Farther to Go!

Brain-Based Transformational Solutions

Good Stress vs. Bad Stress

by Leave a Comment

Although stress is widely viewed as something to be avoided as much as possible, not all stress is harmful. Intermittent stress can motive you and focus your attention, improve your memory and mental and physical performance, and help you adapt. It can also nudge you to change your behavior for the better.

The “father of stress” himself, Hans Selye, said that the opposite of stress is death, so even he didn’t see all stress as bad.

Negative stress is referred to as distress in order to distinguish it from positive stress or eustress. Distress isn’t motivating, and it decreases performance instead of improving it. It can lead to anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and even depression.

Situations that generate eustress:

  • feel exciting rather than anxiety-producing
  • seem to be within our coping abilities (we have a sense of agency or control)
  • tend to be short-term

Situations that generate distress:

  • feel unpleasant rather than exciting
  • seem to be outside our coping abilities (we don’t have a sense of agency or control)
  • can be either short- or long-term

Some situations, such as illness or the death of a close friend or family member, are likely to create some distress for nearly anyone. But not everyone reacts the same way to the same situations or events. That’s why stress scales that assign a value to potential stressors miss the mark.

Eustress = Excitement

In the 1980s I volunteered to take on a responsibility for a group I belonged to that, on the face of it, was an impossible task. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into initially, and I could have just walked away when I found out. Instead I saw it as a challenge and ended up doing the “impossible” for two full years. Most people I knew then thought I was crazy for subjecting myself to the pressure.

But I didn’t experience the pressure as distress; I experienced it as eustress. I spent many entire weekends, from Friday evening until after midnight on Sunday, doing the impossible and loved every minute of it. I always went back to my regular job on Monday morning extremely short of sleep but much more refreshed, energized, and ready to go than my co-workers who had relaxed all weekend.

Going back to “regular life” was one of the things that contributed to my experience of the weekend stress as positive: it was short-term. I didn’t live every day of my life like that. Another contributing fact was my belief—at least after the first instance—that I could succeed in producing the desired outcome. (So dopamine also played a role in pushing me to all those finish lines.)

Chronic or excessive stress can have harmful effects on the body, the brain, and interpersonal relationships. But not only do we respond differently to life events and situations than others might respond, we don’t always respond the same way every time. So we can’t just compile a list of things to avoid, and avoiding things isn’t the best life strategy, anyway.

Immunity Against Stress

It’s better to increase the ability to handle challenges than to hide out in the hope of never having to face them. Developing a reliable sense of personal agency—the feeling that you can take action to influence your well-being and the outcome of events—is one of the best defenses against distress. And you can’t develop a reliable sense of personal agency unless you are active and engaged in the world—intentionally and purposefully, that is.

In order to be intentional and purposeful, you have to know what you want. When you don’t know what you want, life often amounts to a lot of busywork, reactivity, and fending off the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Knowing what you want focuses your attention and your efforts on what’s important, so you’re less likely to get caught up in the everyday stressors that can add up to a big mess of distress.

There are various things you can do to protect against or cope with stressors, such as eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep and exercise, and taking time to relax. But being clear about what you want (having direction) and developing a reliable sense of personal agency (knowing how much control you have or don’t have in a given situation) can actually help you develop immunity against the harmful, derailing effects of stress. It can even turn potential distress into eustress!

To Diverge or Not to Diverge:
That Is the Question

by Leave a Comment

Divergent thinking is a way of addressing problems by looking for multiple answers or solutions rather than trying to find the one right answer. Looking for the one right answer is an example of convergent thinking. The assumption underlying convergent thinking is that the number of options and possibilities is limited. The assumption underlying divergent thinking is that there are always more options to consider.

According to Mark A. Smith, Ph.D., divergent thinking occurs in a spontaneous, free-flowing ‘non-linear’ manner, while the process of convergent thinking is systematic and linear.

You probably have a preference for one type of thinking or another, but we’re all capable of thinking both ways—and neither way is better than the other. The important thing is to understand how they work and know when to apply them. Sometimes that means thinking outside your comfort zone.

Creative Creativity Testing

Divergent thinking is essential in both the arts and the sciences. In fact, it’s such an important element of any form of creativity that many creativity tests are often really divergent thinking tests.

