Trauma and Dissociation, and a book review…

In my recent post about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I wrote this:

I see one source in the dissociation of people from their “tools.” From everything they use, they are further and further removed. Things become “mere things.” We suddenly are no longer connected in a cycle of creation and destruction. We stand outside of it and look on…passersby, observers, voyeurs of our own self-destruction.

“Coincidentally” (if you believe in coincidence), I was reading a book today called “Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma,” by Peter Levine.

He describes the official definition of trauma as a stressful occurrence “that is outside the range of human experience, and that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone” (pg. 24, which he takes from the DSM III).

He goes on to mention that trauma can include anything, from falls or accidents, to illnesses and sad events, to the “typical” things we consider traumatic such as rapes, drive-by shootings, war, disasters, etc.

I really really (yes, that’s right, I wrote it twice) like this book, and his approach, which is based around the evolutionary/physiological response to trauma, and an approach to treating it from that perspective. More on that in a second.

The author then describes how modern civilization and technology have taught us to ignore primary, instinctual, bodily-centered resources that once helped us to deal with traumatic events.

Previously in our history, we would encounter life-threatening events, which eventually resulted in finely-tuned responses to danger. I think this capacity is part of the “thrill-seeker’s” profile – they feel a need to experience this aspect of themselves more regularly than others.

As Levine says, “Modern life offers us few overt opportunities to use this powerfully evolved capacity. Today, our survival depends increasingly on our ability to think rather than being able to physically respond…The fundamental challenges we face today have come about relatively quickly, but our nervous systems have been much slower to change…When [the need for the successful facing of challenges] is not met, or when we are challenged and cannot triumph, we end up lacking vitality and are unable to fully engage in life” (pg. 43).

Later in the book, he even quotes Tom Brown, Jr. about the process of tracking. Clearly, he is describing a method of dealing with trauma that uses what I like to call “physiology tracking” in this book.

But it was the paragraph just before a section called “Dissociation” that really grabbed my attention. In it, he writes, “When constriction [as a response to a perceived threat or danger] fails to sufficiently focus the organism’s energy to defend itself, the nervous system evokes other mechanisms such as freezing and dissociation to contain the hyperarousal. Constriction, dissociation, and freezing form the full battery of responses that the nervous system uses to deal with the scenario in which we must defend ourselves, but cannot” (pg. 136).

This state is related to helplessness, which I’ve also written about in previous posts – particularly, learned helplessness, as a result of social conditioning or social conformity.

Levine recommends, specifically, that one not try to avoid dissociation, but rather, to become aware of the feeling of that state in the body, so that one can, first, recognize it, and, later, be able to be in a state of dissociation while still cognizant and active in the world. This leads to the ability to discriminate between physiological events that lead to (or have lead to) trauma, and those that do not.

I resonate extremely strongly with this book, for many reasons. The author’s approach to dealing with one’s problems through a continuing and ongoing process of deepening self-awareness seems to be the type of powerful medicine that everyone can use in their lives. But he also recognizes that physiological responses are rhythmical, as well as the need for play and a playful attitude when confronting survived trauma (at a certain point in the process, of course).

To the last point, about play, the author talks about wild animals’ tendencies to “reenact” traumatic or dangerous events, where they will play the role of hunter and hunted, and either experiment with new strategies for evasion or survival, or repeat the tactic used in the recent event. The physical act of evasion or survival itself is immediate and therapeutic.

In humans, reenactment happens both internally and externally. Internally, it represents itself in states associated with trauma, such as hypervigilance, anxiety, psychosomatic issues, sleeplessness, or other problems. It can also represent itself through repeated thoughts about the traumatic event.

Externally, reenactment can happen either in the “acting out” of previous traumas, either by inflicting those traumas on others, or by creating ritual behaviors that reflect and temporarily mitigate those physiological upwellings; or, external reenactment can take place in the recurrence of traumatic events in relationships, where we seek out situations with others through which our trauma presents itself, again and again, the body searching for a path to resolve that old wound.

Unfortunately, usually, our initial response only repeats itself again and again. With our minds not realizing that we’re replaying these patterns for a specific reason, we succumb to habitual responses, sometimes watching before our very eyes as things crumble apart and wondering “how can this be happening again?”

More subtly still, external and internal reenactment, at some point, collide, and the victim of trauma acquires patterns of behavior that simultaneously save them from further experiences like the first, but also prohibit them from being able to confront that traumatic experience and move beyond it.

Which takes me to his final point, his solution to this dilemma. Since we are confronted with traumas that we cannot resolve through physical means, and have developed habitual physiological patterns of response to situations in which we feel the same types of threat, we have only one tool by which to work with, on, and through those physical manifestations and feelings – awareness.

