Blog

How wide is your perspective?

By Diana Gardner Robinson Leave a Comment

Welcome! My newsletter, “Work in Progress – Because we all are,” usually goes only to people who have chosen to subscribe to it. The newsletter and my blog (which, at this site, is open to all) are separate. However, today, for complex reasons – and I don’t want to bore you – I am posting my most recently distributed issue of Work in Progress here. I hope that you will enjoy it – and perhaps choose to subscribe. If you do, the sign-up form is to the right of this post.

Perspective

Imagine that you are in a valley, close to the ground, bent over, almost to ground level. Look around you. You can see a lot of fine detail, but not much else.
Now imagine that you are rising up a bit, perhaps in the same place but standing. Look around again. You can see a lot more.

Now, successively, imagine yourself rising up, climbing a hill, then a mountain, and each time looking around at the entire view.

Take it a step further. See yourself as an eagle or even a satellite circling the globe. As you look down you will be able to see the patterns of the world, its stark, barren deserts, its lush plains and valleys, its soaring mountains that seem to give us an almost sublime beauty, at the price of the harshest of conditions.

Why am I using this exercise? Because we can do a parallel process on the topic of our own lives.

Often, particularly when things are going wrong, we allow our perspective to narrow so that it is as if we are low to the ground in a deep valley, maybe even with an ant’s view of our environment. In such a state of mind, planning will probably involve how to get past the next few grass- roots and pebbles. There is no long view.

As we rise upwards we widen our perspective. Perhaps we will see that if we veer left through the roots we will come to another obstacle, whereas toward the right our route will be smooth. Perhaps we can find ways to reach our goal(s) more easily, or even recognize one that is even more worth our while than what we are presently seeking.

If we are to mentally survey our lives in full, we must mentally move upward, so that we can get a better view of where the rough patches are likely to occur, whether they can be avoided, or have to be prepared for. We can see the pinnacles of achievement, the serene valleys, the barren spots. From this perspective we can begin to see the patterns, the ebb and flow of our energies and our directions.

Perhaps, looking back over our shoulders, we can notice patterns – patterns that may or may not have worked for us. Possibly we can even recognize that we have been in a situation similar to today’s, and notice how we coped, or did not cope, with it.

We no longer see life only from one narrow point of view of the moment, but from the wider perspective of our interactions with our environment, which includes the effect of the environment on ourselves. (And never forget that, while other people form a part of your environment, you are also part of theirs.)

The wider our perspective, the more wisely can we make our decisions, and we can move forward with a greater awareness of what lies ahead, and what our possibilities are.

It beats putting all our efforts into trying to find our way through a forest of grass roots – or their day-to-day equivalent.

DianaR

(And, as always, if you would like a phone consultation with Coach Diana about perspectives – or other issues – feel free to contact me via my website at https://choicecoach.com.)

Our mailing address is:
DGR Coaching
2604 Elmwood Avenue, #230
Rochester, NY 14618

Beware leaping to Conclusions

By Diana Gardner Robinson Leave a Comment

Beware of leaping to conclusions without first looking for alternative explanations!

There can be many explanations for events and results that we notice. Assuming that the first one we find is the ONLY one can be wrong… and can sometimes make us look a little foolish.

Here’s a glaring example I recently noticed.

As a writer, I am always eager to learn how to write better, and particularly so for the internet. Recently I clicked on an article on sources of ideas for writing great (i.e. popular) social media content.

The writer recommended that his readers should study posts that were labelled as “successful” because they had been re-posted many times. Note should also be take of those that failed – i.e. had been re-posted less often. By comparing the two, he explained, one could learn what is likely to succeed and what would probably fail.

As examples he referred to items published on four specific dates; two for which social sharing of his selected (but unnamed) items was extremely high, and two on which it was very much low lower. He wrote that first two obviously included “excellent” content, and that content on the second two days, must not have been “engaging or effective” because there were far fewer re-posts.

In other words, he took the quality of the content as the ONLY reason for changes in the number of shares.

However… (yes, you knew that would be a however, didn’t you?) the writer seemed not to have noticed that the two days with the highest share numbers were both on Mondays. The two days with the very low numbers were Saturdays. As we know, Monday is the day when many people return to their “work” computers and spend their time on social media until the boss arrives – and maybe at other times during the day. Conversely, on Saturdays many of us have other activities on our mind than social sharing.

