Wonder if life is passing you by?
I’m sure the title of this post will cause some people to avoid even clicking to read the rest of it, but I assure you, this is not an introspective post about how deep and profound I am. But, it is based on this common question, ‘is life passing you by?’
Consider, for a moment, metaphysics (deep pondering thoughts on the way shit works) and how it would view time. I’ll leave you philosophers who love this area have your say on all the theories and what not, that’s not the point. Just consider something like relativity, and how time seems constant or variable based on your very own perceptions.
Now that you have your own perceptions, I don’t think it would be hard to get you to admit those are perceptions generated by the brain as an interpretation of reality. And I mean very visceral perceptions, such as that bird over there or this computer right here or the color blue or the feeling of agony (such as now maybe… ).
Again, I’m not trying to go down a philosophical road here, so for those of you ‘intellectualists’, hang back for a moment. I’m not trying to state that there is no reality either. Neo already solved that issue.
What I’m moving towards is the notion that those who worry too much actually miss more of life. The people who are most concerned about safety and preserving life perceive less of it. I’m not mentally masturbating, this is science man. This article was published in Exploration, which is an online research site for Vanderbilt.
The scientists were researching the way images can be lost when a violent or erotic display is presented. Ever see something violent on television and blank out someone’s conversation? You are probably blinded. The article is pretty good about explaining this, so I won’t just regurgitate it in my own words.
I found the article fairly amazing because it really is a scientific measure that people who are more likely to worry about life actually miss more of it. The worrier’s visual cortex is busy identifying more threatening images/sounds than someone who is relatively carefree. You could think of it like the worrier has a longer list of things to identify thereby increasing the chance of this ‘rubber-neck’ blindness.
Hypothesis: All this adds up overtime, you realize, which means a fair bet with a reasonable deviance can be made about how much time you lost to life just worrying about stupid shit. Doctors will give you a prognosis based on a questionnaire that will rate you from scared shitless on one side to Zen Buddhist on the other. They will then hand you a list of probable diseases associated with stress and anxiety as well as a time card of how much life you are wasting worrying. It will have a comparison chart of the average American to further depress you.
Cognitive psychology man… it’s the wave of the future.
It, too, can be slightly depressing as it seems to mean that all human behaviors are formed in biology. Seems to bring humans down a notch from the elevated amazingness we hold ourselves to now. It’s cells and chemicals and reactions that make us think, not souls and pixy dust and the breath of life, and that, as they say, would never make a good movie. (not even Pi?)
I like this in some ways because it seems to strengthen my concerns in the previous post and with other realities of patient care and disease. I’m not suggesting we treat people like cells and chemicals and forget the proven power of laughter and belief. You treat people, but you research and cure or adapt for ‘things’. I probably would have believed more in the healing powers of human interaction and ’spirits’ if you will, not so long ago.
This also seems to reaffirm that a lot of people just need to chill out. You don’t notice more by busying yourself to death with concern and agenda. Meh…
I’d worry about it more, but, you know… I read the article.
That’s an interesting idea. This may be under exploration now, but I reckon that humans have intuitively known it to be so for quite some time. We’ve always known that worrying can consume us.
Still, we cannot entirely escape worrying nor would we want to. Worrying is a survival instinct. It is meant to keep us prepared for the unexpected.
However, the article only seems to be about sensory data and how our brain organizes it. Basically, we can only store a set amount of visual information in our short term memory, so our brain prioritizes. The article pointed to this as a short term response mainly, and used it to explain why accidents occur right after a man sees a women on their lawn in a bathing suit (like happens in all the cartoons). I don’t know if you can extend the study to include common everyday worrying. Still, the idea intrigues me. Perhaps studies are in order.
Comment by Dem0critus — August 18, 2005 @ 08:13
I’ll admit, extending it to just common worry is a stretch, but it doesn’t seem improbable.