Through awareness of the traumatic event, awareness of our initial response to it, acceptance of ourselves and the fact that the event happened, and finally, a developed ability to pay attention and slow down when those feelings manifest themselves again, we have acquired tools to operate in a new dimension. Eventually, the nervous system will heal, the process will become second-nature, and life can be rich and fulfilling.

On a side-note, this process, of trauma, the formation of “protective” mechanisms which ultimately lead to further repetition of trauma reminds me strongly of the pain-spasm-ischemia cycle I was taught in massage school. In that process, damage occurs to muscle, the muscle “spasms” to protect itself from further damage, but in doing so, restricts blood flow to the area, preventing oxygenated blood (and white blood cells) from getting to the area to begin the healing process and remove restrictions. The “knot” gets bigger and bigger, till it causes overt pain and movement restriction…

Levine notes that our fast-paced culture doesn’t make this an easy task. Which brings me around to the final bit of my essay here (his book continues…if you’re interested, you should buy it and read it).

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, it isn’t just the fast pace of our culture that “shields” us from slowing down and tracking our physiologies.

In fact, it seems that much of our culture has that exact effect.

Since reading Andrew Weil’s book “Eight Weeks to Optimal Health,” back in the 90′s sometime, I’ve engaged in what he calls a “news fast.” I don’t read or watch the news. Not at all. Haven’t in years, actually. And…nothing has happened to me because of it.

Weil recommends this practice because the news has a few qualities that cause human beings trouble, and for no good reason. First, the news is typically all bad. As Gary Gnu said, “No gnus is good gnus.” Second, the news is aggregated bad news from all over the world. So, not only are you getting a dose of bad news, but you’re getting a large dose of bad news composed of all of the bad news that happened today…anywhere. Needless to say, that news doesn’t really reflect the happenings in your habitat. Fourth, almost all of the news (because of its distant relation to your habitat) will make you feel completely helpless, frustrated, sad, or angry.

Learned helplessness, reinforced, twenty-four hours a day. Thank you?

But the news, or the way we “do” news, is just one symptom of a larger thang – of our approach to life…the philosophical underpinnings of our culture, expressed through or visible in the actions of our culture, and, of course, our selves.

a quick “thang” intermission:

I think one of the roots of that philosophy is a trauma-cycle, associated with something that happened to us culturally, maybe somewhere back in the mid-sixteenth century…in fact, when we were most susceptible to trauma, in our early-childhood…the Renaissance.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but I hope Dan Brown is reading this blog and writes a nice book about this idea…and figures out what that event was, because I have no idea…hahaha.

However, it does seem that some “crisis” (which in Chinese is a character composed of the two characters for “danger” and “opportunity”) occurred, which we could not mitigate or win against, and have repeated ever since.

Hell, maybe it goes even further back than that.

But what stands out to me most is the point at which we dissociated from our tool-making.

We’ve been dissociated from our habitats for thousands of years. Human beings have lived in cities and such for around 8-10,000 years. Sure that could be a factor.

And life has been relatively “distracting” ever since we’ve been in cities. Fast pace, hustle and bustle, are nothing new.

But the loss of consciousness that we are using tools – that symbols are tools, machines are tools, that mathematics and language are tools – that seems more important.

When did that happen? And why? When did we lose sight of the fact that we make technologies to help us?

Because it was at that point that we committed ourselves to a path of recurrent trauma reenactment. It was at that point that we closed our eyes to a process within ourselves (as a culture).

It was at that point that it became “necessary” to pursue pain in order to deserve pleasure. This thing we see in cubicles and offices all over the world.

It was at this point that we begin to see scarcity as our ruling dictum, and fear as its messenger.

I place it in the mid-sixteenth century because that’s the first written record I’ve seen of this same sort of question (from Etienne la Boetie – the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude).

Maybe, like the Joker’s “SmyleX,” there is no single source, but the confluence of many things, contributing to our continued replaying of history.

Exercise – A dirty word?

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, head of EA, Frank Forencich, offers us a compelling question to ponder:

Is “exercise” part of the problem?

Frank says it is.

Exercise, he says, involves sets, reps, forced movements in unnatural or limited planes of motion, etc.

I think he’s right.

Nice gym.

The “Workout” Dilemma

For many of us, even the term “workout” fades into the single word “work.”  It doesn’t sound like fun.  What’s supposed to be enjoyable about it?  Especially after you’ve already been working all week anyway?!  Who wants more work?!

A Rose by Any Other Name

It’s important to remember where gyms came from.  Original “gymnasiums” in Ancient Greece (the ones the European gymnasiums were modeled after, which are the gyms that ours were modeled after) consisted of an open sandy pit outside, and maybe a large, empty room, with some different apprati and weights to throw around.  But mostly, you’d just throw yourself (or maybe another person) around.