In fact, then, we do not actually know whether content on those first-mentioned days was indeed “excellent” or if that from the second two was truly neither “engaging” nor “effective.” To get a clear idea about that would call for comparing content that was or was not highly shared on the same day of the week. And, probably, at the same time of day.

I am guessing that there may be many other unnoticed variables leading to other conclusions, but I think this makes the point without more detail.

The data may be accurate, but just because one conclusion comes to your mind, do not assume that it is the only explanation. Let your creativity look for other possible causes. In this case, the writer was so focused on quality of content that the weekday of publishing apparently did not occur to him.

Many years ago I taught adult ed courses about ESP and similar topics. I would start each course by saying, “When you feel a cool breeze on the back of your neck, and you remember that today is the anniversary of Aunt Maud’s death, do not immediately say ‘Oh, Aunt Maud’s spirit is visiting.’ Before you come to that conclusion, check to see if you are standing in front of an open window.”

I would continue, “In this course I will teach you how to look for the open window.” Of course, the “true believers” did not return for the second lesson because they did not want to look for alternative explanations such as that the breeze might – or might not – come from an open window. And that was okay.

Check around for alternative explanations before coming to conclusions. Don’t stop looking just because you find one that fits with what you currently believe. A thorough search may help you to avoid landing on a conclusion that is based on quicksand, a potentially dangerous result.

Where do we find our information?

By Diana Gardner Robinson Leave a Comment

A sample newsletter – Where do we get our information?

I usually keep my more recent Choicecoach Blog fairly brief, and perhaps somewhat casual. I keep the longer – and sometimes deeper – topics for my newsletter, “Work in Progress (because we all are!)” which goes only to those who have chosen to subscribe. I post a copy of the full WIP newsletter here, at my blog site, only very rarely, just to give a taste of what you might get were you to subscribe. (Subscription is, of course, free.) See the form to the right —->

Here is the issue (very slightly edited) that was distributed to subscribers earlier this week.

“Work in Progress (because we all are)”

I didn’t actually subscribe to Scientific American, but here it is. Its half-sister, Scientific American Mind, to which I did subscribe, has gone “electronic only” and to forestall screams for refunds, the publisher is distributing the paper version of Scientific American, and, to my surprise, I am delighted.

Who knew?

For example, who knew that, of two forms of apparently identical lichen, identical even to their DNA, one is nutritious, and the other is poisonous? (Don’t worry, I’m going somewhere with this…)

Who knew that many lichens have a symbiotic relationship with yeasts, and that it is a much higher than usual density of yeast that leads to the toxicity? Who knew that other yeast-friendly lichens can be, and in some cultures have for centuries been, used to cause fermentation? (There are people who might, and should not, take notice of this.)

No, I’m not going crazy over lichen. My delight is with the intensity with which this magazine article speaks against the “molecular focused” attitude of some areas of science. There are those that never meet the subject of their studies out in the real world where that subject normally lives. They see it only under a microscope. This seems to be a tad one-sided. Only recently have some “new” lichen discoveries been reported that, it turns out, were known – in terms of practical use – in ancient Egypt and by some First Nations peoples. They did not, and do not, need a microscope to make some of these “discoveries.” Even today, some wise ones of the First Peoples can tell the difference between the toxic and non-toxic version of this lichen without need for microscope – or even for a taste of a sample.

Just as importantly, many of those facts were brought to the attention of the “experts” by a man with no scientific degrees, a man who studies lichens “in the wild” rather than “in the lab.” He has added greatly to lab-found knowledge – and vice versa.

How does this relate to you? I am absolutely NOT going on an anti-science rant. Scientific knowledge is hugely important to our well-being and we need to take notice of it. However, super-specialized knowledge that ignores context, linkages, and interactions, can take us only so far, in both knowledge and inspiration. As the old saying goes, some people “Can’t see the forest for the trees.”

When we pride ourselves on the narrow intensity with which we “focus” on whatever knowledge or activity we pursue, we need to remember, too, how much we are ignoring. The larger stage, invisible when the spotlight is focused on one central figure, is still there, and may hide an entire chorus, or an approaching and unseen villain. Let us remember that whatever our focus, the greater context is still “out there” and it should not be ignored. This applies to our own lives, our families, and our businesses, as well as to our planet. Not all connections and interactions are obvious at first glance.

Not only can we learn from “the wild” how context affects the focus, but it can also inspire us. In my moments of writer’s block I sometimes look longingly back to a time when I worked very closely with a large number of people, some of whom were new to me each day. I can remember being astounded at the number of potential writing ideas that came to me every day on the basis of those interactions. Now in a quieter phase of life, I do sometimes miss them.