Even if we only include the data set of lost visual perception (and we are talking milliseconds here), that is still data that was missed and never passed on for perception or interpretation.
What you are recognizing in the paper is that this reaction only occurs in intense images (at least in the session). My proposal is that frequent worriers probably have a lower threshold for even non-threatening images (at least to the you and I whom we shall assume are normal for now). So, a child without a bicycle helmet, let’s say, is probably a cue enough for a worried mother that she can’t process any other data immediately after she’s seen that.
I’d also hypothesize that these stimuli, once identified, tend to have a repetative effect where, if possible, you experience them repeatedly generating a tunnel vision for an extended period of time. It’s like blinding yourself over and over again until the shock of the image finally subsides.
But, alas, a final admission. I have no problems admitting I extend the study far beyond what the research was designed to look for. I just hope I didn’t extend it beyond the realm of possibility.
Comment by JT — August 18, 2005 @ 12:04
You certainly didn’t extend it beyond the realm of possibility and your conclusion makes common sense.
And to be fair, your title was phrased as a question. I just figured you were practicing for Jeopardy.
Comment by Dem0critus — August 18, 2005 @ 13:56
Interesting of course. Yes, milliseconds. To extend it? Possibly. Let’s face it, worrying does nothing to help you anyways. Flashing open wounds and porn at me after showing me happy fields is going to catch anyone off gaurd, especially when flickering around like a damn light show. I would have been more satisfied with the research if they had a machine flashing lights in front of your face and then out of no where a big ole gloved fist punched you in the face and flickered a picture of carmen electra and asked if you saw her. It’d be entertaining to watch, no? I think it’d of been better off measuring biometrics in reaction to the images rather than your visual perception of the images. Shock value dictating heightened pace of physical interaction and focus, not necessarily worry. Anyways… getting off topic:
In all cases where you begin to worry you should swallow the big question, “Have I done everything about it that I can at this very moment?” If you answer yes, let it go, click the next turn button, roll the dice, sleep a little, continue when the variables change, loop until, end if, goto, x = x + 1.
If you answered no, review your options and find what is feasible to accomplish without straining, today. Just in case you have a problem with worry.
I just don’t think the research would back up the realm of possibility in a larger scale as it is already predetermined that worry does not help anything. While fun to think plausible, it seems rather obvious the ramifications of applying such a theory to everyday events.
F’ing duh. I like the flashing red lights.
Comment by alphapyro — August 18, 2005 @ 19:28
While I certainly think it is a waste to worry about everything, I think it would equally be a waste to worry about nothing. For example, there is little point in wasting time fretting about something you can’t change, or that really doesn’t matter. However, to not worry at all seems to imply that you just don’t care about anything; can that be any healthier? Sure, you can forego a lot of stress, but you lose a lot of humanity in the process; you lose out on caring.
Comment by Adkenar — August 20, 2005 @ 09:07
I believe the focus wasn’t so heavy on not worrying at all, but minimizing the extent at which you worry.
It was sort of agreeing, sort of disagreeing on the research methods.
An interesting note you make on losing out on caring simply by not feeling worried. I believe the thin line lies between worry and concern. When I think of worry I think of needless energy being wasted on the feeling of helplessness that has no possibility of being changed. Concern seems to invoke a matter of urgency or motivation to induce change but does not necessarily mean you will stress over it.
This is why I believe the research would have been more fascinating had it been conducted with the use of biometrics to show these differences rather than just slapping worry as the trendsetter. I could see a guy get his arm chopped off, the shock value would trigger my concern to stop the bleeding.. Am I worried about him dying? Not necessarily. Do I still care? I was concerned enough to help.
The problem with the flashing red lights is that there is no intention of helping the situation, just a rise of interest and curiosity which does not help the situation in turn inducing this worry. Needless time being wasted on helpless situations.
Perhaps worry has nothing to do with humanity where as being concerned about our own humanity has everything to do with it, and how much you care.
