What’s Going On in Our Heads?

Observing Mindfulness, Scientific Encounters

We’re in a resting state when we’re not performing a task, when the brain is “at ease, sir”, doing its thing in the default mode. Hurlburt and colleagues just published a paper comparing “resting state” in two conditions: in an MRI scanner and the natural environment of the subjects.  They found that resting states have five characteristics: inner seeing (visual images), inner speaking, sensory awareness, feelings (i.e., emotions), and unsymbolized thinking (wordless, imageless, but there doing something – like wondering or questioning or realizing – but without words).

In this study, the five subjects were beeped at random times to provide immediate reports of their experience. The frequency of rest=state experiences varied according to the environment. Across subjects, inner seeing occurred more often in the scanner than in natural environments (4 of 5 subjects), as did inner speaking (5 of 5), and unsymbolized thinking (5 of 5). Sensory awareness (3 of 5) and feelings (5 of 5) occurred more in natural environments than in the scanner.

The average amount of time spent in different types of resting-state experiences also varied according to environment. In natural environments, sensory awareness (mean: 65.6%) and Feelings (mean: 29.4%) were experienced more often than Inner Speaking (mean: 18.2%). In the scanner, Inner Speaking was more common than Feelings: mean of 29.0%, compared to 8.4%. (Note: percentages do not add to 100 because experiences can have more than one characteristic.)

The authors also found substantial individual differences in resting-state experience across their subjects. For example, between subjects, the resting-state frequency of sensory awareness ranged from 19 to 78%; inner seeing ranged from 19 to 67%; and, inner speaking ranged from 14 to 53%. Hurlburt et al found similarly wide ranges in the natural environment. However, there was substantial within-subject consistency: each subject’s experiential frequencies in the natural environment were similar in the scanner.

Interestingly, most of the subjects’ resting-state experiences were not verbal nor did they involve planning for the future – regardless of environment (scanner or natural).

Reference:

What goes on in the resting-state? A qualitative glimpse into resting-state experience in the scanner Hurlburt, R. T., Alderson-Day, B., Fernyhough, C.s and Kühn, S. Frontiers in Psychology www.frontiersin.org October 2015 Volume6 Article1535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01535

Having Our Cake and Eating It Too: Economic Growth and Protecting the Environment

The Environment

Hope springs eternal, especially the having your cake and eating it too variety. One example is the idea of increasing environmental protection without sacrificing economic growth. Can it be done? Hardcore environmentalists tend to say no, economic activity is the main way humans hurt the environment. Producing, consuming and transportation all have environmental costs and so they clearly have to be cut back. Humans will have to learn to make do with much less.

Others point out that there is no necessary relationship between economic transactions and environmental effects. The amount of material and energy required to serve an economic function – make a widget, grow tomatoes, run a restaurant – isn’t set. Increasing efficiency allows us to make more and do more with less. Dematerialization has been accelerating in advanced economies for some time. For instance, over the past 40 years the amount of physical material required to meet the needs of Americans has been falling although the population keeps increasing (Bailey 2001). And many countries have seen a decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth. For instance, over the period of 1990-2013, Sweden’s GDP grew 58% while CO2 emissions have decreased 23%.

However, what may be true for advanced economies may be less so for developing countries. The road to development requires high economic growth, which necessarily requires significant increases in material and energy use. Since most people live in developing countries, some argue that reductions in material and energy usage in developed countries would be overwhelmed by increases in the rest of the world.

This was exactly the point in a recent study on development (Steinberger et al, 2013), where the authors conclude there is no empirical evidence for decarbonization or dematerialization in developing countries as they achieve higher economic growth rates or incomes. The authors suggest we shift away from “industry development as usual” and embrace green pathways to economic growth or even de-prioritize economic growth in favor of other sources of human well-being. They see the challenge for economic policy being to curb consumption while preserving and enhancing living standards. Unfortunately, they provide no concrete suggestions on how to actually accomplish this. So that will be my project for the next several posts.

