Farther to Go!

Brain-Based Transformational Solutions

  • Home
  • About
    • Farther to Go!
    • Personal Operating Systems
    • Joycelyn Campbell
    • Testimonials
    • Reading List
  • Blog
  • On the Road
    • Lay of the Land
    • Introductory Workshops
    • Courses
  • Links
    • Member Links (Courses)
    • Member Links
    • Transform the World
    • Imaginarium
    • Newsletter
    • Transformation Toolbox
  • Certification Program
    • Wired that Way Certification
    • What Color Is Change? Certification
    • Art & Science of Transformational Change Certification
    • Certification Facilitation
    • SML Certification
  • Contact

Are You Thinking Outside the Box Yet?

July 31, 2015 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

boxIf you’ve ever felt stymied by the prospect of thinking outside the box, you may be relieved to find out that you can’t actually do that. The box is the mental model through which you view and interpret the world. You are always inside the box, in one compartment or another. The box constrains what you see, what you think, how you feel, and what you do. And the less aware of them you are, the more power these constraints have over you.

The concept of thinking outside the box comes from what is called the Nine-Dot Problem, first used by psychologist N.R.F. Maier in 1930. The task is to connect all of the dots by drawing four straight lines without retracing any lines or removing your pencil from the paper. The solutions to the Nine-Dot Problem all require you to extend your lines outside the “box” created by the dots.

box2

The box has come to represent all of the things that limit our thinking, so thinking outside the box means being able to transcend those limitations. In the 1970’s, thanks in part to psychologist J.P. Guilford and his study of creativity, thinking outside the box became a popular metaphor for unconventional and original—i.e., creative—thinking.

Your Mental Model:
Don’t Leave Home Without It.

Of course the concept of thinking outside the box has spawned some contrarians who suggest there are benefits to thinking inside the box. The assumption in both cases is that we have the option of thinking either inside or outside the box and can choose the location from which we think. But that’s not the case, since we don’t have the option of getting outside our mental model.

Just as the unconscious part of our brain monitors our breathing and heart rate to keep them in the normal (for us) range, it creates a model of the world that represents what’s normal in it for us. Our particular model of the world determines what we pay attention to, how we interpret and explain what we pay attention to, and the meaning we assign to events.

Our mental model is created and (mostly) maintained by the unconscious part of our brain, which is always running. We can’t access it directly to find out what’s in it. The contents are a combination of genetics, experiences, information, beliefs, skills and talents, and assumptions. Some of it is coherent; some of it isn’t. Some of it is stuff we want to have in there; some of it isn’t. In general, the best word to describe it is functional.

Although we’ve had a hand in programming our mental model over the course of our lives, it is being continuously updated according to our brain’s set of survival-based criteria. The unconscious part of our brain processes around 11,000,000 bits of information at a time, while we can consciously process only about 40 bits. If we had to rely on consciousness to get through the day, we would be in big, big trouble.

Fortunately, our mental model, operating outside our awareness, helps predict what’s going to happen next and “readies” us to respond appropriately. In fact, many researchers have referred to the brain as an anticipation machine. When the brain’s expectations aren’t met, it actually “protests.” That’s what underlies the feelings of surprise we experience.

As long as things are going according to plan, the brain can operate at a lower level of energy, which is what it prefers to do. When something unexpected occurs, it has to shift into a higher energy consumption mode.

Aha?

Since our mental model is the lens through which we view and interpret the world around us—and even ourselves—we can’t think outside it. Some theorists on the subject claim that insight is the result of thinking outside the box, but it isn’t. No matter how mind-blowing they may be, our insights still depend on what’s already in our particular box. This seems obvious when you consider it. Someone whose mental model includes a vast amount of experience and knowledge in a particular area is likely to have more and bigger creative insights than someone else who only dabbles in the field.