But I’m not worried, just concerned. It isn’t any skin off my back.
Comment by alphapyro — August 20, 2005 @ 19:27
I’m not sure I follow you exactly. You claim to care, but then also claim that if the person in question would die, “it’s no skin off [your] back”. Which seems to imply that it makes no difference to you whether he lives or dies; ie, that you don’t care. Yet you would still give first aid. I wonder if your willingness to help stems perhaps from a sense of duty rather than care for the person’s well-being. I imagine that it is also possible that your care is about suffering as opposed to life. In any case, could you clarify?
Comment by Adkenar — August 22, 2005 @ 20:23
Of course, I can’t speak for AlphaPyro, but I will speak for myself:
I think that caring and worrying are different. To care is to wish that ill does not befall a person. I care for you internet folks enough that if one of you died, I’d be saddened. However, to worry means that not only would you be saddened, but you also contemplate theoretic ways in which damage may come to those you love. You invent dangers.
Well, that’s how I’ve always thought of those two words.
Comment by Dem0critus — August 23, 2005 @ 08:56
Actually, getting out on paper my views on patient care would probably be far too large for a blog post, but perhaps too short for a book. I’ll try and condense an answer that’s specific to this post.
I’ll even borrow the separation that Democritus offers between worrying and caring above. I do ‘care’ for the patient’s well-being, and I address them very humanly. I’ve heard some colleagues refer to them as ‘clients’ and I am not comfortable with that. Clients are for lawyers or contractors or advertisors, something less lethal, though not necessarily less malignant.
Overall, in my job, I’m simply addressing a mechanical failure of a body. After I’ve dealt with a patient’s psychology, I sort of turn into a mechanic. In this instance, a sleep mechanic. I’m investigating biological mechanisms and documenting the interactions for failures for which I can offer some corrections. That portion is impersonal, though not unartistic.
While I don’t have an immense amount of patients that die on me, those who have that I do find out about leave some minor impression to resolve. This may seem sad or defeating, but my overall mission is the improvement of life, not the prevention of death. Those that die, I merely have to resolve within myself this one question, “Did I do what I could to improve their life while they were living?”
As long as I can answer yes, whether that be the mechanical treatment or the way I treated them as a human-being, I usually let the notion of death go very rapidly. Do I worry about them after they leave my lab? Very little. That worry would probably make me very ineffective for future patients.
What I was indicating in the post is that future psychological treatments (if it already isn’t apparent) are going to seem even less psychological and more mechanical as the human brain is reverse-engineered. I’m not quite this cynical, but I think it is possible that future psychological issues will be resolved by a ‘patch’ or an ‘upgrade’ like any other finely bugged computer program.
I made fun of this ‘ideal mechanical treatment’ because it’s ridiculous to forget the human element. But it’s also ridiculous (though more common) to eliminate possible cures because they seem to make life too ‘mechanical’ and less ‘god-like’. Examples are stem-cell research, cloning and gene therapy, all which recieve a massive resistance.
I once had a Jesuit priest talk with me and he said something fairly profound to me at the time. (paraphrased from memory) “If we are made in god’s image, I feel it is only because we are meant to try and become more like him. Creating and replicating are part of the tool-sets for which god is known and I don’t see why we should feel a need to avoid these developments. Cloning may be only a small step in our future towards meeting our maker.”
That being said, he did also provide excellent arguments for why not now, but maybe soon.
I hope that explains some of my motives in patient care and the overall scheme of ‘health care’. Most healthcare workers believe in improvement of life or getting a paycheck. Very few are hell-bent on merely extending life or preventing death. I would be willing to bet there are probably a few workers out there who worry too much about their patients. Cancer wards and neo-nate bays tend to have high turn-over in staff for this very reason.
Human suffering, at least when you are amongst it, is extremely hard to ignore. From a distance, however, it can then be ‘no skin off [your] back’.