References:

Bailey, Ronald (September 5, 2001). “Dematerializing the Economy”. reason.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Andersson Magdalena and Lövin, Isabella (May22,2015) Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible. The World Bank. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Steinberger, Julia K. Krausmann, Fridolin, Getzner, Michael, Schandl, Heinz and West, Jim Development and Dematerialization: An International Study PLoS One. 2013; 8(10): e70385.Published online 2013 Oct 21. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0070385 PMCID: PMC3804739

Disentangling Poverty, Social Mobility, Wage Stagnation, and Inequality – Part IV: Poverty and the Basic Income Guarantee

Politics and Economics

So how are we going to pay for my Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) – enough to meet basic housing, transportation and clothing needs of the resourceful and capable, allowing that some people (the less resourceful and capable or the just plain unlucky) will still need help and for whom other services and benefits will still be available. As discussed in the previous post, SNAP and Medicaid would continue taking care of food and healthcare for the poor.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in fiscal year 2014, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion, of which over $3.0 trillion was financed by federal revenues and the remaining financed by borrowing. BIG would be funded through the portion of government budgets devoted to safety net programs (about 11% of the federal budget, with states contributing matching funds). Let’s see if we can cobble together a decent BIG budget through the elimination of the programs that BIG would replace, plus selective reductions in other programs.

BIG would replace many of the big ticket programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income. Per Federal Safety Net, TANF, EITC, and SSI cost about $150 billion annually. Move $150 billion to the BIG budget.

Social Security Disability Benefits are financed primarily by a portion of the Social Security payroll tax and totaled about $141 billion in 2014 (about 4% of the federal budget- SS Survivors and Old Age benefits are another 20% of the budget). We’re going to half the SSDI budget and payments, because SSDI recipients would also receive a BIG. That provides another $70 billion for the BIG budget. [For now I’m leaving the rest of Social Security alone].

In the last decade, the combined federal/state budget for unemployment benefits has ranged from $50-$150 billion a year, depending on the unemployment rate and allowed duration of the benefit. We’ll assume an annual average of $100 billion and move it to the BIG budget.

The Housing and Urban Development budget is about $50 billion. I’m going to take half of that and give it to BIG, The balance could go to rental assistance to the neediest families. (Note: as it is, almost all rental assistance goes to households with children or elderly residents).

Most other means-tested safety net programs would stay in place, such as SNAP (food stamps), Pell grants, child tax credit, school lunches, and childcare assistance. I’m leaving in SNAP because it is an efficiently managed program with already low overhead and is especially important to child nutrition. However, because BIG counts as income, the budget for some of these other programs will go down if a substantial number of people receive BIG (because they will qualify for lower/fewer benefits due to higher income). I’ll estimate these programs will get about 10% smaller, freeing up another $25 billion for the BIG budget.

In addition, some federal programs would be eliminated to reduce agency overlap and duplication of services, a pervasive problem according to the US Government Accountability Office. Let’s say elimination of these unneeded programs saves $25 billion. Those funds can be applied to BIG.

The states also contribute matching funds to many of the federal welfare programs. A portion of these funds – $150 billion – will go into the BIG budget.

Ok, based on the above, this is what we have to pay for the BIG:

$150b – existing safety net programs that will be replaced by BIG

$150b – state matching funds related to the above

$ 70 b – half of SSDI funds

$ 25b – half of the HUD budget

$ 25b – budget reductions in some remaining programs

$ 25b – elimination of redundant programs

$100b – unemployment compensation, to be replaced by BIG

So we have about $545 billion to pay for a BIG. It’s a start.

Let’s hear it for accepting that we’re flawed – each and every one of us!

Explorations Outside the Box

Let’s hear it for accepting that we’re flawed – each and every one of us!

Years ago I went to a meeting. People were talking about moments of feeling bad about themselves. When recounting these episodes, there was this pained look on their faces, as if the experience of being self-critical was a type of suffering, for which they required years of therapy. I kept on thinking: Oh, pleeeease!

Feeling guilt or shame or regret can very well be a good thing. We don’t need to find ways to disown these feelings, whether by countering them with positive self-talk, declaring they are irrational, or by “observing” them as “just thoughts”. We could all use a little guilt, shame, regret, sadness, alarm, and trepidation about our bad behavior. While I do think it’s a waste of time to bemoan what goes on in our heads (confession: I have murdered many an enemy, or at least made them beg for mercy, in my neural wanderings), all these unpleasant emotions help keep us in line and society humming productively.

We are mammals. We are primates. Watch NatGeo for a better idea of what we are.

That sinking feeling about what we’ve just done or said bolsters our resolve to be better next time.

 

 

 

 

Blessing/Curse: Human Nature

Explorations Outside the Box

After reading The Orphan Master’s Son and The Garden of Evening Mists, both including sections on life in prison camps, I am again appreciating how much evil we humans are capable of. This makes me more grateful to the authors than despairing of humanity. If only more people were aware of their dark potential, the world would truly be a better place.

