Spirituality Spot Found in Brain
By Robin Nixon,
What makes us feel spiritual? It could be the quieting of a small area in our brains, a new study suggests.
The area in question — the right parietal lobe — is responsible for defining "Me," said researcher Brick Johnstone of Missouri University. It generates self-criticism, he said, and guides us through physical and social terrains by constantly updating our self-knowledge: my hand, my cocktail, my witty conversation skills, my new love interest ...
People with less active Me-Definers are more likely to lead spiritual lives, reports the study in the current issue of the journal Zygon.
Most previous research on neuro-spirituality has been based on brain scans of actively practicing adherents (i.e. meditating monks, praying nuns) and has resulted in broad and inconclusive findings. (Is the brain area lighting up in response to verse or spiritual experience?)
So Johnstone and colleague Bret Glass turned to the tried-and-true techniques of neuroscience’s early days — studying brain-injured patients. The researchers tested brain regions implicated in the previous imaging studies with exams tailored to each area’s expertise — similar to studying the prowess of an ear with a hearing test. They then looked for correlations between brain region performance and the subjects' self-reported spirituality.
Among the more spiritual of the 26 subjects, the researchers pinpointed a less functional right parietal lobe, a physical state which may translate psychologically as decreased self-awareness and self-focus.
The finding suggests that one core tenant of spiritual experience is selflessness, said Johnstone, adding that he hopes the study "will help people think about spirituality in more specific ways."
Spiritual outlooks have long been associated with better mental and physical health. These benefits, Johnstone speculated, may stem from being focused less on one’s self and more on others — a natural consequence of turning down the volume on the Me-Definer.
In addition to religious practices, other behaviors and experiences are known to hush the Definer of Me. Appreciation of art or nature can quiet it, Johnstone said, pointing out that people talk of "losing themselves" in a particularly beautiful song. Love, and even charity work, can also soften the boundaries of "Me," he said.
The greatest silencing of the Me-Definer likely happens in the deepest states of meditation or prayer, said Johnstone, when practitioners describe feeling seamless with the entire universe.
That is, the highest point of spiritual experience occurs when "Me" completely loses its definition.
"If you look in the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, in the Koran, a lot of Sufi writings, Buddhist writings, and Hindu writings, they all talk about selflessness," said Johnstone.
We may be finding the neurological underpinnings of these writings, he said.
1.24.2009
very interesting article.
This is a very interesting article I highly recommend. Click your arrow on these words to view the original, or just keep reading to view the re-posting, with tons of swear words added.
1.21.2009
1.20.2009
Inauguration menstration
My favorite part of Obama's inauguration speech was when he said "..science will return to it's rightful place" (i may have not worded that exactly correct, but that was the jist of it). A clear reference to the anti-science attitude modern American Christians have come to adopt and was embodied by President Bush's Government.
My least favorite part was all the stuff about how American needs to resume its role as the leader of the world. I don't care for talk like that. The incredible ego involved in thinking that know what is best for the world is off-putting for me. We might be the most powerful single economic and military force, but we are not the happiest country. That honor goes to Denmark. (the U.S. is ranked 16th, below Colombia, Canada, Puerto Rico and Iceland)
Since I do not get my news from the television, this was actually the first time I have watched a full Obama Speech. His skill as an orator hasn't been overstated. I found myself, at the times when he spoke of things I disagreed with, having to remind myself of what he was saying, because I had become hypnotized into agreement by his melodious cadences.
My least favorite part was all the stuff about how American needs to resume its role as the leader of the world. I don't care for talk like that. The incredible ego involved in thinking that know what is best for the world is off-putting for me. We might be the most powerful single economic and military force, but we are not the happiest country. That honor goes to Denmark. (the U.S. is ranked 16th, below Colombia, Canada, Puerto Rico and Iceland)
Since I do not get my news from the television, this was actually the first time I have watched a full Obama Speech. His skill as an orator hasn't been overstated. I found myself, at the times when he spoke of things I disagreed with, having to remind myself of what he was saying, because I had become hypnotized into agreement by his melodious cadences.
1.16.2009
George Washington in my heart.