In the process, you’d learn some things.  Like how to deal with your own body.  Or how to deal with disorientation (tumbling).  Or how to deal with another person’s body (wrestling, boxing), or an external body of other sorts (shot put, weight, discus, javelin).

In the earlier part of the 20th Century, most American gyms still looked this way.  They were mostly empty space, with some weights around the perimeter, and maybe some uneven bars and gymnastic rings.  Maybe the gym would be totally outdoors.  Or at least have some outdoor space to play around in.

Your “workout” would consist of a combination of strength-skill movements.  Things that weren’t as simple as “just pick that up.”  You’d have to think a little bit about what you were about to do.

You might even have done some gymnastic-type things in there.

Further, there would be a community of like-minded folks in there watching you, coaching you, helping one another out, and competing with each other.  It wouldn’t be a line of hamsters on their wheels…excuse me, treadmills…

Oh The 80′s

In the 1980′s, the bodybuilding phenomenon really took off.  Large chain gyms like Gold’s, Bally’s, etc., took advantage of, and fueled the craze.

Group exercise classes became modeled after school classes – One Teacher, Many Students.

People grew competition-crazed.

Muscles bulged and glistened.

And the nation continued to get fatter.

Please adopt a cardio machine...they're lonely

The True Cost of Fitness

And in the melee, we all were swept up.

But what was it all about, in the end?  “Fitness?”  Fitness to do what?  For what  purpose?  To be able to do our jobs better?  No, most likely not.  To contribute to our communities?  No.  To hunt more effectively, or do something better?

No, just fitness.  To be fit.

Many of the aspects of our lives have turned into this in the past twenty years – to do something, simply to do it.

No value other than the doing of it.  Which is fine, but weird.

Those massive gyms, with all of their equipment, and the fees people pay to belong to those gyms…what is that about?

It isn’t about fitness.

What is your goal?  Why do you do it?  And wouldn’t you want it to be enjoyable?

Another beauty...

Exercise, Fitness, and Movement

Frank insists that what people need is more movement.  I agree with him 100%.  But I also see that people must be coerced to move.  Calling it one thing or another doesn’t mean much.  Changing the way it looks, its external appearance, attracts attention.

All animals are attracted by the new, the novel.  They require what is familiar, but they are attracted to what is different.

So while I agree, that people need to move more, and that “exercise” may inhibit them, I think the means to get ourselves moving will come from different sources than from symantics.

We need more toys.

Worlds that change toys.

Toys That Change Worlds

Toys That Change Worlds is the subheader of one of my all-time favorite blogs (linked to the first few words in this sentence).  It’s not for everyone.  It’s very philosophical…just warning you.

But the point of that blog is that it’s possible to change your perception of reality, to change yourself, deeply and meaningfully, by playing with a new toy.

That’s why I’m not against things like Wii Fit, or the vibrating health saddle, kettlebells, bodyblades, or anything else.

In fact, I wish there were more of them!  And I wish that more groups of people would get together on a regular basis to play with all of those great toys.

Imagine if you had a block party, where everyone went around the block, into everyone’s house, and had to use the workout toys in that house for at least 5 minutes.  Then you all rotated.  Heck, what if you raced from house to house?

Sounds like fun!

And I think there’d be a lot of exercise equipment that would get dusted off, and have the hanging clothes taken off it.

Sure, strong. Sure, flexible. Sure...

Real Strength

In the end, true strength is total-person strength.  It is strength of will, strength of character, strength of judgment, strength of muscles, lungs, heart, mind, connections.  Real strength knows no bounds.  It spills over and out of the individual, into everything they do and touch.  It extends beyond them, into their friends, family and community.

Real strength also accepts no limits.  It seeks constantly to improve itself, to become more, to become stronger still.

Real strength is flexible.  It does not break, it bends, and then springs back into place.  It flows like water, wearing away even the hardest material over time.

To be truly strong, you must cultivate yourself.  You must accept who you are.  You must come to learn and embrace your greatest gift to humanity, and act to express that gift in every word, thought, and deed.

You must “workout.”  You must “exercise.”  You must “play.”  You must “stretch.”  You must do it all, and do it from the core of your being, for all you are worth, every day, tirelessly, until your time has run its course.

That is real strength.

Self/Other – The Mother of Conflict

Dr. Peter Gray’s recent article on Psychology Today, “The Morally Questionable Lessons of Formal Sports,” asks the very pertinent question – to what end, sports?

I’ve commented on my own experience with organized sports in previous posts, and will sum up by saying that I almost always have experienced what Dr. Gray outlines in his article – the creation of enemies through organized sporting activity.