Accepting that all of us are inherently flawed would make it harder to dismiss or dehumanize anyone in particular. It would also make it harder to believe in utopian ideologies, which bring out the worst in our species. Instead, appreciating the depths of which each of us is capable would bring some humility to our collective endeavors, increasing mutual trust and effectiveness.

To acknowledge the complexity of our nature doesn’t have to lead to self-loathing. We don’t need to believe in our essential goodness to be happy. We can still strive to do good without having to be good.

References:

The Orphan Master’s Son by Adam Johnson; Random House 2012.

The Garden of Evening Mists byTan Twan Eng; Weinstein Books 2012.

Should a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) replace Safety Net Programs?

Politics and Economics

Short answer: no. There is no way a reasonable Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), be it $700 a month or $1500 a month, would eliminate poverty. For one thing, there will always be people who are bad with money, whose budgeting skills leave much to be desired – the net result being their checks run out before the basic necessities are provided for, even if they had even money to begin with. For example, there are about 3 million Social Security beneficiaries who have “Representative Payees” because they can’t manage their own money. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg, since these are only the SS recipients for whom help is requested. In addition, plenty of SSDI, SSI, and TANF beneficiaries manage money poorly, not surprising, given the prevalence of mental disorders within their ranks. (See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439371 and http://dps.sagepub.com/content/18/3/148.abstract).

Bottom line: there will still be a need for social support services for a substantial number of people whose problems will not be solved by a regular basic income. There will still be homeless alcoholics and drug addicts; mentally ill folks will still get kicked out of their places; single moms will still be abandoned by their mates and find themselves suddenly unable to pay the rent. People will lose their jobs or their health and not have the funds to keep their homes. Sure, a BIG will help soften the blows and arrows of outrageous fortune – but bad stuff will keep happening and plenty of us will still need additional help to get through the tough times.

So it is unrealistic to completely eliminate the social safety net, to be replaced by a BIG, with the entire safety net budget transferred to support BIG (as some advocate). Unless, of course, one takes the hard-nosed attitude that once everyone is guaranteed a basic income, the government washes its hands of them, hard-luck cases be damned. That’s not my position.

Climate Change and How Not to Galvanize the Public

The Environment

In “Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign”, Avner de-Shalit discusses the various ways environmentalists alienate potential supporters. The Second Commandment is my favorite: Always Use the Terminology of Despair. We see violation of this Commandment all the time in discourse about climate change: although the IPCC predictions run the gambit from manageable to catastrophic, climate activists focus on the worst-case scenarios. I imagine their rationale is to motivate people and governments to take more aggressive measures to deal with the threat. So we hear about agricultural collapse, mass famine, global warfare, and possibly even the extinction of the human race.

And yet the masses haven’t gotten with the program. Per a recent Pew Research survey, just 42% of Europeans and Americans are “very concerned” about climate change. Several countries have actually seen a decline in the perception that climate change is a “very serious” problem. In China, for instance, the percentage of people polled who consider climate change to be a very serious problem dropped from 41% in 2010 to 18% in 2015.

How could this be happening? It’s not all that mysterious. As de-Shalit puts it, “…people generally react in a very basic way to the threat of dire consequences and horrific scenarios. They simply repress and doubt what they hear – a common strategy when faced with alarming prognostications. Thus while environmentalists try to force an impression on the general public with their somewhat exaggerated predictions, the eventual outcome is counter-productive: many people simply disbelieve, do not want to believe, or even refuse to listen.”

All this reminds me of a study about people who had seen the climate change disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow. Although the film was clearly marketed as fictional and not a scientific treatise, some environmentalists hoped the vivid images in the movie might galvanize the public to increase pressure on their governments to do more about climate change. Instead, the researchers found that viewers’ “belief in the likelihood of extreme events as a result of climate change was actually reduced.”

So there you have it.

References:

“Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign”; Environmental Politics Volume 10, Issue 1, 2001 by Avner de-Shalit, Associate Fellow Oxford Centre for Environment, Ethics and Society, Mansfield College, Oxford

“Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change” Lowe et al   Public Understanding of Science Public Understanding of Science October 2006 vol. 15 no. 4 435-457

 

Thoughts as Words/Images and Thoughts as Something Else

Scientific Encounters

“The word thinking is arguably the most problematic word in the exploration of pristine experience.” (Hurlburt and Heavey, 2015, p. 151).