It has been awhile since I believed in Jesus as anything more than a man. At worst, a manic-depressive end times fanatic preaching the world was about to end. (Jesus, speaking in reference to the end of the world: "Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matt 24:34 or Mark 13:30 or Luke 21:32 or many others) At best a man inspired by something divine with a message that could help heal the world. But most of the time I think of him as some guy with a mostly good message, who after his death, through a serious of unusual circumstances became revered as a God.
Even when I was an active Latter-Day Saint I lost my belief in Jesus as being any sort of World Saving Sacrifice. This change happened on my mission when attempting to convert a Muslim man.
For him to understand the context of Joseph Smith, we first tried to explain the Lds perspective of Jesus. He kept asking why God could not forgive sins on his own. Why, if he was all powerful and all knowing, was he unable to forgive sins? (the non-lds perspective is even stranger, since Jesus actually is God the Father as well. 'I can forgive sins, but only while being killed on a cross'). The traditional Lds answers of Jesus being a ransom to pay a debt to God, the just judge, ran through my mind as responses, but before saying them aloud I predicted his responses and realized I had nothing adequate to say. The more I thought of how to answer him, the more convinced I became that he was correct.
Taking into mind this perspective I have of Jesus, it is often somewhat humorous for me to hear people speak of their personal relationship with Jesus, or how he is in their hearts etc. It is comparable to hearing someone say they have a personal relationship with the ghost of Aristotle and that he resides in their hearts encouraging them to do good and use the Socratic method at all times.
Even when I was an active Latter-Day Saint I lost my belief in Jesus as being any sort of World Saving Sacrifice. This change happened on my mission when attempting to convert a Muslim man.
For him to understand the context of Joseph Smith, we first tried to explain the Lds perspective of Jesus. He kept asking why God could not forgive sins on his own. Why, if he was all powerful and all knowing, was he unable to forgive sins? (the non-lds perspective is even stranger, since Jesus actually is God the Father as well. 'I can forgive sins, but only while being killed on a cross'). The traditional Lds answers of Jesus being a ransom to pay a debt to God, the just judge, ran through my mind as responses, but before saying them aloud I predicted his responses and realized I had nothing adequate to say. The more I thought of how to answer him, the more convinced I became that he was correct.
Taking into mind this perspective I have of Jesus, it is often somewhat humorous for me to hear people speak of their personal relationship with Jesus, or how he is in their hearts etc. It is comparable to hearing someone say they have a personal relationship with the ghost of Aristotle and that he resides in their hearts encouraging them to do good and use the Socratic method at all times.
1.14.2009
Mars
It has been so great having Marissa here.
Relationships, of any sort, at their best make life so much easier. When each person is contributing it makes the burdens of life lighter. At their worst, it makes life harder. You not only feel responsible for your own concerns, but the concerns of the other. Both physically and emotionally another person may expect a great deal from you and contribute little. With Marissa it is the first part. In all the time I have known her, only five months though it feels much longer, she has never not been extremely kind and giving. And not just not unkind, but extra mile type kindness.
It is not that she is a people pleaser. Rarely is people pleasing an act of kindness, but rather insecurity selfishness. The people pleaser often wants others to think well of him or her and so won't express their true feelings with hopes of being accepted. Most of us do this from time to time, especially in uncomfortable situations. But of course, true kindness includes honesty and openness. Marissa is, at all times, kind and giving, but not a 'people pleaser'. She gives out of sincere concern for others, not to be thought well of.
Here she is on my bed:
1.12.2009
.
Imagine if it turned out Jesus was alive again today, how disappointed you would be if you found out his favorite band was Primus?
1.09.2009
<3
Even though whenever movies (which is most big budget movies being made today) have themes about how the power of love overcomes all obstacles I like to make fun of it with all the force my wit affords me, the difficult aspects of life really are easier when you are with someone you love.
Today, all day was spent running errands, which would normally be uninspiring and taxing was very enjoyable because Marissa was with me.
Having Marissa here with me in Olympia makes these dark and cold days of winter, which is normally the most difficult time of year a pleasure. Laying in bed, being lazy, eating pizza and watching "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".
Today we went to a mediocre Thai restaurant and as we were being led to our seat we overheard the waitress saying to a nearby table saying "...that's because they don't have peas in carrots in Thai..land or whatver"
Today, all day was spent running errands, which would normally be uninspiring and taxing was very enjoyable because Marissa was with me.