One example you’ve probably heard of, the Alternative Uses Test, asks you to come up with as many uncommon or unusual uses as you can for a common object, such as a brick, a paperclip, a toothpick, a knife, or a ping pong ball.

However, another test, the Remote Associates Test (or RAT), which was originally deemed a measure of divergent thinking, turns out to measure convergent thinking instead. It asks you to identify the fourth word that goes with all three provided words. For example, the word that goes with paint, doll, and cat is house: house paint, dollhouse, and house cat (or…you know). If you’d like to take the Remote Associates Test online, click here.

These two tests do a good job of clarifying the difference between divergent and convergent thinking. The first asks you to generate multiple responses (quantity over quality). The second asks you to generate the one right answer (quality over quantity). If you are habitually a convergent thinker, you may struggle with the task of finding multiple uncommon uses for a brick or a paperclip. If you are habitually a divergent thinker, you may have difficulty focusing your efforts on finding one word (in the RAT test), rather than several.

This or/and That?

Your habitual thinking style, whatever it is, feels natural and normal to you. Your brain is inclined toward habits of thinking just as much as it is inclined toward habits of behavior.

A limitation of convergent thinking is that it lends itself to seeing all issues in terms of either/or, black/white, yes/no, or pro/con. So instead of looking for the best answer or solution to a problem, you end up trying to choose between the two alternatives you happen to have identified. And because of the way your brain works, the alternatives you identified are likely to be part of the gang of usual suspects.

A limitation of divergent thinking is that it lends itself to the belief that there are multiple possible solutions for all problems. So instead of looking for the best answer or solution to a problem, you keep looking for more solutions—investing more time and energy than may be warranted, and because of the way your brain works, perhaps failing to take any action at all.

The title of this post poses a question. What’s the answer?

In the Groove

by 2 Comments

Having managed to survive what just might have been the worst month I’ve ever had, I have a couple of things to report about habits and knowing what you want. (To fill in the blanks first, I was over-prescribed an antiarrhythmic medication that has a number of debilitating side-effects and a half-life of 58 days—which means that although I stopped taking it five and a half weeks ago, I still have a few more weeks to go before half of it is out of my system.)

Here’s what I’ve observed during the past couple of months.

The Value of a Compelling Habit

Last year, I wrote about the two sets of four things that I aim to do every day—things I want to do. They can’t be strung together into a routine, so for quite a while I attempted to get them done by putting them on my to-do list. But, as I wrote:

In the moment, at any given time, the unconscious part of the brain, which is focused on immediate gratification, can almost always find something more interesting or enjoyable for me to do.

I solved the problem by rewarding myself with a small star sticker on the calendar in my bathroom each time I completed the four things. My goal was to earn both stars every day. I see this calendar whenever I leave the bathroom, since it hangs above the light switch. Observing the day-by-day accumulation of stars was very satisfying.  And I found that my self-talk, which had been encouraging me to delay or blow off one or more of the activities, turned into a cheerleader encouraging me to do them so I could get the star sticker.

This system has been in place for a while and had been quite successful until this past September, when I stopped being physically able to do two of the things (walking and stretching) twice a day. For a while I just lowered my sights and aimed for one star sticker a day. But more often than not, I couldn’t even aim that high.

But I have been very gradually feeling better and stronger the longer I’m off the medication. And I noticed that the calendar—with or without star stickers—has become a cue for me to resume those activities, which I have now been able to do for 10 consecutive days.

It doesn’t matter whether I look at each of the four things as a separate habit or at the group of them as a single habit. They are united by the star stickers on the calendar as well as in my mind. And not only does doing them make me feel better, resuming doing them is an indicator—in multiple ways—that I am better.

Although I hadn’t been doing the four things regularly for two and a half months, as soon as I was able to do so I got right back on track and my self-talk got right back in line. That’s because this set of habits is very compelling for me. I really, really want to do them. And I did them long enough in the past to create a well-defined track or groove that was easy for me to find and get back into.

The takeaway is that creating a groove is the most important part of developing a habit. If there’s something you want to do every day, first create a groove for doing it once or twice a week. If there’s something you want to do multiple times a day, first create a groove for doing it once a day.

If you try to be perfect out of the gate and fail (which is the most likely outcome), you’ll never gain any traction. You’ll have to continually keep starting over. But if you have a groove, even if it isn’t all you want it to be, it will be so much easier for you to find your place when you lose it. And you will lose it. That’s the nature of things.

