The short answer: NO.

The slightly longer answer: YES.

Once upon a time (late nineteenth century) it was discovered that barbiturates have interesting medical effects. After a while they started to be prescribed for anxiety and insomnia. Fifty years later it dawned on people that not only was it easy to overdose, but also they were addictive. Let’s put that another way: they had been freely prescribed but were dangerous. Enter the saviour of everyone on barbiturates: the benzodiazepines. Not heard of them? Try some of the types: diazepam (aka Valium, Pax, Apzepam, Stesolid, Vival, Apozepam, Hexalid, Stedon, Valaxona), lorazepam (Ativan, Temesta, Tavor, Lorabenz). I’ve picked those two because they’re the ones I know for certain I’ve used. If you would like the full list try here.

In the seventies as part of my treatment for depression I was prescribed a tranquillizer – no idea which one. I was assured it was completely safe and not addictive. It made me feel a great deal better and made it far easier to sleep. Fantastic. The new wonder drug.

Then I tried to stop taking it and weird things happened. I felt strange, depressed, had major panic attacks, couldn’t sleep. It was unpleasant. So I kept taking the tablets and went back to my family doctor.

“I’m addicted.”

“No you’re not. The clinical research quite clearly shows that tranquillizers are not addictive. You’re imagining it.”

I tried another doctor. Then another. Then a psychiatrist. They all told me the same thing. I was deluded. Well thanks, I’m suffering chronic depression and you help me by saying I’m deluded.

Why did so many doctors refuse to listen to their patients? It doesn’t make sense. All clinical trials are limited in what they can say. All have limitations. I wrote about some aspects of this in my last post. Even now, with medical training much improved, I am meeting medical professionals who are far too trusting of summaries of clinical trials.

Hey guys, the biggest clinical trial of all is when doctors start prescribing the medicine to the rest of us. Only then does the full story ever come out! One month in the early eighties I was put on a new antidepressant which made me feel better than I could ever have imagined. The psychiatrist phoned me and said stop taking them at once. I argued. He said they had been withdrawn on safety grounds. I said I don’t care, they work. He said best to stop now because people were being killed by them. And clinical trials had missed it.

Back to tranx.

Come 1981 I saw a new psychiatrist. It helps when you move towns – they have to reallocate you. He looked up from my medical notes and said, “I see you’re taking a tranquillizer. Did you know they’re addictive?”

I didn’t hug him, but it was a close thing.

As I understand it all the original trials on tranquillizers had been conducted by drug companies. They have a financial incentive to find new medicines are safe. Did that influence the nature of the research? I don’t know. But when they came to test for potential addictive properties they used a strict medical definition of addiction which was then current.

Now to you and me we’re addicted if we can’t stop without experiencing unpleasant side effects. It’s that simple.

In the seventies addiction had to be physiological. There had to be a physiological problem which cropped up when you tried to withdraw.

Now heroin is addictive in those terms. I understand that coming off it involves cold turkey which feels like a fortnight of raging flu. That’s kind of a nice form of addiction because you grit your teeth, it hurts for a while, and then you’re okay. Although of course heroin addicts rarely get off that lightly because there are other factors.

Some people – perhaps increasing numbers, particularly of young people – are cutting themselves to feel better. To me it doesn’t make sense. To them it does. Now clearly cutting yourself cannot be addictive, but it is. When it is repeated as a means of coping it starts to include the production of opium-like substances in the brain. If you delay the actual cutting this deadens the physical pain, and of course also makes you feel better. But these chemicals are addictive. You may not be swallowing or injecting them, but you are causing your body to create them. Would this have been classified as addiction in the seventies? Probably not. In those days addiction was a physical dependence on a drug. You could not in those days become addicted to playing computer games – not that there were any till late in the decade. Now you can.

Tranquillizers are not physically dependent. What finally dawned on those medics sufficiently well educated to listen and observe was that patients were becoming seriously dependent on them in some other way. I’ve been told that trying to come off them causes the very problems they were being taken for in the first place. My own experience suggests it’s not the simple, but that is a fair guideline.