Having Marissa here with me in Olympia makes these dark and cold days of winter, which is normally the most difficult time of year a pleasure. Laying in bed, being lazy, eating pizza and watching "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".
Today we went to a mediocre Thai restaurant and as we were being led to our seat we overheard the waitress saying to a nearby table saying "...that's because they don't have peas in carrots in Thai..land or whatver"
1.02.2009
only one true church
There was a Mormon boy in my class this last quarter. I didn't find out until close to the end of the quarter when my teacher mentioned it to me.
On one hand, I was surprised because he had not said anything to me about being Mormon even though I often make references to having be raised Mormon when talking about my work. On the other hand, when I saw him on the first day of class I thought 'that kid looks like a BYU student' so in that sense I wasn't particularly surprised.
After I learned he was Mormon, I approached him one day, curious to talk about it. I said, 'did you know I was raised Mormon?' he said he did. I asked why he had never mentioned having been Mormon to me, and he said something about how it was something I was still dealing with so.... I am not entirely sure what he would have said after the 'so' but I get the jist of what he was saying. I guess I hadn't been as clear as I had thought when discussing my Mormon past to my class that he would think it was something I was still 'going through' rather than something i had gone through.
He then preceded to bare his testimony to me. Which was kind of weird, but also fine and kind of interesting. He spoke about an idea I heard on occasion while still Lds about how there can only be one true church and that it must be either Mormonism or Catholicism. (this comes from something a Catholic Bishop once said to...I think it was a general authority? He said something like: 'You Mormon's don't realize how strong your position is......) Catholicism because it came from the time of Jesus directly, and Mormonism because it claims to be a restoration of what Jesus established.
This is an extremely ethnocentric idea full of many bizarre and false assumptions.
1) Why must there only be one true church? it isn't as if religions are mutually exclusive. I think Mormonism is a good metaphor for how one can see world religions. Mormonism has many prophets, but they all come from the same god teaching the same message.(more or less. I think the differences between what Gordon B Hinckley taught versus what Brigham Young taught are far greater than the differences between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.) Just like how an Lds person need not only recognize one of their prophets and discard all the others, one doesn't need to only recognize one religious founder(and thus the religion they founded) and discard the others, because they message is the same.
2) Even if there were true that there were only one true church, there is no reason to assume it must be Christian.
3) Even if there could only be one true church, and even if it had to be Christian, Catholicism isn't the only church with lines to the time of Jesus, nor is Mormonism the only church which claims to be a restoration of Jesus' original Church.
There is the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Western Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church etc. etc. etc. All these religions have ties back to the time of Christ equally as valid as the Catholic church's. And the amount of Church's which claim to be a restoration of what Christ originally established number in, if not the hundreds then the thousands. In the United States alone there are several hundred.
I didn't mention any of this to my fellow student at the time. I didn't really care to get into it at that moment and sometimes when people seem so eager and sincere in saying something it is hard to have the heart to explain why what they are saying is dumb.
On one hand, I was surprised because he had not said anything to me about being Mormon even though I often make references to having be raised Mormon when talking about my work. On the other hand, when I saw him on the first day of class I thought 'that kid looks like a BYU student' so in that sense I wasn't particularly surprised.
After I learned he was Mormon, I approached him one day, curious to talk about it. I said, 'did you know I was raised Mormon?' he said he did. I asked why he had never mentioned having been Mormon to me, and he said something about how it was something I was still dealing with so.... I am not entirely sure what he would have said after the 'so' but I get the jist of what he was saying. I guess I hadn't been as clear as I had thought when discussing my Mormon past to my class that he would think it was something I was still 'going through' rather than something i had gone through.
He then preceded to bare his testimony to me. Which was kind of weird, but also fine and kind of interesting. He spoke about an idea I heard on occasion while still Lds about how there can only be one true church and that it must be either Mormonism or Catholicism. (this comes from something a Catholic Bishop once said to...I think it was a general authority? He said something like: 'You Mormon's don't realize how strong your position is......) Catholicism because it came from the time of Jesus directly, and Mormonism because it claims to be a restoration of what Jesus established.
This is an extremely ethnocentric idea full of many bizarre and false assumptions.