The Value of Identifying What’s Most Important to You

There’s a little bit of irony in the fact that I identified vitality as the thing that’s most important to me two months before I was diagnosed last year with multiple heart conditions, including one that results in fatigue and decreased energy. On top of that, one of the most prominent side effects of the antiarrhythmic drug I took recently is insomnia. This is not a recipe for vitality.

But the fact that I can’t have the level of vitality I used to have and that I would much prefer to have doesn’t mean it isn’t still important to me. I haven’t decided to replace it with something else because my circumstances have changed. I’m clear that no matter what, vitality is still what I’m aiming for. That means I have to determine the best actions to take so I can achieve the highest level of vitality possible at any given time.

That makes it hard to feel defeated or powerless. My personal agency may be limited, but I can identify the agency I do have, the actions I can take, the difference I can make. In fact, aiming for as much vitality as I can get makes decision-making a breeze. Instead of basing decisions on what I should do or what I would prefer to do, I simply ask myself if doing or not doing something is likely to increase or decrease my vitality.

The takeaway here is that you may not be in a position to achieve as much of what’s important to you as you would like to achieve. That doesn’t mean you should write it off. (It doesn’t actually mean anything at all.) Don’t sell out. Don’t give up. Don’t let it go. Go after as much of it as you can get at this particular point in time!

Objective Means to Subjective Ends

by Leave a Comment

An objective is…objective. It’s generally specific and quantifiable. A dictionary might define an objective as something you’re working toward, such as a goal or the completion of a project. You may or may not succeed in reaching the goal or completing the project, but you’ll know whether or not you achieved your objective.

One objective may be a single step in the process of completing a larger objective. Maybe you undertake to read a particular book in order to successfully complete a class that is part of your goal of obtaining some type of certification or qualification. You’ll know whether or not you finished reading the book, successfully completed the class, and obtained the certification.

But why are you working toward that certification? What aspects of your status quo are you aiming to change? The objective change is obvious: you will have the certification or qualification you didn’t have before. However, the subjective change—your desired outcome—is likely to be much less clearly defined, if even considered.

This isn’t to say you don’t have an explanation for why you want to do something—or at least why you think you want to do it. Explaining ourselves to ourselves comes naturally to humans. You may also be clear about the potential benefits of succeeding with your objective. But having good reasons and being aware of the benefits are not the same as identifying your desired outcome.

Why (to) Ask Why

You could be going on a job interview because you hope to get hired or because you’re thinking about quitting your current job and are testing the waters or because a relative hooked you up and you feel obligated…or…or…or. Those are some reasons you might have for keeping the appointment for that interview.

Assuming you hope to get hired, why? Maybe it’s simply to earn enough to pay your bills. Or maybe you want to move up into a more challenging or more prestigious position. You might be seeking a congenial group of co-workers to expand your circle of friends. Or you might want a calmer work environment with less stress than you now have. Or you’d like a more stimulating environment. It could be a combination of factors.

If you’re clear about what you hope will happen as a result of getting the job, you’ll be better able to evaluate whether or not to take it if it’s offered to you. At the interview itself, you’ll be able to ask more informed questions and pay attention to things that are relevant to your concerns. Knowing the desired outcome you’re looking for is pretty important since it increases your chances of getting it.

But if you accept the job offer without having identified your desired outcome, you set yourself up for the possibility of being disappointed. Maybe the money’s good and the work is interesting but you wouldn’t get to interact with very many other people—and it turns out the social aspect is really important to you. In fact, you realize you would be willing to earn less in exchange for having more interpersonal interaction.

Reality Check

In addition to changing jobs, we get into or out of relationships, take up hobbies, move from one part of the country to another, decide to go back to school (or drop out), sign up for a gym membership, start a diet, buy a complete new wardrobe—or a set of patio furniture or an expensive camera or a car. We not only fail to identify our desired outcome, we also fail to identify potential obstacles we’re likely to face along the path to getting it.

Included in the “Reality Check” exercise my clients complete when filling out a Goal Action Plan are these three questions.

  1. Imagine a positive vision (fantasy) of achieving your desired outcome and describe it. How will your status quo be changed?
  2. Describe your current reality in regard to your desired outcome.
  3. Compare your positive vision of success with your current reality.