Yes, many of us tend to value our independence, but there is a fine line between not allowing others to affect our lives beyond where we welcome them, and not allowing new and interesting ideas to spice up our thoughts. Both knowledge and inspiration can be found through the microscope AND in the wild. That is the point. I would not discard either, but I fear that science sometimes tends to disdain the wild, just as the some parts of the outer world try to discard science. Both matter. Both contribute. Using ideas/knowledge from both viewpoints can be far more valuable than counting on either one alone.

What can you do today to take your thinking beyond its usual boundaries?

DianaR.

(By the way, how do YOU pronounce “lichen”? Growing up in England, I learned to pronounce it as rhyming with “kitchen.” When I cam to the U.S. I discovered, to my amazement and confusion, that it rhymes with “liken.”

Let’s never assume that “our way” is the only right way. There are many ways, and the probability is that they all work, sometimes far better than we expect.)

Perhaps it’s not ONLY fentanyl: What very few people in addiction are told…

By Diana Gardner Robinson Leave a Comment

… and if they were, lives might be saved.

(I do not usually write of addiction issues in this blog, but the current death rate due to heroin use is too horrifying to ignore. Accordingly, I am using this opportunity to point out something that, I hope, might keep some folk alive who might otherwise die. I hope that you will spread the word, especially if you know folk in early recovery.)

Most people know, from media headlines or from the loss of dear ones, that the death rate from heroin overdose is horrifyingly high. They know that sometimes the addition of fentanyl is to blame. However, what I am writing about is something else that leads to relapse and sometimes death that is less well known, and that very few people in addiction have thought about. Greater awareness could save lives.

Over time, when people regularly use a drug, their tolerance increases. As their bodies’ become accustomed to the drug their systems adapt to the drug’s presence. The effect of the drug weakens because the body has learned how to adapt to it. In the usual process of addiction, people start to use more and more of the drug in their effort to re-experience the earliest effects of the drug – effects that may have been strong because, initially, there was zero tolerance for the drug. With continuing use, their bodies continue to adapt to larger and larger drug doses. We call this “increased tolerance.” After some time – often a surprisingly short time – tolerance is so high that the individual is using at a level that could have been fatal at the beginning.

Conversely, though, when people stop using drug, the tolerance starts to drop. Because abstinence from the drug once again becomes the new normal, the body “forgets” the adaptation it had previously learned. The adaption is reversed and tolerance decreases.

What happens when someone decides, once and for all (we hope) to stop using a drug? They do whatever they need to do to stop using – detox, rehab, 12-step, “cold turkey”- and, as thousands of mourning families have sobbed, they are “doing so well!” Sadly, although the drug may have left the body, the disease has not left the mind.

Whatever the reason for going into recovery, relapse can happen, and here is where the issue of tolerance becomes a very ugly topic. During the time of abstinence, the tolerance has headed back toward what, prior to use, was normal. Unfortunately, the individual still remembers how much of the drug was last needed to achieve the desired effect, and is likely to take that as a guide. Very few users will add their recently reduced tolerance into the calculation. If relapse occurs, the quantity used is likely to be greater than the newly reduced tolerance can handle. The result is an overdose, which may or may not be fatal.

I have talked with many addicts in recovery about this, and asked if they had ever been told of the dangers of reduced tolerance when relapsing. Not one has ever said that they were educated on this topic.

As a former addictions counselor I know that relapse issues are covered in addiction treatment – usually very thoroughly. My concern is that many addiction counselors are reluctant to talk about this particular aspect because it involves “safe relapse.” They don’t want to sound as though relapse is okay. It is very like the parental dilemma of discussing safe sex with their offspring.

“Am I giving them permission to go ahead and do it?”

“I don’t want them to think it is okay just because I’ve talked about staying safe.”

I’ve faced those decisions both as a parent and as an addictions counselor. How does one give guidance that makes a potentially harmful act safer without making it sound as though it is okay? In the case of addiction, because withholding information has the potential for death, in my opinion there is no choice.

The issue of tolerance, and how both active addiction AND newly achieved abstinence can affect it, need to be an essential part of every form of drug education both in addiction treatment facilities AND on the street. Information about reduced tolerance can save lives.

Please, if you know anyone who may be in danger of relapse (which means anyone in recovery), make sure that they know that their recovery, which is a wonderful thing, has reduced their tolerance. If they believe they HAVE to relapse, they must do it at the level of a beginner if they are to stay alive.

« Previous Page