1) Why must there only be one true church? it isn't as if religions are mutually exclusive. I think Mormonism is a good metaphor for how one can see world religions. Mormonism has many prophets, but they all come from the same god teaching the same message.(more or less. I think the differences between what Gordon B Hinckley taught versus what Brigham Young taught are far greater than the differences between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.) Just like how an Lds person need not only recognize one of their prophets and discard all the others, one doesn't need to only recognize one religious founder(and thus the religion they founded) and discard the others, because they message is the same.
2) Even if there were true that there were only one true church, there is no reason to assume it must be Christian.
3) Even if there could only be one true church, and even if it had to be Christian, Catholicism isn't the only church with lines to the time of Jesus, nor is Mormonism the only church which claims to be a restoration of Jesus' original Church.
There is the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Western Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church etc. etc. etc. All these religions have ties back to the time of Christ equally as valid as the Catholic church's. And the amount of Church's which claim to be a restoration of what Christ originally established number in, if not the hundreds then the thousands. In the United States alone there are several hundred.
I didn't mention any of this to my fellow student at the time. I didn't really care to get into it at that moment and sometimes when people seem so eager and sincere in saying something it is hard to have the heart to explain why what they are saying is dumb.
12.31.2008
re-deux
I didn't realize I had accidently italicized a lot of the last post until everyone started freaking out about it in my comment section. here it is again, sans italics:
This week's This American Life was so interesting. Especially the opening piece.
A scientific study confirmed what I think most of us have come to realize intuitively through experience.
A researcher wanted to study group dynamics, particularly, how 'bad apples' can affect a group.
Through studying the work done by other researchers, this scientist who I will call Will Phelps, because that is what he is named, Identified 3 types of 'Bad Apples' that can spoil a team. There is the Jerk, who puts others down with insults(he would say the other's ideas were inadequate but offer no ideas himself. He would say they all need to listen to the expert: him) . The Slacker, who does less than they can(would say 'whatever' and 'i don't care' I feel most like the slacker). And the Depressive Pessimist(the name says it all. Would complain the task is unenjoyable. Doubt the groups ability to succeed.).
Phelps hired a confederate (an actor) to play these three roles (not at the same time) while various groups of volunteers engaged in assignments requiring team work.
It was not surprising that Phelps found groups performed more poorly when the confederate bad apple was a part of their group. However, it was surprising to me, how much worse they performed and how universal it was. All but one group was effected (more on that one group at the end). Not only did each group perform worse(30-40% less effective), but the way they interacted with each other was also negatively effected. Regardless of which bad apple the actor was being, they would argue and fight. They would not share their relevant information and generally communicate less. Also, individual group members began to adopt the behavior of the bad apple(which would then amplify the effect he had).
When the confederate was a jerk, people became more insulting of each other, when he was the Depressive Pessimist Phelps said that towards the end of the assignment many in the group would actually be laying their heads down on the table. I have several opinions on why this is so. Some of them I wrote here.
This is an interesting study that has great application to our personal betterment.
Often in a group we might only see how we are affected by who we are around, but this shows us how much of how people around us act depends on how we act. This places responsibility on us in terms of how people around us behave. I think we have all been around one of those 3 types of bad apples and experienced the negative consequences which result, but I think that all of us, at one time or another has also been one of those bad apples. When our behavior then began to effect the group, I wonder how many of us then blamed for how they were responding to our negative behavior
Their is a quote I like by Ram Das (that I couldn't find, so I will paraphrase) about how we can tell how we are doing personally by how other people act around us. This study very much illustrates his point. I think many of us are able to recognize that when we are around a selfish person, it then brings selfishness out of us (since they are only looking out for themselves, we feel compelled to make extra certain our needs are being met, creating a cycle) When we are around generous, kind people, it is easy for us to feel generous and kind in return.