It’s important to remember that if all you do is generate and focus on a positive vision of your desired outcome without doing anything else, you are less likely to be successful in achieving it because you will have tricked your brain into thinking you’ve already got it.

Answering all three questions is a form of mental contrasting that can help you see your situation more realistically and identify the obstacles to achieving your desired outcome. If you know the obstacles you’re likely to face, you can figure out how to deal with them ahead of time instead of being blind-sided by them. Or you may realize there’s an obstacle big enough to be a deal-breaker, at least for now.

When we perform mental contrasting, we gain energy to take action. And when we go on to specify the actions we intend to take as obstacles arise, we energize ourselves even further. —Gabriele Oettingen, Rethinking Positive Thinking

Evaluate and Motivate

The more clearly you can visualize your desired outcome the better you’ll be able to evaluate how likely it is that the action you’re contemplating is the best path to getting there. If it is, great! That clarity can be highly motivating. If it isn’t, that’s great, too, because you can change or revise your plan and save yourself the time, energy, and effort of going off on a wild goose chase.

The more time, energy, or effort it will take to attain your objective, the more imperative it is that you identify your desired outcome. The unconscious part of your brain is hooked on instant gratification, but changing the status quo tends to be gradual, mundane, repetitious, and tedious. Being able to remind yourself not only what you’re aiming for (the objective means) but also why it’s important to you (the subjective end) will go a long way to keeping you focused and on track.

Developing the habit of identifying your desired outcome is useful in all kinds of every-day situations, such as responding to a social media post, attending a staff meeting, choosing a book to read, or planning a vacation. It’s a truism because it’s true: it’s considerably easier to get what you want if you know what that is.

Adapted from a previous post, D Is for Desired Outcome.

Elementary, My Dear Watson*

by Leave a Comment

When you’re trying to solve a complex problem, determine a course of action, or evaluate others’ conclusions, you’ll need to engage logical System 2 reasoning, which is the opposite of System 1’s quick assessments.

I never guess. It is a shocking habit—destructive to the logical faculty. —Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four

It can be helpful to understand different types of reasoning, be able to identify the type—or types—of reasoning that are being applied in a given situation, and know how accurate each type is likely to be.

But recognizing and/or applying a reasoning process to your problem or evaluation process isn’t enough to guarantee that the outcome of that reasoning process will be sound or accurate. Skillful reasoning doesn’t compensate for faulty premises or missing or biased information.

The following descriptions (but not the examples) of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning were provided by Alina Bradford, writing in Live Science (livescience.com).

Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities  to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to the University of California. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. “In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct.  We go from the general—the theory—to the specific—the observations,” said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, “All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal.” For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, “All men are mortal” and “Harold is a man” are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

Examples:

  • It is dangerous to drive on icy streets. The streets are icy now so it is dangerous to drive now.
  • All birds have feathers and robins are birds, so robins have feathers.
  • Elephants have cells in their bodies and all cells have DNA, so elephants have DNA.

[Caveat: Deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It’s possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, “All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather,” is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.]

Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. “In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory,” Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. “In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the ‘truth,’ which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty.”

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: “Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald.” The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Examples:

  • John is a financial analyst. Individuals with professions in finance are very serious people. John is a very serious person.
  • Jennifer leaves for school at 7:00 a.m. and is on time. Jennifer assumes, then, that she will always be on time if she leaves at 7:00 a.m.
  • The water at the beach has always been about 75 degrees in July. It is July. The water will be about 75 degrees.
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn’t fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations (Critical Thinking Skills, Butte College). It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

Examples:

  • Given a particular set of symptoms, a medical doctor needs to determine the diagnosis that would best explain most of them.
  • Jurors have to decide whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence although additional evidence may exist that was not admitted in the case.

While using one of these three types of reasoning is a function of System 2 (conscious) cognition, evaluating them—and their results—is an example of metacognition, which is a higher order of System 2 cognition. Metacognition is a skill you can develop to help you think smarter and improve outcomes in all areas of your life.

I cannot live without brain-work. What else is there to live for? —Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four

*This quintessential Sherlock Holmes quote was never actually uttered in any of Conan Doyle’s stories about him.

Contact Me

joycelyn@farthertogo.com
505-332-8677