So what is the difference in feeling between the two types of addiction? Let’s compare two drugs I’ve been to some extent addicted to: alcohol and tranquillizer.

I finally came off tranquillizers a couple of months ago after thirty five years of addiction and a number of failed attempts to stop. I no longer experience withdrawal effects from the tranquillizer. I rarely have any wish to take them. Three times since stopping I’ve had a fraction of a tablet to help me sleep, but I’ll be discussing that with the doctor soon. Taking some again was nothing special. It helped me sleep, left me feeling dopey the next day, and that was it.

Some years ago I stopped drinking alcohol. Completely. I was becoming addicted with weekly intake gradually rising and already over health limit. For months, perhaps a year, I longed for alcohol every day. I didn’t care what sort of drink just so long as it had alcohol in it. Even now I sometimes catch the aroma of someone’s glass of beer or wine and want to grab it from them. That’s pretty spooky. Even more frightening is that twice at social functions I’ve been persuaded to take just a sip of alcohol; after all, what harm can that do? In both cases the alcohol hit the sensors in my mouth like a sledge hammer. Something flashed through my entire body, a feeling of joyful recognition. For several minutes I had to fight the desire to drink more. This was nothing like having another tranquillizer. Alcohol is physically addictive. Once addicted you are never free. If you go back to using it the addiction returns worse than before, as if you’d never stopped.

Medical note on barbiturates and benzodiazepines

Both these types of medication continue to be prescribed effectively for specific patients. They can be of great value, but they are used with great care. Do not be scared of them if your doctor suggests their use. The doctor will ensure you only use them in safe ways and do not become addicted.

Share on Facebook

I'm not very bright, but I'm cute and I love you.

This is a question many people ask themselves, and sadly the answer can feel devastating. In the last twenty four hours I’ve encountered a couple of items which give a strikingly fresh perspective on this.

Was Franco intelligent?

We recently caught a TV program about the Spanish civil war. It was interesting, and highlighted my ignorance on the matter. I knew it happened in Spain (obviously) during that odd period of unrest and depression between the two world wars. I knew the winners were led by a guy called Franco. And that was it. So I borrowed a couple of books from the library.

The Nationalists were battling the Monarchists. Each group was made up of a pretty mixed bunch of people who spent a lot of time and effort disagreeing with each other rather than cooperating to win the war. A key difference was that the Nationalists were led by Franco, yet oddly he is described as ‘not one of the century’s great intellects’ and characterised by the statement that ‘his head was a cemetery of dead ideas’.

So if the guy was so stupid how come he won? It seems a key factor was his ability to lead. He brought the bickering groups on his side together, enabled them to see that their differences were minor compared with what they had in common, and acted as a single figure head for his side. Now that kind of skill is rare. We could do with more of it in our schools, hospitals, businesses, political parties, even charity shops. Franco may have been what some people call ‘thick’, but there was at least one way in which he displayed awesome intelligence. I guess he just wouldn’t have passed many exams.

Is Lenny Henry intelligent?

Lenny is a successful and much loved comedian here in the UK. This morning on the radio he described how as a youngster he was troubled by not being able to do Maths. This made him feel totally useless. If you can’t do Maths, what can you do? Well quite a lot actually. He certainly did. Now if we were looking for someone to head up the astrophysics department Lenny’s would not be the first name to come to mind. But so what?

During the post grad year of training to be a teacher I wanted to do my dissertation on intelligence but was dissuaded. Intelligence, the man said, is far too difficult a topic for you. You’re not an expert trained in psychology.

Hmmm.

Looking back, this advice said more about the lecturer’s failure to sort ideas out in his own mind. At the level of a dissertation ‘intelligence’ could have been fascinating. Okay, so there’s a range of theories. To some extent these are just different ways of looking at things. Let’s consider one approach.