University of Nevada Las Vegas psychologist Russell T. Hurlburt and his colleagues have been engaging in a series of studies involving beeping subjects randomly to have them jot down whatever they are experiencing at the moment of being beeped. This procedure has revealed five common features of everyday inner experience: inner speech, inner seeing, feelings, sensory awareness, and “feature 5.” Feature 5 is hard to describe. It’s as if the concept of feature 5 doesn’t fit with our understanding of inner experience – even though we may all experience this feature. So what is feature 5? It’s something Hurlburt calls “unsymbolized thinking”, which he describes as follows:

“Unsymbolized thinking is the experience of an explicit, differentiated thought that does not include the experience of words, images, or any other symbols. For example, if you had been beeped a moment ago, you might have experienced an unsymbolized thought which, if expressed in words, might have been something like I wonder what Feature 5 is. But if this was an unsymbolized thought, there would have been no experienced words–no experience of the word ‘wonder’ or of ‘Feature 5.’ There would have been no experienced images–no seeing of a beeper or of anything else.” – Russell T. Hurlburt Thinking Without Words https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201111/thinking-without-words accessed on 11/20/15 at 6;11pm

Not everyone agrees that unsymbolized thinking even exists. For some, this may be a matter of how thoughts are conceived: as verbally mediated mental processes (Shulman et al 1997). Others may be skeptical of the idea of unsymbolized thinking because the act of self-reflection in itself produces verbal versions of experiences that may not have originally involved words or other symbols. Poor research design may also contribute to the misimpression of thoughts as steeped in language. For instance, during experience sampling studies, how subjects are questioned about their experiences may bias their response, such as if asked what they were just “thinking” (Hurlburt et al 2015. It would be better for researchers to just ask what the subjects had been experiencing.

There are cognitive spaces between the words and images. These spaces aren’t empty, but unless their content is converted into a form that can be maintained in working memory, they will likely be forgotten in a matter of seconds. We tend to remember what we have reported to ourselves, which requires our experience be in reportable form – and for the most part, that means in words and images.

References:

What goes on in the resting-state? A qualitative glimpse into resting-state experience in the scanner Hurlburt, R. T., Alderson-Day, B., Fernyhough, C.s and Kühn, S. Frontiers in Psychology www.frontiersin.org October 2015 Volume6 Article1535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01535

Hurlburt, R. T., and Heavey, C. L. (2015).Investigating pristine inner experience: implications for experience sampling and questionnaires. Conscious.Cogn. 31, 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.002  

Shulman, G. L., Fiez, J. A., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., et al. (1997). Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex.

Thoughts and Thinking, Part III: Thoughts as Words and Images and as Something Else

Observing Mindfulness

“The word thinking is arguably the most problematic word in the exploration of pristine experience.” (Hurlburt and Heavey, 2015, p. 151).

University of Nevada Las Vegas psychologist Russell T. Hurlburt and his colleagues have been engaging in a series of studies involving beeping subjects randomly to have them jot down whatever they are experiencing at the moment of being beeped. This procedure has revealed five common features of everyday inner experience: inner speech, inner seeing, feelings, sensory awareness, and “feature 5.” Feature 5 is hard to describe. It’s as if the concept of feature 5 doesn’t fit with our understanding of inner experience – even though we may all experience this feature. So what is feature 5? It’s something Hurlburt calls “unsymbolized thinking”, which he describes as follows:

“Unsymbolized thinking is the experience of an explicit, differentiated thought that does not include the experience of words, images, or any other symbols. For example, if you had been beeped a moment ago, you might have experienced an unsymbolized thought which, if expressed in words, might have been something like I wonder what Feature 5 is. But if this was an unsymbolized thought, there would have been no experienced words–no experience of the word ‘wonder’ or of ‘Feature 5.’ There would have been no experienced images–no seeing of a beeper or of anything else.” – Russell T. Hurlburt Thinking Without Words https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201111/thinking-without-words accessed on 11/20/15 at 6;11pm

Not everyone agrees that unsymbolized thinking even exists. For some, this may be a matter of how thoughts are conceived: as verbally mediated mental processes (Shulman et al 1997). Others may be skeptical of the idea of unsymbolized thinking because the act of self-reflection in itself produces verbal versions of experiences that may not have originally involved words or other symbols. Poor research design may also contribute to the misimpression of thoughts as steeped in language. For instance, during experience sampling studies, how subjects are questioned about their experiences may bias their response, such as if asked what they were just “thinking” (Hurlburt et al 2015. It would be better for researchers to just ask what the subjects had been experiencing.