It makes some things that seem idealistic and altruistic actually pragmatic and self serving. When we are kind, compassionate and giving towards others, it makes them kind compassionate and giving towards us. (Generally. Narcissists can be an exception and totally take advantage of us when we are giving. But this is very rare, and with time I have seen even profoundly narcissistic personality types soften and be giving.) When we listen and are understanding towards others, they listen and are understanding towards us. (I'm not saying someone who does these things does it for selfish reasons, but that when they do, it then serves the self regardless)
Because of this, it is the ironic that our selfish tendencies are actually so counter productive. If we are the sort who is still at the stage where we are desperately seeking to have our needs met by other people, the best way to do it, would be to treat others exactly as we want them to treat us, which will then, very often, elicit that behavior from others. It is hard to be rude and uncaring towards someone who is being compassionate and giving.
If we want people to treat us a certain way, the best way to make that happen is to treat that person the way we want them to treat us. The worst way would be to silently pout about it. Or to be pissy and bitter because they aren't treating us how we want.
When someone IS being rude and selfish towards us, often we can break that cycle by then being kind and compassionate towards them. It can be very difficult. When someone is unkind to us, it brings up strong emotions. Makes us want to put up defense mechanisms and resist them, which only perpetuates their unpleasant behavior, but if we can have a moment of clarity and strength to break the cycle and be compassionate towards them, most often this will end their mean behavior and allow us a return of that kindness.
This is the first chapter of the self help book I am writing called 'Will you make me a baked potato?'. I am joking. Jokes on you, Ashton Kutcher, Come on in!
Oh yeah, which reminds me, I forgot to mention the one group in the study that wasn't spoiled by the bad apple. That group had one member who was a dynamic leader that listened carefully to each member of the group. His behavior, of giving a voice to each person, making sure they were listened to and understood was able to keep the dynamic positive and productive and overcome the negative influence of the Bad Apple.(it turns out his father is a diplomat) I found that inspiring. That as destructive and influential as bad apples can be, their negative influence can still be overcome with, perhaps, listening. (Of course, this was only one example in one study. The researcher is now going to to a study on the effects of listening to combat bad apples. I am curious to know the results.)
It has been great dating Marissa where all of this comes natural. She is always so kind and giving that I feel my emotional needs so fully met I have no need to then be emotionally selfish or taking. It requires no effort on my part to feel compassion and love towards someone so perpetually compassionate and loving. And in only 6 more hours I will be reunited with her messy hair. A copy of the Kama Sutra in hand.
This week's This American Life was so interesting. Especially the opening piece.
A scientific study confirmed what I think most of us have come to realize intuitively through experience.
A researcher wanted to study group dynamics, particularly, how 'bad apples' can affect a group.
Through studying the work done by other researchers, this scientist who I will call Will Phelps, because that is what he is named, Identified 3 types of 'Bad Apples' that can spoil a team. There is the Jerk, who puts others down with insults(he would say the other's ideas were inadequate but offer no ideas himself. He would say they all need to listen to the expert: him) . The Slacker, who does less than they can(would say 'whatever' and 'i don't care' I feel most like the slacker). And the Depressive Pessimist(the name says it all. Would complain the task is unenjoyable. Doubt the groups ability to succeed.).
Phelps hired a confederate (an actor) to play these three roles (not at the same time) while various groups of volunteers engaged in assignments requiring team work.
It was not surprising that Phelps found groups performed more poorly when the confederate bad apple was a part of their group. However, it was surprising to me, how much worse they performed and how universal it was. All but one group was effected (more on that one group at the end). Not only did each group perform worse(30-40% less effective), but the way they interacted with each other was also negatively effected. Regardless of which bad apple the actor was being, they would argue and fight. They would not share their relevant information and generally communicate less. Also, individual group members began to adopt the behavior of the bad apple(which would then amplify the effect he had).
When the confederate was a jerk, people became more insulting of each other, when he was the Depressive Pessimist Phelps said that towards the end of the assignment many in the group would actually be laying their heads down on the table. I have several opinions on why this is so. Some of them I wrote here.
This is an interesting study that has great application to our personal betterment.
Often in a group we might only see how we are affected by who we are around, but this shows us how much of how people around us act depends on how we act. This places responsibility on us in terms of how people around us behave. I think we have all been around one of those 3 types of bad apples and experienced the negative consequences which result, but I think that all of us, at one time or another has also been one of those bad apples. When our behavior then began to effect the group, I wonder how many of us then blamed for how they were responding to our negative behavior
Their is a quote I like by Ram Das (that I couldn't find, so I will paraphrase) about how we can tell how we are doing personally by how other people act around us. This study very much illustrates his point. I think many of us are able to recognize that when we are around a selfish person, it then brings selfishness out of us (since they are only looking out for themselves, we feel compelled to make extra certain our needs are being met, creating a cycle) When we are around generous, kind people, it is easy for us to feel generous and kind in return.