When we’re learning something new (e.g., a language, how to get around in an unfamiliar city, a new artistic technique), we have to rely heavily on the conscious part of our brain. But as we continue learning, more and more information is turned over to the unconscious part of the brain. We develop greater facility. We become faster and better in part because our brain is making associations and anticipating what is coming next. As this occurs, our mental model expands and we are able to see things differently, think different thoughts, and do different things.

The physical brain has a great capacity to be plastic, which means it can change, and in some cases, we can actually see what those changes look like.

In violin players’ brains, the neural regions that control their left hands, where complex, fine motor movement is required on the strings, look as if they’ve been gorging on a high-fat diet. These regions are enlarged, swollen, and crisscrossed with complex associations. By contrast, the areas controlling the right hand, which draws the bow, look positively anorexic, with much less complexity. —John Medina, Brain Rules

Complexity is the key. The more knowledge and experience we have in a particular area, the more complex our mental model will be. Experienced violin players can not only play more complex tunes, they can also identify more complex musical problems to solve. And they can solve them faster. The situation is the same whether we’re talking about an artist, a musician, a performer, a movie-maker, a chef, a businessperson, an athlete, a hobbyist, a writer, or a world leader.

If we want a brain that can think more complex thoughts and solve more complex problems, one thing we can do to help make that happen is get in the habit of moving.

Physical activity is cognitive candy. Exercise stimulates one of the brain’s most powerful growth factors, BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor). According to Harvard psychiatrist John Ratey, “It keeps [existing] neurons young and healthy, and makes them more ready to connect with one another. It also encourages neurogenesis—the creation of new cells.” The cells most sensitive to this are in the hippocampus, inside the very regions deeply involved in human cognition. —John Medina, Brain Rules

Build a Better Box

Our brain can change, which means our mental model can change, too. Instead of trying to think outside the box, we’re better served by deliberately stretching and expanding it via physical activity, learning, exposing ourselves to new situations and different viewpoints—in short, by challenging ourselves.

New ideas are not spun from thin air. Creativity involves synthesizing, remixing, and re-envisioning what’s already inside the box.

Filed Under: Beliefs, Brain, Consciousness, Creating, Living, Mind, Unconscious Tagged With: Brain, Creative Thinking, Insight, Mental Model, Mind, Thinking Outside the Box

Why Right-Brain Left-Brain Is Wrong-Headed

May 6, 2015 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

left brain right brain

Conventional wisdom has it that some people are right-brained, meaning they tend to be creative, intuitive, and emotional, while others are left-brained, meaning they tend to be logical, analytical, and methodical. But once again conventional wisdom has vastly oversimplified and overstated the situation. (There’s a reason why conventional wisdom tends to function this way, but that’s another blog post.)

It’s true that the two hemispheres of the brain function differently. Much of what we know about the differences between the two hemispheres is the result of research conducted in the 1960s on patients with split brains. Normally the two hemispheres are in ongoing communication with each other via the bridge of fibers called the corpus callosum. But the corpus callosum was surgically severed in some epilepsy patients in a last-ditch attempt to relieve their symptoms.

Michael Gazzaniga, Roger Sperry, and two other researchers conducted the testing on these individuals that revealed some of the effects—many of them quite surprising—of cutting off communication between the hemispheres. Later on, Gazzaniga conducted additional research with Joseph LeDoux.

To me, the most interesting thing they discovered is what happens as a result of visual information no longer being passed from one hemisphere to another. Language is primarily a function of the left hemisphere. So although the right hemisphere could recognize an image not shown to the left hemisphere, it couldn’t communicate about it verbally. David Eagleman summarizes these experiments in his book Incognito. Remember that brain wiring is contralateral, which means that the right hemisphere processes information from the left visual field and controls the movements of the left hand—and vice versa for the left hemisphere.

In 1978, researchers Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux flashed a picture of a chicken claw to the left hemisphere of a split-brain patient and a picture of a snowy winter scene to his right hemisphere. The patient was then asked to point at cards that represented what he had just seen. His right hand pointed to a card with a chicken, and his left hand pointed to a card with a snow shovel.