There are cognitive spaces between the words and images. These spaces aren’t empty, but unless their content is converted into a form that can be maintained in working memory, they will likely be forgotten in a matter of seconds. We tend to remember what we have reported to ourselves, which requires our experience be in reportable form – and for the most part, that means in words and images.

References:

What goes on in the resting-state? A qualitative glimpse into resting-state experience in the scanner Hurlburt, R. T., Alderson-Day, B., Fernyhough, C.s and Kühn, S. Frontiers in Psychology www.frontiersin.org October 2015 Volume6 Article1535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01535

Hurlburt, R. T., and Heavey, C. L. (2015).Investigating pristine inner experience: implications for experience sampling and questionnaires. Conscious.Cogn. 31, 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.002  

Shulman, G. L., Fiez, J. A., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., et al. (1997). Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex.

Thoughts and Thinking, Part II: Observing Thoughts

Observing Mindfulness

None of this is to deny the usefulness of cultivating the ability to view thoughts (and feelings, etc.) as “events in the field of awareness”, as Kabat-Zinn puts it in Full Catastrophe Living (Kindle p 5102). This is not the same as fighting or trying to push away thoughts. It’s just watching them, letting them be – but at the same time not engaging or elaborating. The end result is that they will likely dissipate, like fluffy little clouds. This can be an effective technique when challenged by unproductive thought patterns and persistent low mood.

But if you’re a believer, mindfulness is not only about techniques; it’s about a way of being. Cultivating a kind of watchful, disengaged awareness isn’t just for special occasions, like when we’re feeling sad or angry; it’s for all our waking hours, regardless of mood or thought content. As Kabat-Zinn puts it:

“Mindfulness is cultivated by paying close attention to your moment-to-moment experience while, as best you can, not getting caught up in your ideas and opinions, likes and dislikes… the constant stream of judging and reacting…” (1184)

Mindfulness practitioners do talk about being with, or staying with, our thoughts and feelings, observing them but not suppressing them. But to observe is still to keep a distance. Observing requires attentional resources that otherwise would be tapped by other cognitive processes, such as that thing we call “thinking.” Attention is a miser – it doesn’t share. You cannot observe a thought while that thought plays itself out. Observing isn’t watching the unfolding – it is disrupting the unfolding. Observing is the after-thought remembering of a thought-fragment while it is still fresh. Observing detaches the fragment from its trajectory.

This type of detachment can be a problem if you consider ideas, opinions, likes, dislikes, reactions, and judgments as things that can be profitable to get “caught up” in. That they are devalued in the mindfulness world is partly a product of a religious ideology in which suffering and the role of desire in suffering are pivotal. I’ll take up suffering and desire later, but for now I am going to assert that thoughts (ideas, etc) may or may not be worth engaging. And what do I mean by “engaging”?

To observe is not to engage. To engage is a four-step dance: yielding, pulling back, reflecting, and then jumping back in. Part of this dance is to be overpowered and to disappear within the interplay of thoughts and the rest, where distance is not respected and thoughts are not resisted. To engage involves controlled processing alternating with automatic processing. Intention with reaction. Engagement allows deeper processing of thoughts and feelings. Some observation, some reflection, some wallowing in the muck.

(This is all very difficult to discuss without an implied homunculus doing the engaging. It may be impossible to discuss engagement without making it seem like an act of will.)

Of course, engagement is not all. There is also stepping back – disengagement. Disengagement is also a good thing. Often we switch from the stream of thoughts to a moment of stillness. We may hit pause, then replay. Or the flow stops for a moment and we hear the echo what just came before. The echo may be so close in time that it seems like we are concurrently observing thoughts “as they unfold”.

To observe thoughts is not the same as listening to them. Listening is an invitation to continue. To listen is to encourage. Listening is not being a disinterested observer. Listening involves respect. Listening involves giving the benefit of the doubt. Listening means you’re not controlling the conversation, at least, not while you’re in listening mode. After a while, you might decide enough is enough. Or others enter your field of awareness and you start listening to them instead.

Can you speak and listen to yourself speak at exactly the same time? By “listening” I mean making sense of the words, not just hearing the words as sounds. Listening is not a passive process; it is active meaning-making. You have to yield to thoughts to listen to them – you have to surrender to them. This means they may take you places you’d rather not go or which make you feel worse for the wear. Is that so bad? Sometimes, yes. Often, no.