It makes some things that seem idealistic and altruistic actually pragmatic and self serving. When we are kind, compassionate and giving towards others, it makes them kind compassionate and giving towards us. (Generally. Narcissists can be an exception and totally take advantage of us when we are giving. But this is very rare, and with time I have seen even profoundly narcissistic personality types soften and be giving.) When we listen and are understanding towards others, they listen and are understanding towards us. (I'm not saying someone who does these things does it for selfish reasons, but that when they do, it then serves the self regardless)
Because of this, it is the ironic that our selfish tendencies are actually so counter productive. If we are the sort who is still at the stage where we are desperately seeking to have our needs met by other people, the best way to do it, would be to treat others exactly as we want them to treat us, which will then, very often, elicit that behavior from others. It is hard to be rude and uncaring towards someone who is being compassionate and giving.
If we want people to treat us a certain way, the best way to make that happen is to treat that person the way we want them to treat us. The worst way would be to silently pout about it. Or to be pissy and bitter because they aren't treating us how we want.
When someone IS being rude and selfish towards us, often we can break that cycle by then being kind and compassionate towards them. It can be very difficult. When someone is unkind to us, it brings up strong emotions. Makes us want to put up defense mechanisms and resist them, which only perpetuates their unpleasant behavior, but if we can have a moment of clarity and strength to break the cycle and be compassionate towards them, most often this will end their mean behavior and allow us a return of that kindness.
This is the first chapter of the self help book I am writing called 'Will you make me a baked potato?'. I am joking. Jokes on you, Ashton Kutcher, Come on in!
Oh yeah, which reminds me, I forgot to mention the one group in the study that wasn't spoiled by the bad apple. That group had one member who was a dynamic leader that listened carefully to each member of the group. His behavior, of giving a voice to each person, making sure they were listened to and understood was able to keep the dynamic positive and productive and overcome the negative influence of the Bad Apple.(it turns out his father is a diplomat) I found that inspiring. That as destructive and influential as bad apples can be, their negative influence can still be overcome with, perhaps, listening. (Of course, this was only one example in one study. The researcher is now going to to a study on the effects of listening to combat bad apples. I am curious to know the results.)
It has been great dating Marissa where all of this comes natural. She is always so kind and giving that I feel my emotional needs so fully met I have no need to then be emotionally selfish or taking. It requires no effort on my part to feel compassion and love towards someone so perpetually compassionate and loving. And in only 6 more hours I will be reunited with her messy hair. A copy of the Kama Sutra in hand.
12.26.2008
The Influence of Bad Apples.
This week's This American Life was so interesting. Especially the opening piece.
A scientific study confirmed what I think most of us have come to realize intuitively through experience.
A researcher wanted to study group dynamics, particularly, how 'bad apples' can affect a group.
Through studying the work done by other researchers, this scientist who I will call Will Phelps, because that is what he is named, Identified 3 types of 'Bad Apples' that can spoil a team. There is the Jerk, who puts others down with insults(he would say the other's ideas were inadequate but offer no ideas himself. He would say they all need to listen to the expert: him) . The Slacker, who does less than they can(would say 'whatever' and 'i don't care' I feel most like the slacker). And the Depressive Pessimist(the name says it all. Would complain the task is unenjoyable. Doubt the groups ability to succeed.).
Phelps hired a confederate (an actor) to play these three roles (not at the same time) while various groups of volunteers engaged in assignments requiring team work.
It was not surprising that Phelps found groups performed more poorly when the confederate bad apple was a part of their group. However, it was surprising to me, how much worse they performed and how universal it was. All but one group was effected (more on that one group at the end). Not only did each group perform worse(30-40% less effective), but the way they interacted with each other was also negatively effected. Regardless of which bad apple the actor was being, they would argue and fight. They would not share their relevant information and generally communicate less. Also, individual group members began to adopt the behavior of the bad apple(which would then amplify the effect he had).