The experimenters asked him why he was pointing to the shovel. Recall that his left hemisphere (the one with the capacity for language), had information only about a chicken, and nothing else. But the left hemisphere, without missing a beat, fabricated a story: “Oh, that’s simple. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”

When one part of the brain makes a choice, other parts can quickly invent a story to explain why. If you show the command “Walk” to the right hemisphere (the one without language), the patient will get up and start walking. If you stop him and ask why he’s leaving, his left hemisphere, cooking up an answer, will say something like “I was going to get a drink of water.”

The chicken/shovel experiment led Gazzaniga and LeDoux to conclude that the left hemisphere acts as an “interpreter,” watching the actions and behaviors of the body and assigning a coherent narrative to these events. And the left hemisphere works this way even in normal, intact brains.

One important thing to remember is that for people with intact brains, the two hemispheres remain in constant communication with each other. We are whole-brained people who use both parts of our brain all the time, including during the creative process and in the course of logical problem-solving.

Although this, too, is an oversimplification, it’s closer to the mark to say that if we did not have language or discernment, our creative ideas would be useless and possibly incoherent. And if we did not have emotion and imagination, we would have no context for decision making.

Not only is neither hemisphere “better” than the other, you may be surprised at the conclusion Gazzaniga has reached about which hemisphere is more “conscious” and which hemisphere is more literal.

After many years of fascinating research on the split brain, it appears that the inventing and interpreting left hemisphere has a conscious experience very different from that of the truthful, literal right brain. Although both hemispheres can be viewed as conscious, the left brain’s consciousness far surpasses that of the right. Which raises another set of questions that should keep us busy for the next 30 years or so.

I’m looking forward to the results of that additional research!

Filed Under: Beliefs, Brain, Consciousness, Creating, Living, Mind, Wired that Way Tagged With: Creativity, David Eagleman, Logic, Michael Gazzaniga, Right-Brain Left-Brain, Split-brain

Hard Choices: What Are You For?

October 17, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

hard choice

People who don’t exercise their normative powers in hard choices are drifters. We all know people like that. I drifted into being a lawyer. I didn’t put my agency behind lawyering. I wasn’t for lawyering. Drifters allow the world to write the story of their lives. They let mechanisms of reward and punishment—pats on the head, fear, the easiness of an option—determine what they do. So the lesson of hard choices: reflect on what you can put your agency behind, on what you can be for, and through hard choices, become that person.

Far from being sources of agony and dread, hard choices are precious opportunities for us to celebrate what is special about the human condition, that the reasons that govern our choices as correct or incorrect sometimes run out, and it is here, in the space of hard choices, that we have the power to create reasons for ourselves to become the distinctive people that we are. And that’s why hard choices are not a curse but a godsend. —Ruth Chang, philosopher

Click here for the full transcript of Chang’s TED talk or to watch the video.

I’m for learning everything I can to help me use my brain more effectively. And I’m for making a difference by helping others to discover what matters most in their lives and to write their own stories.

Are you writing the story of your life? If not, who is?

Filed Under: Choice, Creating, Finding What You Want, Living, Stories, Uncertainty Tagged With: Choice, Ruth Chang, Story of Your Life

How Can You Live Passionately?

September 11, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

passion

We don’t go looking for a solution until we have a problem to solve.

This is one of those things in life that seems pretty straightforward—and sometimes it is. But surprisingly often it isn’t. It’s more likely to be straightforward when the problem or issue at hand is small or simple and less likely to be straightforward when the problem is big or complex.

Complex problems can be difficult to see clearly. The unconscious part of our brain has a couple of habits that prevent us from seeing and defining complex issues of any kind. For one thing, it’s quick to jump to conclusions and to treat those conclusions as facts. For another, it craves certainty and being right, so it’s more comfortable with things that are easy to understand and that it already knows something about.