In 1983 Howard Gardner published his ground-breaking book “Frames of Mind”. I’ve got a copy in the attic. It’s not written as popular science, so you might prefer the summary here on Wikipedia. In outline he suggested that there is not just a single ‘intelligence’ thing as supposedly found using IQ tests. He identified seven different types of intelligence, each of great value. We’re all good at some, weak at others, and the mix is part of who we are. It influences what types of stuff we’re most likely to do well at.

Franco must have been very strong in interpersonal intelligence. He was good at dealing with people. He knew how to influence and motivate them.

Lenny Henry would also score high on this one, but also is good with bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence. Watch the way he uses his face and body and voice.

I could get hung up over finding it so hard to remember names and faces. But it’s rather more sensible to feel good about what I can do, and choose a direction based on the talent that is there.

Books quoted above

The first statement above about Franco is from “Aspects of European History 1789-1980″ by Stephen J. Lee (first published 1987).

The second is from “The Spanish Civil War” edited by A.Puzzo (published 1969).

Yes, I unearthed them in my old school library.

Share on Facebook

Wander at random or choose a direction?

This was a search question which brought someone here recently. It needs answering.

The obvious answer is that having clear goals helps us focus on what most needs our attention today if we are to make progress. Done right it will also boost motivation. Properly implemented it will guide how we set about some tasks, and how we prioritise. But there’s more to it than that. Sadly.

Who sets the target?

The targets we set for ourselves are likely to be far more effective than those imposed on us, especially if there is no consultation. This is partly because internal motivation is more powerful than external (see here), and partly because effective goals are personal and match the person involved. You need to have ownership of your goals. They need to fit who you are.

The trouble is other people may have so poor an understanding of how goals work that they set them for you badly or for the wrong reasons.

What is it intended to achieve?

Our UK government sets targets for people because it thinks this is a good idea, and I guess because it thinks this makes them look more dynamic. I sometimes wonder what the individuals responsible think they’re doing. Government targets often seem to have been set by rolling dice, and too often include no plan for how to achieve them.

A friend’s son enjoys running pubs, and soon had one brewery’s targets system figured out. He would take over a failing pub and in the first year reach his imposed sales targets easily. The targets were then raised. Presumably their purpose is to motivate, but without costing the brewery too much. The second year he would reach the harder targets. Then he would move on because targets for the third year would be unreasonable. He could put in a lot of extra work and skill and yet still not get his bonus. His employer wants to motivate by offering a reward for good work. That’s sensible. Unfortunately it misunderstands the psychology of effective targets.

And then there’s the target which is proudly set to impress people and postpone the nagging. Again our government here in the UK, and I suspect all governments, are experienced. “You want this done?” they say to us, “You’re right, it must become a high priority. We will make sure it is sorted by [randomly selected future year]. Aren’t we great!” Trouble is  they then shove their target off on other people who may have neither the skills nor the resources to achieve it. Come [randomly selected future year] the media point out that the target is not met, so a later date is set. It seems that rarely do politicians setting targets follow through by ensuring the right people have the right resources and a workable plan to follow through on the promise.

The best targets are set by ourselves because there is something worthwhile we can achieve if we really put our mind to it.

This article is #9 in the effective goal-setting series. The first in the series is here.

Yes, of course the photo was taken on the North York Moors.

Share on Facebook

"Shut up. Please just shut up! I know I keep failing. I feel bad enough already. Soon I won't care if I never improve."

On Pink Floyd’s The Wall there’s a take-off teacher shouting “Wrong, do it again. Wrong, do it again. Wrong….”. Well thank you, bad teacher.

Maybe he leant over your shoulder, gouged a big red cross into the page, and barked into your ear. Or he could have flung your exercise book at you a month after you handed the work in. In the first case at least the feedback is quick. In the second it has no redeeming features.

There’s a psychological state called flow in which we achieve a great deal. Time slows down dramatically. Your focus is a laser beam of intensity. You live from instant to instant with barely any thought of past or future. You never want to stop. Someone calls you to a meal and you don’t even answer. You’re in the flow.