When the confederate was a jerk, people became more insulting of each other, when he was the Depressive Pessimist Phelps said that towards the end of the assignment many in the group would actually be laying their heads down on the table. I have several opinions on why this is so. Some of them I wrote here.
This is an interesting study that has great application to our personal betterment.
Often in a group we might only see how we are affected by who we are around, but this shows us how much of how people around us act depends on how we act. This places responsibility on us in terms of how people around us behave. I think we have all been around one of those 3 types of bad apples and experienced the negative consequences which result, but I think that all of us, at one time or another has also been one of those bad apples. When our behavior then began to effect the group, I wonder how many of us then blamed for how they were responding to our negative behavior
Their is a quote I like by Ram Das (that I couldn't find, so I will paraphrase) about how we can tell how we are doing personally by how other people act around us. This study very much illustrates his point. I think many of us are able to recognize that when we are around a selfish person, it then brings selfishness out of us (since they are only looking out for themselves, we feel compelled to make extra certain our needs are being met, creating a cycle) When we are around generous, kind people, it is easy for us to feel generous and kind in return.
It makes some things that seem idealistic and altruistic actually pragmatic and self serving. When we are kind, compassionate and giving towards others, it makes them kind compassionate and giving towards us. (Generally. Narcissists can be an exception and totally take advantage of us when we are giving. But this is very rare, and with time I have seen even profoundly narcissistic personality types soften and be giving.) When we listen and are understanding towards others, they listen and are understanding towards us. (I'm not saying someone who does these things does it for selfish reasons, but that when they do, it then serves the self regardless)
Because of this, it is the ironic that our selfish tendencies are actually so counter productive. If we are the sort who is still at the stage where we are desperately seeking to have our needs met by other people, the best way to do it, would be to treat others exactly as we want them to treat us, which will then, very often, elicit that behavior from others. It is hard to be rude and uncaring towards someone who is being compassionate and giving.
If we want people to treat us a certain way, the best way to make that happen is to treat that person the way we want them to treat us. The worst way would be to silently pout about it. Or to be pissy and bitter because they aren't treating us how we want.
When someone IS being rude and selfish towards us, often we can break that cycle by then being kind and compassionate towards them. It can be very difficult. When someone is unkind to us, it brings up strong emotions. Makes us want to put up defense mechanisms and resist them, which only perpetuates their unpleasant behavior, but if we can have a moment of clarity and strength to break the cycle and be compassionate towards them, most often this will end their mean behavior and allow us a return of that kindness.
This is the first chapter of the self help book I am writing called 'Will you make me a baked potato?'. I am joking. Jokes on you, Ashton Kutcher, Come on in!
Oh yeah, which reminds me, I forgot to mention the one group in the study that wasn't spoiled by the bad apple. That group had one member who was a dynamic leader that listened carefully to each member of the group. His behavior, of giving a voice to each person, making sure they were listened to and understood was able to keep the dynamic positive and productive and overcome the negative influence of the Bad Apple.(it turns out his father is a diplomat) I found that inspiring. That as destructive and influential as bad apples can be, their negative influence can still be overcome with, perhaps, listening. (Of course, this was only one example in one study. The researcher is now going to to a study on the effects of listening to combat bad apples. I am curious to know the results.)
It has been great dating Marissa where all of this comes natural. She is always so kind and giving that I feel my emotional needs so fully met I have no need to then be emotionally selfish or taking. It requires no effort on my part to feel compassion and love towards someone so perpetually compassionate and loving. And in only 6 more hours I will be reunited with her messy hair. A copy of the Kama Sutra in hand.
A scientific study confirmed what I think most of us have come to realize intuitively through experience.
A researcher wanted to study group dynamics, particularly, how 'bad apples' can affect a group.
Through studying the work done by other researchers, this scientist who I will call Will Phelps, because that is what he is named, Identified 3 types of 'Bad Apples' that can spoil a team. There is the Jerk, who puts others down with insults(he would say the other's ideas were inadequate but offer no ideas himself. He would say they all need to listen to the expert: him) . The Slacker, who does less than they can(would say 'whatever' and 'i don't care' I feel most like the slacker). And the Depressive Pessimist(the name says it all. Would complain the task is unenjoyable. Doubt the groups ability to succeed.).