The result is that from time to time we go off on wild goose chases seeking a solution to the wrong problem because we asked the wrong question. No matter how good the solution, it won’t solve that particular problem.

Recently, I’ve been reflecting on the idea—or problem, if you will—of living with passion. If I believe passion means a passion, such as a calling—what and who I am meant to be—then the question I might ask is “What is my passion?” or “How can I find my passion?” That’s not an uncommon way to define the problem. Those are not uncommon questions to ask. And numerous roadmaps and processes are available to assist me—purportedly—in finding and following my passion.

But that’s not the only way to define the problem. In fact, it’s fairly narrow in scope and definition. If I believe living with passion requires finding my passion that makes me an arrow in search of a target, hoping I can hit the bull’s eye. What if I fail in my quest? Am I doomed to the booby prize: a passionless life?

If instead I ask, “How can I live a passionate life?” of “How can I live passionately?” that leads me down an entirely different path and to a much more interesting question: “What gets in the way of living passionately?” Now this is a worthy question to ask.

What gets in the way of living passionately?

I suspect the answer is the same for everyone. What gets in the way is us, specifically the things we tell ourselves, our considerations, our expectations, the preconditions we demand of life, or fear of feeling fear (occasionally known as excitement), and on and on. We’re afraid of stepping up, taking a risk, facing uncertainty, getting hurt or burned, failing, caring too much, or exceeding our reach. The unconscious part of our brain is wired for survival. Passion is definitely not part of its plan.

What gets in the way of living passionately is not our circumstances. It’s our own non-stop mental blah, blah, blah that keeps passion at arm’s length. If we want to live passionately, we can start doing it any time. There’s nothing to search for or to find, either within or without. There’s nothing stopping us from living passionately this very moment but ourselves.

What’s getting in the way of living passionately for you?

Filed Under: Beliefs, Choice, Creating, Happiness, Living, Mind, Unconscious Tagged With: Asking the Right Question, Find Your Passion, Living Passionately, Passion

How to Beat the Planning Fallacy

August 28, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

Depiction of frustration

The planning fallacy is a tendency to “describe plans and forecasts that are unrealistically close to best-case scenarios.” [Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversy] In other words, people tend to make plans, set goals, schedule their time, etc., based on an assumption that everything will go smoothly, easily, and according to the plan they have created.

One effect of the planning fallacy is underestimating how long something will take to complete. If a deadline is involved, the result can range from a period of burning the midnight oil to catch up to a major catastrophe—depending on the situation.

Another effect is an inability to tolerate the inevitable delays and obstacles that are a normal part of any project or process and to interpret them to mean that something must be terribly wrong or someone must be to blame (because things haven’t gone according to the plan).

The way to beat the planning fallacy is to focus on process rather than on outcome.

Concentrating on process—the steps or activities necessary to achieve the desired result—helps people focus their attention, leads to more realistic expectations, and reduces anxiety. This allows people to anticipate potential problems as well as potential solutions.

Of course, it’s important to identify the desired outcome so you know where you’re headed. But once you have done that, if you keep your attention on what it will take to get there, you’re much more likely to arrive and to maintain your sanity.

Filed Under: Attention, Cognitive Biases, Creating, Mind, Mindfulness Tagged With: Attention, Best-Case Scenario, Goals, Outcome, Planning, Planning fallacy, Plans, Process

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 22
  • Next Page »

Subscribe to Farther to Go!

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new Farther to Go! posts by email.

Search Posts

Recent Posts

  • What Happened to the Blog?
  • No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
  • Always Look on
    the Bright Side of Life
  • The Cosmic Gift & Misery
    Distribution System
  • Should You Practice Gratitude?
  • You Give Truth a Bad Name

Explore

The Farther to Go! Manifesto

Contact Me

joycelyn@farthertogo.com
505-332-8677

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • On the Road
  • Links
  • Certification Program
  • Contact

Copyright © 2026 · Parallax Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in