Comment by JT — August 23, 2005 @ 13:14
Considering the case that human suffering is around you all the time, where do you find time to ignore it? Are you implying that I don’t live among human suffering? Not in the extreme case, but coworkers and friends around me suffer all the time. The girl who sits across from me showed up to work with long sleeves and I caught a peek at her arm and it is sliced up pretty good all up and down the forearm, both forearms. Sounds like human suffering to me. The guy who sits behind me lives in the ghetto. He’s bitter about life because his brother was shot over a couple thugs out to prove something, which amazes me that he would be in customer service. That’s not human suffering?
In varying degrees I believe I’m among human suffering just as much as everyone else.
Does this bother me? I’m concerned, but it’s ‘no skin off [my] back’.
I can’t stop people from slicing themselves or feeling bitter against the world. I can’t cure anyone’s cancer, and I can’t garuntee that I can save your life. All I can do is the best I can do to be ready to help where possible. Beyond that, I waste my time worrying and over compensating trying to do what I know is out of my capable means that very moment.
The fine line is walked by those who balance care against needless worry.
It’s like optimizing, but different. No computers and stuff. Yep.
Comment by alphapyro — August 24, 2005 @ 07:32
Years ago Mom had a trivit that read, “Why worry about tomorrow, We may not make it through today.” Afred E. Newman said, “what, Me worry?”
St. Francis said, “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.”
We may be granted the serenity already, but being blessed or cursed with the “free will” we may choose not to accept the grant.
Worry is unavoidable in the initial revelation of a potentially bad thing. But some embrace worry as a way of life eventually as a result of not taking action to find a solution or control mechanism for themself or the other they might “care” about.
Roominizing over the issue embellishes the images or visions in the mind of what bad might happen and blows them up to a bigger proportion than the issue really is. “Oh my God! It could be bigger and worse than I think it might be!” It usually isn’t after the facts surface. And that is often the case.
In my experiences these 52 years, taking action to discover the facts of an issue usually gives me the tools to deal with the issue and put it to rest or in perspective on how it affects me or another. Either way, the worry fades to gone.
I dismiss the visual experiment for these reasons regarding “Worry.” First of all they are selected by someone else. Worry is very subjective. By that I mean, an individuals mind manifests it’s own visual mind picture that can be unimaginable by someone else.
Have someone explain to you why they are worried about something so you can see it their way. I propose it will never happen.
Describe a painting to someone. What it looks like and the emotion it evokes in you so they can see and feel or experience the same thing you do. I don’t think it is possible. You’ll probably respond with a facial alteration and perhaps a smile and kindly nod and then wonder what they are smoking. But I digressed.
Processing worry to some kind of resolve requires some kind of response. I was told once to make a list of all possible actions that could be taken to address an issue before me. All possible actions including the most rediculous just to get them out of my head and onto paper in front of me. I submit, as I always included on my list, everyone would write down, “Do Nothing.” Why not? That is a choice isn’t it? That would permit us who are more comfortable with worry, to continue to worry in our comfort zone.
Being one who believes there is a God I also believe there is a spirit in humans in addition to the brain, mind and supporting physiologies.
Chemicals can certainly correct or influence the brain and mind and we can actually see, scientifically, the affects of altering chemicals.
In my experiences with near death and dying, there is a spirit in tact in each individual unaffected by the condition of the body in it’s worse moments. How is science going to deal with that? I doubt in its arrogance, that it will. But that is another topic. And unfortunately, in this country I love, it becomes a political topic too quickly.
Worry, caring, and concern is the emotional alarm that brings and issue into the picture and up front to be dealt with. A tool to point out to us something we may have neglected or just didn’t notice was festering or developing to a point it needs to be dealt with, or not, but it is there. If we react we worry and never move on. If we respond and deal with it, it is resolved or put into perspective and reduce the amount of life passing us by.
Comment by Boaterbob — September 18, 2005 @ 07:49