Surgeon’s get it when operating. Sometimes I get it when writing. The best computer games are designed to cause it. Something that is key to achieving it is good feedback. Next time you find yourself in this state just become aware of what kinds of feedback you’re getting.

Here are some key factors:

Good feedback is prompt

Ever been staying away from home and had trouble getting the shower temperature right? It’s too cold, so you turn it up. Nothing happens so you turn it up more. Suddenly it’s scalding so you wham it back down. By now you’re getting annoyed.

Imagine having a guitar or driving lesson. The instructor spends half an hour just telling you what to do next, but fails to tell you which bits were good or bad till the very end. Then he says, “Okay, about two minutes in you did this, which was bad.” Well thank you. That was timely.

When you’re learning new stuff try to get feedback on how good it is, what’s working and what needs modifying, as soon as possible. It’s more helpful when it’s quick. It’s more encouraging.

And if you’re a teacher, a key part of your role is encouragement.

Good feedback is accurate

 Imagine a computer game that kept indicating you were doing really well, and then suddenly announced you’d failed. Not a game anyone would play twice.

As a writer I have difficulty obtaining genuine feedback. People don’t like to criticise. Trouble is if I don’t find out what’s wrong with my writing I can’t improve.

If you’re learning a skill such as high-jumping you need a good coach to observe you in practice, someone who will accurately identify what you’re getting right and what needs to be modified.

Good feedback is genuine

Some parents and teachers are forever complimenting their charges irrespective of how well something has been done. I’m sorry, but if I’ve done something well below what I’m capable of I do not want you saying, “Well done, that was fantastic. You’re doing really well.” I’d rather you said nothing till it improves. This doesn’t rule out saying, “That was good. Now here’s something you could try to make it even better.” Of course the younger someone is the more compliments they need for each piece of constructive criticism.

Everyone does some things well. No matter who you are dealing with, look for something you can genuinely compliment them on and you’ll find it. Genuine praise can be extraordinarily powerful, especially if it is unexpected. It shows you respect and care for the other person as a unique individual of value.

Good feedback is clear

I used to get students to write an assessment of their own performance in Maths, and at the end they were invited to comment on my teaching. The instructions went something like this: “You’re not allowed to write that my teaching is bad. You are very welcome to say that my teaching is bad because… and then tell me what it is I need to do to improve.”

Playing a chord on the guitar often requires that only some of the six strings be played. If you hit a wrong string the result is a dischord. When learning you need more than just hearing you’ve played the chord badly. You need to know which string you played by mistake.

Good feedback is reasonably frequent

Playing computer games, operating as a surgeon and climbing rock faces involve almost non-stop feedback. That’s one reason the activities can be so gripping.

People often feel nervous trying questions on a new Maths topic. They’re scared of being wrong. Fortunately text books for older students include answers at the back. I used to encourage students to check each homework answer as soon as they completed it. “Keep a bookmark in the answers page.” I’d also suggest that if they were getting a particular type of question wrong and couldn’t figure out what their error they should write this down and stop. Then they could have another go once someone had identified the problem for them. “I would rather you spent the whole time getting one question right than doing them all wrong. Please do not practise working incorrectly unless that’s what you want to become better at!” Even so many would still finish the exercise before checking anything.

Good feedback is constructive

 We need to identify our mistakes if we are to make progress. What we need like an extra hole in the head is someone just being critical. What I want to hear is how to improve. People I give feedback to need the same. Criticism without guidance how to move forwards rapidly becomes depressing; soon you give up altogether.

Good feedback praises the good as well as identifying the bad

We need balance. Feedback which is only ever constructively critical soon wears thin. We’re all human. We also need to be complimented on the good stuff.

In the early stages of learning something new it’s wise to focus on what is good, and from the bad pick just one item to improve. Take pleasure in how that improves, and in what is already good. Chill about other stuff till you’re ready.

Good feedback is unpredictable and becomes less frequent

The technical term for this aspect of feedback is positive reinforcement. One reason national lotteries are so addictive is that they offer infrequent, unpredictable, small prizes. Perhaps you win £10, and then a few months later win another £20. No matter you’ve gambled several hundred pounds, the positive feedback is powerful. If you won something every week, or knew you’d win once a month, motivation would drop.

Some of the above helps when seeking feedback. All of it can improve how we give feedback if you want it to.

If you liked this post and would like to see more stuff like it please let me know by clicking the Thank You button just below.

This article is #6 in the effective goal-setting series.

Share on Facebook

Uses for a Maths teacher # 4 : to enable deep and restful sleep

I used to have a poster on the wall of my teaching room. In the cartoon above Miriam shortened it to just three words. We’ll leave circles don’t exist for another time and place. How about make more mistakes?

Think of something you’d like to get better at. Maybe its one of these: playing guitar, acting, running, oil painting, writing, chatting in French, using Maths, feeling relaxed socially….

Let’s use writing as an example. Writers write. To get better at writing you have to write. That’s one reason for this blog. Some articles are good (I hope), some okay, and some pathetic. Working at something will always produce mistakes. Some of the output will be poor, perhaps embarrassingly bad. And that’s not just inevitable, it’s fine. Provided you can handle failure as part of the scenery on the route to success. I look back at some of the newspaper articles I wrote in the 70s and cringe. How did they ever get published?

You want to paint. Actually you want to be a great painter. You want people to gaze at your latest work in awe and offer you incredible sums of money for it. To be honest you want your very first painting to be like that, but it won’t be. You just don’t have the knowledge or skill yet. And as you progress there will always be new things to learn, and they need to be learned by doing. To learn how to paint well you have to produce imperfect paintings.

As well as music by The Kaiser Chiefs, Ian Hunter and Jaco Pastorius I also listen to Beethoven. He’s considered to be one of the greatest composers of all time. Some of his work is incredible, some fairly run-of-the- mill. Sometimes he would put off composing anything new for ages, and only finally get down to work because he’d already received and spent what he was being paid to write it. And the person paying was getting kinda naggy. My guess is he was scared his next attempt would be a failure. What he needed was to stop fussing and just get started. Some of what he first wrote down will have been bad. It will have been junked and rewritten. If he hadn’t written the bad version first he’d never have got to the great stuff we know today.

I aim to publish something new here every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. This week Monday became Tuesday for the previous post, and I’m struggling with this Wednesday article on Thursday. I’ve been putting off writing it. What’s in my head doesn’t feel right. I can’t decide how much – or how little – to say. Do I split stuff across several posts? Which examples do I use? What order should it all be in? As I write this I’m solving the problem by just writing. Then I’ll print out this first draft, take a break, review and edit it, maybe throw the whole thing away and start again from scratch. (Actually I’ve kept most of it on the basis that I’m tired and second best is often good enough.)

In the previous post we looked at Thomas Edison’s attitude to failure, and how it brought success. When inventing the light bulb he figured out an approach that might work and tried it. Thousands of times he identified unhelpful approaches. Most people would say he failed repeatedly, but he kept going till he had the result he wanted.

One reason so many people think they can’t do Maths is that when the first approach they try using to solve a problem fails turns out to be unproductive they give up.

Most of us never get the level of success we could achieve because we are too easily discouraged by what we call ‘failure’. If only we could see this kind of failure as necessary. To succeed we have to fail often.

Of course there are provisos. Watch this space. In the meantime, provided you’re not my Doctor, make more mistakes.

This article is # 5 in the effective goal-setting series. The cartoon is copyright (c) Miriam Slechta 2009.

If you’d like more articles like this one please click the Thank you button just below.

Share on Facebook

We called him ‘Kim’ after Kipling’s character. His surname was ‘Warwick’ but I cannot remember his real first name.

He worked as a clerk in a bank, and took pleasure and pride in his work. Why was he never promoted? I don’t know. He may not have wanted promotion. Maybe he cared too much about people. Perhaps it was the reddish scarring blotched across much of his face. Those of us who knew him no longer noticed the scars, just the warm human being. As a family man he owned an unremarkable semi-detached house on the cheaper side of our Bristol suburb.

I first met him when I joined the Cubs – now called Cub Scouts. There was a waiting list. Mum had put my name down years earlier. Then, shortly before I was old enough, there was a programme on TV about Cubs and she rigged things so I watched it. Naturally I got excited and asked if I could be a Cub. It was to be a major part of forming who I am now, and it was to introduce me to Kim who was Group Scout Leader but very much involved in working where needed with Cubs and Scouts; it was a long time before I cottoned on that he was in overall charge. He was just there when needed, happy to do any kind of job, and he was one of the few adults we felt at ease chatting with.

He once described how the father of a Scout had rung up and asked if he would talk to the son who was getting out of control at home. Father brought the son round to Kim’s home and asked if he could sit in “to find out how you do it”. He was not allowed to, and it’s sad he didn’t realise that his presence would distort the chat. Kim didn’t talk at us, he listened and we would chat as equals.

We just soaked in the rays of the setting sun, at peace, friends, maybe chatting

One of my fondest memories of growing up was when I was a Patrol Leader at our Whitsun weekend camp somewhere just outside Bristol. We were a small troop, which reduced the range of activities on offer but I think made the experience more enjoyable. There were just three patrols. Our tents were perched along the top of a gentle stream valley. That evening I think we’d had a camp fire, quite a small one, built from dead branches found nearby and chopped to size. Part of Scouting in those days was learning how to use a hand-axe effectively and safely. The fire heated up a dixie of milk which later provided cocoa as we sang our favourite songs, stuff like “Oh you’ll never get to heaven with a fat girl guide” and “Have you ever been to Wales where they brew the finest ales”.

Later the younger Scouts headed off to bed and we patrol leaders stayed sitting on the ground round the fire with Kim watching the sun set. We will have chatted but I don’t know what about and it doesn’t matter. Here was a man we respected tremendously who was one of us and at the same time a real adult. He was quiet and unassuming. He was happy to serve but able to lead. He wasn’t perfect, but he helped us all grow up to be better people.

In the previous post I chatted about what most people seem to think success is all about, and how it tends to fail. I’d like to suggest that Kim Warwick was an example of true success. He wasn’t rich, but he earned enough to look after himself and his family and never ever indicated he wanted more. He wasn’t famous, except to the people whose lives he touched. He had a little bit of power being in charge of our Scouts and Cubs, but he saw it as a valued responsibility and an opprtunity to serve. To my knowledge never did he misuse his power.

Let me try to express what I think makes a person successful in life:

• They have learned to be content with where they are and what they have at any given moment. They’re not forever waiting for something better.
• They know what really matters in life, and they know it’s not money or fame or power or…
• They respect each person they come into contact with as a unique individual.
• They are valued team members who work with people. Often they’re well able to accept a leadership role when appropriate and fulfil that role well, but they don’t value power except as a tool to use in benefiting others.
• They are humble. They don’t see themselves as anything special, but they use the talents, abilities and experience they’ve got.
• They have real friends as opposed to lots of acquaintances. Often, depending on their role in life, there are hundreds or even thousands of people who have been blessed by their presence and who would drop whatever they’re doing to help that person if in need.
• They aren’t dependent on  the people round them or independent of everyone else, but interdependant. The help and are helped. They’re involved.

I don’t know many people like that, but am privileged to know and have known a few. To them, thank you so much for enriching our lives.

PS: have I missed anything significant from the list above? Oh, and to those of you who know him, yes of course Peter Jolly is another example.

This article is # 3 in the effective goal-setting series.

If you want more articles like this please click the Thank you button just below.

Share on Facebook

I’m going to be rich. But your parents are rich and they’re not happy. Ah, but I’m going to make far more money than my parents.

I’m going to be famous. For what? Does it matter?

I’m going to be a doctor. Why? You don’t like people and dissections in biology make you feel sick. Because that’s what my parents want me to be.

I’m going to become a life coach. Shouldn’t you do some living first?

I’m going to be Prime Minister. Is that so you can be the most powerful person in the country? Of course. And everyone else runs the country badly but I know how it should be done.

 And here’s the saddest thing: some of these young people grow up to achieve their dreams.

Later the fire would die down to glowing embers and we'd maybe chat while gazing at the sunset

 Recently I mentioned Jack Higgins who sold millions of thriller novels. I’m guessing he was successful in achieving what he set out to do. He found his dream. It did not satisfy.

I don’t think any of the goals listed above can on their own bring satisfaction.

You make your first million and then realise it doesn’t buy as much as you thought. You start to feel jealous of people with ten million, a hundred million, a billion. Research indicates there is almost no link between money and happiness. The exception is that it helps to have enough money to live without worrying about true necessities like food, clothing and shelter. In UK terms that’s maybe about £15,000 a year before tax. Probably less.

Joanne Harris, author of a string of best-selling novels including Chocolat, comments that when she started writing there was no shortage of people warning her about failure, but not one who helped prepare her for success. Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones comments that some people cannot handle fame; he says Mick Jones, an early band member, probably died young because of it. What is fame anyway? It’s the person behind you at the supermarket checkout ignoring you (the celebrity) and saying to someone else, “Hey, isn’t that <fill in name>”.

Some people become doctors because it is a respected and reasonably well-paid profession and that’s what their parents wanted. It can work out. If not then please please please can I have someone else treating me. There are teachers who chose the career because of long summer holidays. I don’t want them teaching my grandchildren thank you.

If we think of success in these traditional terms of fame, money, position, power, conquest, or an easy life then we also need to recognise that it includes the following:

• you’ll still catch colds and feel miserable,
• your top of the range SUV, BMW or Jag will still get stuck in traffic jams,
• it may prove very hard to make real friends and hold a loving marriage together,
• everything you looked forward to enjoying will probly turn out to be transient, and frustrating in its emptiness,
• later, unless you die early, you’ll get old and none of this stuff will matter anymore,
• one day you’ll die. What will they say at your funeral? Will anyone be there because they love you?

At which point you ask, hey, what’s the picture of a campfire got to do with success not working?

Actually it’s to do with what I think of as ‘real’ success. Tell you about it in the next post.

This article is # 2 in the effective goal-setting series.

If you’d like more articles like this one please click the Thank you button just below.

Share on Facebook

A book I plan to read

On 29 June 2008 three youths chased and killed 16 year-old Ben Kinsella in East London, UK. They were angry because Ben had supposedly shown ‘disrespect’ to one of them.

How can people who’ve often done little to justify respect be so sensitive to disrespect? The answer links with a some rather odd research findings from the last century, and brings into question one of our modern parenting and teaching policies.

Over the last sixty years in developed countries there’s been an increase in anxiety, depression and related mental disorders. I understand that teenage suicidal feelings and behaviour such as self-cutting have become more common.

Yet at the same time standard research into self-esteem has shown a dramatic ‘improvement’. See below for some details.

This prompted thoughtful investigation, and the upshot was the discovery that there are two types of people who do well on the original self-esteem tests. Here’s how Wilkinson and Pickett (see below) put it:

In one category, high self-esteem went with positive outcomes and was associated with happiness, confidence, being able to accept criticism, an ability to make friends, and so on.

This type of self-esteem is based on a fairly well-founded sense of confidence, a reasonably accurate view of your strengths in different situations, and an ability to recognise your weaknesses.

But there was another group who scored high self-esteem. They were people who showed tendencies to violence, to racism, who were insensitive to others and were bad at personal relationships.

This group of people are defensive, deny weakness in themselves, and seem to talk themselves up internally to a fragile state of high self-esteem. They show an excessive preoccupation with themselves, with success, and with their image.

This type of artificial self-esteem (now often called narcissism) is obviously dangerous and unwise, though very tempting to young people these days with unfair pressures from media and advertising. It’s also not surprising that when someone who copes with life solely by creating this fragile and false sense of worth finds it threatened they lash out and sometimes kill.

I’ve put this post in the ‘monochrome and blue’ category because self-esteem can be such an important factor with people who get depression. There’s a lot more to say.

Question to chew: are we encouraging the healthy type of self-esteem in our children, or might our methods be creating the destructive version?

Extra notes 1

Here are a couple of examples from the 2006 book ‘Generation Me’ by Joan M.Twenge, Ph.D. (cover shown above):

In the 1950s only 12% of teenagers (in the USA?) agreed with the statement ”I am an important person”. By the late 1980s this had risen to 80%.

Twenge has also shown that by 2006 two-thirds of American college students scored above the 1982 average narcissism score.

I haven’t read her book yet (I’m quoting from another book) but I intend to.

Extra notes 2

The quotes above are from the excellent 2009 book  ‘The Spirit Level’ by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. I’m not quite half way through but already it’s proved well worth the cost. I’ll review it when finished. Direct quotes from their book are in italics.

Here’s one of their many scatter graphs, reproduced with permission from their web site. Note that Italy is what I’d call a rogue value. It doesn’t fit the pattern, so should prompt further enquiry: was the research faulty in Italy, or is there some other factor in their country worth identifying?

One of the scatter graphs from Wilkinson and Pickett's excellent book 'The Spirit Level'

Share on Facebook

The Mansion House where we celebrated Ian's 50th birthday

Er, no. We’re far more likely to be attacked by someone who does not have schizophrenia. Obviously the media love to highlight the very rare case of a schizo person who just happens to also be temporarily a killer, but that sells papers. People who are potentially lethal when drunk aren’t such good news.

Soon you’ll be able to see a couple of short films at the cinema which put the true picture to you. The central actor is a genuine schizophrenic. There’s more info on the BBC website page here, but leave it till you’ve seen the films. Don’t want to spoil the endings.

We’ve a friend, Ian, who went down with Schiz towards the end of studying for a law degree. He was well on the way to becoming a barrister when it hit. Since then he’s not been able to do any job that is remotely demanding. He does not have a ‘split personality’ – that’s myth number 4. He copes with life okay with the help of medication, but has great difficulty experiencing emotions.

We were invited to his 50th birthday celebration at the Mansion House in Roundhay Park, Leeds. Naturally he is not rich so we thought we’d be meeting in the bar: he’d have laid on some sandwiches and we’d be buying our own drinks. Maybe two or three other people there, one of them his brother. Well, how many friends are you going to make when you’re a bit weird and seriously unemotional, and carry the schizo label?

He was not in the public bar.

The reception was in a private bar with a large function room next door. All drinks were free. Later we moved through to a lavish sit-down meal followed by speeches. There were at least seventy guests, all Ian’s friends, all keen to help him celebrate his birthday and to say how much the loved him. One friend had encouraged Ian to stage this event and had arranged and paid for it.

Magnificent.

Share on Facebook

Image of flu virus

It’s not possible to say exactly what these words mean. Different groups define them slightly differently. I’ve updated the WORDS page to include roughly what they’re on about. To get to the page click on the WORDS tab at the top of this page.

I’ve been browsing through stuff on the net trying to separate fact from informed guesswork from media inaccuracy about the current pandemic of swine flu. Expect me to post an article summarising the most interesting bits later today (or early tomorrow since a friend from Ghana is round for tea and I’m designated cook today). Two snippets in advance:

• the media are typically selective to the point of incompetence in how they summarise and present the data (maybe I should write an article on the reasons for this),
• the full data is reassuring, although we can expect some disruption.

The UK Health Protection Agency should be giving their weekly pandemic flu update and media briefing today (23 July 2009). As soon as possible after it’s available I’ll analyse it from the point of view of a mathematician living in the real world, and post my own summary with comments on my other blog.

If you hear me sneezing, chill. It’s just a cold. If I get swine flu the main concern is that I already have chronic bronchitis and mild asthma, but even so I’ll almost certainly survive. Sorry

Source: the flu virus picture used is image #8160 from the Public Health Image Library of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Share on Facebook