Phelps hired a confederate (an actor) to play these three roles (not at the same time) while various groups of volunteers engaged in assignments requiring team work.
It was not surprising that Phelps found groups performed more poorly when the confederate bad apple was a part of their group. However, it was surprising to me, how much worse they performed and how universal it was. All but one group was effected (more on that one group at the end). Not only did each group perform worse(30-40% less effective), but the way they interacted with each other was also negatively effected. Regardless of which bad apple the actor was being, they would argue and fight. They would not share their relevant information and generally communicate less. Also, individual group members began to adopt the behavior of the bad apple(which would then amplify the effect he had).
When the confederate was a jerk, people became more insulting of each other, when he was the Depressive Pessimist Phelps said that towards the end of the assignment many in the group would actually be laying their heads down on the table. I have several opinions on why this is so. Some of them I wrote here.
This is an interesting study that has great application to our personal betterment.
Often in a group we might only see how we are affected by who we are around, but this shows us how much of how people around us act depends on how we act. This places responsibility on us in terms of how people around us behave. I think we have all been around one of those 3 types of bad apples and experienced the negative consequences which result, but I think that all of us, at one time or another has also been one of those bad apples. When our behavior then began to effect the group, I wonder how many of us then blamed for how they were responding to our negative behavior
Their is a quote I like by Ram Das (that I couldn't find, so I will paraphrase) about how we can tell how we are doing personally by how other people act around us. This study very much illustrates his point. I think many of us are able to recognize that when we are around a selfish person, it then brings selfishness out of us (since they are only looking out for themselves, we feel compelled to make extra certain our needs are being met, creating a cycle) When we are around generous, kind people, it is easy for us to feel generous and kind in return.
It makes some things that seem idealistic and altruistic actually pragmatic and self serving. When we are kind, compassionate and giving towards others, it makes them kind compassionate and giving towards us. (Generally. Narcissists can be an exception and totally take advantage of us when we are giving. But this is very rare, and with time I have seen even profoundly narcissistic personality types soften and be giving.) When we listen and are understanding towards others, they listen and are understanding towards us. (I'm not saying someone who does these things does it for selfish reasons, but that when they do, it then serves the self regardless)
Because of this, it is the ironic that our selfish tendencies are actually so counter productive. If we are the sort who is still at the stage where we are desperately seeking to have our needs met by other people, the best way to do it, would be to treat others exactly as we want them to treat us, which will then, very often, elicit that behavior from others. It is hard to be rude and uncaring towards someone who is being compassionate and giving.
If we want people to treat us a certain way, the best way to make that happen is to treat that person the way we want them to treat us. The worst way would be to silently pout about it. Or to be pissy and bitter because they aren't treating us how we want.
When someone IS being rude and selfish towards us, often we can break that cycle by then being kind and compassionate towards them. It can be very difficult. When someone is unkind to us, it brings up strong emotions. Makes us want to put up defense mechanisms and resist them, which only perpetuates their unpleasant behavior, but if we can have a moment of clarity and strength to break the cycle and be compassionate towards them, most often this will end their mean behavior and allow us a return of that kindness.
This is the first chapter of the self help book I am writing called 'Will you make me a baked potato?'. I am joking. Jokes on you, Ashton Kutcher, Come on in!
Oh yeah, which reminds me, I forgot to mention the one group in the study that wasn't spoiled by the bad apple. That group had one member who was a dynamic leader that listened carefully to each member of the group. His behavior, of giving a voice to each person, making sure they were listened to and understood was able to keep the dynamic positive and productive and overcome the negative influence of the Bad Apple.(it turns out his father is a diplomat) I found that inspiring. That as destructive and influential as bad apples can be, their negative influence can still be overcome with, perhaps, listening. (Of course, this was only one example in one study. The researcher is now going to to a study on the effects of listening to combat bad apples. I am curious to know the results.)
It has been great dating Marissa where all of this comes natural. She is always so kind and giving that I feel my emotional needs so fully met I have no need to then be emotionally selfish or taking. It requires no effort on my part to feel compassion and love towards someone so perpetually compassionate and loving. And in only 6 more hours I will be reunited with her messy hair. A copy of the Kama Sutra in hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments