, contacting an engram, it simultaneously shuts down the "analytical mind". Dianetics describes a method for accessing these "engrams" (which can be stored and hidden from one's awareness for as long as they are alive) and making them available to the "analytical mind" as standard mental image pictures, so they can no longer compel irrational behavior.
I'll save my third interesting highlight of Dianetics for the next post, where we'll see what else modern science has to say regarding these controversial statements made 60 years ago...
2. That the reactive mind can command people to behave irrationally based on recordings (which may include more than sights and sounds) that were stored in a person's mind several years ago is another major concept of Dianetics. Even more controversial was the idea that these reactive mind commands were often found to come from recordings taken around - and before - the time of birth.
- You might observe that even a modern reality TV show doesn't have time to play everything that is recorded in the lives of it's participants. Since it takes more time to describe what happens in your life, than it takes to live through it, we can't test whether someone's mind can retrieve every piece of information it ever perceived. However, let's take a look at what modern science has to say about how long we can store information:
Thomas R. Verny writes in "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The fetus can see, hear, experience, taste and, on a primitive level, even learn in utero..."
Research, experiments, and even courses proving the existence of prenatal memory have become available through professionals such as Rene Van de Carr, Dr. Anthony DeCasper and Professor Makoto Shichida.
Kim Peek (Rest in Peace), who was the inspiration for the movie "Rain Man" (starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise), was able to give the correct answers to questions asked at random, regarding anything he'd read about, as well as the dates of his own life experiences.
Brad Williams , Bob Petrella, and Jill Price (who was featured on NPR) are others who have recently been proven to have total recall of experiences dating back to the beginning of their lives.
Those interested kind find out more about the scientific research regarding the above cases. This second point seems to be valid under science after 60 years:
Modern science, through the research of doctors and professors, has proven that a human being can accurately store and recall facts (as well as events and the dates on which they occurred) for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, science has also shown that a human being can begin learning and responding to what is learned prenatally (before birth). As I previously mentioned, this post only touches on a small bit of what is contained in Dianetics, but it is significant to note that Dianetics doesn't refer to memories per se. Rather, it refers to the recordings of painful moments that make up the "reactive mind" (and force people to do irrational things in the presence of a perceived threat) as "engrams". An "engram" is not recorded or remembered in the way that a normal memory is.
According to Dianetics, the part of the mind that functions rationally, the "analytical mind", cannot access "engrams" as it can standard memory. When the "reactive mind" takes over, contacting an engram, it simultaneously shuts down the "analytical mind". Dianetics describes a method for accessing these "engrams" (which can be stored and hidden from one's awareness for as long as they are alive) and making them available to the "analytical mind" as standard mental image pictures, so they can no longer compel irrational behavior.
I'll save my third interesting highlight of Dianetics for the next post, where we'll see what else modern science has to say regarding these controversial statements made 60 years ago...
Thursday, December 24, 2009
What's the deal with Dianetics? part 1
In 1950, Dianetics was released becoming one of the most controversial and best selling books on the mind ever. Well I've finally got around to reading it for myself, and as a favor to anyone interested, I'm going to quickly share some of the highlights. In addition, we'll take a look at how some of the controversial information released 60 years ago in this book stands up to modern science.
Firstly, it should be noted that the author states in the last chapter, that Dianetics is not complete, and that he expects others to continue to study and improve upon his own findings. He also gives credit to dozens of authors and thousands of years of research by others, rather than claiming to be the first one to study the mind. However, he points out that some of the greatest discoveries of the past, which he used to develop Dianetics, came from people who also believed things that were found to be totally wrong. Therefore, the aim of the book is not so much on claiming to be the alpha and omega of information on the mind (as I'd previously been told). Instead the aim of the book is to determine and develop the most valuable information on the mind in regards to improving our society.
So what are some of the controversial statements found in Dianetics, and how do they stand up against modern popular science?
The main concern of the book is that individuals are not always acting in a reasonable fashion. More specifically, a part of the human mind that evolved to help us survive has outgrown it's usefulness. This part, the "reactive mind", takes over the rational part (termed the analytical mind), when it receives cues that the person's survival is being threatened. The problem is that the "reactive mind" is irrational, compelling the individual to do very strange things as a defense mechanism against whatever the perceived threat is.
The "reactive mind" grows from moments of pain and loss, which it irrationally associates with whatever was in the person's environment during those moments. As experiences differ, some people will have more of a reactive mind than others. As environments differ, some people will be compelled to have their "reactive mind" take over more than others. There is a lot more to the book, but this is my brief insight into the basic concept of Dianetics. Of course more interestingly, a method of overcoming the "reactive mind" is detailed in the book.
So how valid are the controversial claims of Dianetics? Let's take a look at a few.
1. That people sometimes do irrational things, that they did not plan to do, and that they actually regret doing, is one of the main concepts. Most notable in this concept, is the idea that some people will find themselves chronically (on an ongoing basis) behaving in a way that they really do not want to. Those people would very much like to change their behavior, but despite their desire, cannot do so.
- You may have heard people utter the expressions, "Why did I do that?", "Why do I keep doing that?", or "Sorry, I wasn't in my right mind.", but let's take a look at what modern science has to say:
The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes:
The initial decision to take drugs is mostly voluntary. However, when drug abuse takes over, a person's ability to exert self control can become seriously impaired. Brain imaging studies from drug-addicted individuals show physical changes in areas of the brain that are critical to judgment, decisionmaking, learning and memory, and behavior control.
and also notes:
As with any other disease, vulnerability to addiction differs from person to person.
the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, in the paper "What Works in Reducing
Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field" notes 4 patterns of adolescent violence:
Situational: wherein violence is brought about due to certain environmental conditions
Relationship: wherein violence is occurs mainly between close family members or those who engaged in ongoing relationships with one another
Predatory: wherein violence is perpetrated in as part of criminal activity or to gain something from someone else. According to the paper, "It seems to be predictable, develops slowly over time with onset in early adolescence..."
Psychopathological: wherein the violence is not due to criminal involvement or environment. As noted, "The violence tends to be more repetitive and extreme than other types... Research suggests that such behavior is related to
neural system and severe psychological trauma"
These statements are based on research and statistics, which can be found at the above links, but the first point seems to be valid under science after 60 years:
A significant number of people continue to do things that they, their families, and society in general have found detrimental (even fatal), despite their attempts to stop. Note that drug abuse and violence are only two examples of a plethora of undesired activities. I should also note that Dianetics provides explanations for why irrational behavior would happen more due to the presence of certain familiar substances in the body (drugs or otherwise), or in the presence of certain environmental factors, or in the presence of certain family members, as well as why some irrational behavior would not manifest for years (or ever) after a painful incident, but then quickly become chronic.
I'll mention 2 more controversial highlights in the next post...
Firstly, it should be noted that the author states in the last chapter, that Dianetics is not complete, and that he expects others to continue to study and improve upon his own findings. He also gives credit to dozens of authors and thousands of years of research by others, rather than claiming to be the first one to study the mind. However, he points out that some of the greatest discoveries of the past, which he used to develop Dianetics, came from people who also believed things that were found to be totally wrong. Therefore, the aim of the book is not so much on claiming to be the alpha and omega of information on the mind (as I'd previously been told). Instead the aim of the book is to determine and develop the most valuable information on the mind in regards to improving our society.
So what are some of the controversial statements found in Dianetics, and how do they stand up against modern popular science?
The main concern of the book is that individuals are not always acting in a reasonable fashion. More specifically, a part of the human mind that evolved to help us survive has outgrown it's usefulness. This part, the "reactive mind", takes over the rational part (termed the analytical mind), when it receives cues that the person's survival is being threatened. The problem is that the "reactive mind" is irrational, compelling the individual to do very strange things as a defense mechanism against whatever the perceived threat is.
The "reactive mind" grows from moments of pain and loss, which it irrationally associates with whatever was in the person's environment during those moments. As experiences differ, some people will have more of a reactive mind than others. As environments differ, some people will be compelled to have their "reactive mind" take over more than others. There is a lot more to the book, but this is my brief insight into the basic concept of Dianetics. Of course more interestingly, a method of overcoming the "reactive mind" is detailed in the book.
So how valid are the controversial claims of Dianetics? Let's take a look at a few.
1. That people sometimes do irrational things, that they did not plan to do, and that they actually regret doing, is one of the main concepts. Most notable in this concept, is the idea that some people will find themselves chronically (on an ongoing basis) behaving in a way that they really do not want to. Those people would very much like to change their behavior, but despite their desire, cannot do so.
- You may have heard people utter the expressions, "Why did I do that?", "Why do I keep doing that?", or "Sorry, I wasn't in my right mind.", but let's take a look at what modern science has to say:
The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes:
The initial decision to take drugs is mostly voluntary. However, when drug abuse takes over, a person's ability to exert self control can become seriously impaired. Brain imaging studies from drug-addicted individuals show physical changes in areas of the brain that are critical to judgment, decisionmaking, learning and memory, and behavior control.
and also notes:
As with any other disease, vulnerability to addiction differs from person to person.
the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, in the paper "What Works in Reducing
Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field" notes 4 patterns of adolescent violence:
Situational: wherein violence is brought about due to certain environmental conditions
Relationship: wherein violence is occurs mainly between close family members or those who engaged in ongoing relationships with one another
Predatory: wherein violence is perpetrated in as part of criminal activity or to gain something from someone else. According to the paper, "It seems to be predictable, develops slowly over time with onset in early adolescence..."
Psychopathological: wherein the violence is not due to criminal involvement or environment. As noted, "The violence tends to be more repetitive and extreme than other types... Research suggests that such behavior is related to
neural system and severe psychological trauma"
These statements are based on research and statistics, which can be found at the above links, but the first point seems to be valid under science after 60 years:
A significant number of people continue to do things that they, their families, and society in general have found detrimental (even fatal), despite their attempts to stop. Note that drug abuse and violence are only two examples of a plethora of undesired activities. I should also note that Dianetics provides explanations for why irrational behavior would happen more due to the presence of certain familiar substances in the body (drugs or otherwise), or in the presence of certain environmental factors, or in the presence of certain family members, as well as why some irrational behavior would not manifest for years (or ever) after a painful incident, but then quickly become chronic.
I'll mention 2 more controversial highlights in the next post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)