Granted, none of those people are still my enemies, but the process of organized sport itself necessarily (in most cases) creates the Self/Other distinction more quickly than other group dynamics.

What happens next?  Well, the group becomes Self and Other (or “my group and their group”.  Then Self and Other becomes Self VS Other (or, “my group versus their group”).

Then the violence happens.

Once an individual perceives themselves as separated from their habitat – as physically separate – there are no consequences when things are done-to that habitat.

Habitat includes everything around us.  Furniture, walls, plants, animals, air, weather, sounds, etc.  Everything that is our “external organ.”

It is interesting that that process is so simple to accomplish.

In the study that Dr. Gray cites, it was accomplished by giving children rewards for winning whatever game against the other team.  Win, you get an award.  Lose, you do not.

Suddenly, I am not just separate from the large context, but not rewarded for my efforts (though they may have been as great, relatively, as those of the other players).

What dissolves this dialectic?  Again, in the study Dr. Grey cites, conflict between groups was resolved by involving the group in a common goal.

We’ve seen this in history.  Unite opposing factions, or views, against a “common enemy.”

Suddenly we’re all on the same team (at least for a while).

But what hasn’t happened is the dissolution of the Self/Other dialectic.  It still remains, ruling over all, until the teams are split up again, and one is pitted against the other.

Manthropology – Book Review

Just finished reading the book “Manthropology,” written by Peter McAllister.

According to the introduction, Peter had originally set out to write a book about the wonders of the modern male homo sapiens – or, as he calls us – homo masculinus modernus.

What he found, upon beginning his investigatory work, however, was that the modern man is far from “wonderful” – in any way – when compared with his forebears.

He then goes on to write a chapter each on the broad qualities of Brawn, Bravado, Battle, Balls, Bards, Beauty, Bairns, and Babes – citing crushing evidence of modern man’s insufficiency in each area.

This book is awesome!  I highly recommend it, though you may need to wait till it’s more widely available.  Right now, you can only buy it from the publisher (linked to above) in Australia – so the shipping is as much as the book itself!  However, I think it’s worth it!

You’ll be motivated to improve yourself when you learn that:

  • Any Neandertal woman could have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an armwrestle
  • Injury rates in modern Ultimate Fighting are a fraction of those in ancient Greek pankration
  • Metrosexual icon David Beckham wouldn’t even get an audition for the gerewol, the male beauty parade of the Nigerian Wodaabe
  • Even modern ‘New Age’ dads are put to shame by Aka Pygmy fathers of the Congo rainforest, who sometimes grew breasts to suckle their infants!

Get it!

Ethics in Science

Ethical considerations are very important in the design, practice, and reporting of scientific research.

However, I think there is something else behind the need for a document like the APA’s extensive manual.  A quote from the Tao Teh Ching will help to illustrate this:

Chapter 18
When the great Dao is lost to sight,
codes of goodness and morality appear.
When cleverness and shrewdness are produced,
massive hypocrisy appears.
When family relationships lose natural harmony,
“filial piety” and “devoted parenthood” arise.
When there is strife and anarchy within the state,
“loyal patriots” abound.
(trans. Chilcott, 2009).

I don’t think that a manual like the APA’s points, necessarily, to rampant unethical behavior.  As one of my graduate professors pointed out, ethical “breaches” are reportedly around 1-2%.  But the manual does point to something, which is the issue related to the field of kinesiology, and ethics in science that I’d like to address here.

It is the habit we have gotten into as scientists of investigating symptoms, instead of causes.

The first example that comes to mind is that of modern gait research.  Modern gait research studies the human foot in a shoe.  However, “The human foot was anatomically modern, and therefore fully functional for bipedal walking and endurance running, more than 100,000 years ago” (D’Aout, et al., 2009, pg. 103).  The use of footwear in general has only been seen in the fossil record as early as 30,000 years ago (Trinkaus, 2005, pg. 1516).  Habitual use of the type of rigid footwear in vogue in our current culture extends back to the 17th century – and at that time was seen mostly in wealthy, or aristocratic populations.  Widespread use of rigid footwear by a majority of Western Europeans probably began only around the time of industrialization – about 150 years ago.

As reported in D’Aout, et al. (2009) – “Habitually shod Indians wear less often, and less constricting shoes than Western people.  Yet, we found significant differences with their habitually barefoot peers, both in foot shape and in pressure distribution” (D’Aout, et al., pg. 104).  This shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Modifications of tissue morphology following the use of a plaster cast are well known to anyone who has ever had to wear one.  Modern footwear, or even sandals (as shown by D’Aout), alters truly normal (as opposed to an “observed” or “cultural normal”) foot kinematics in much the same way as a plaster cast.

In Western European culture (or those of Western European descent), which have generated the majority of gait research in the past 100 years, the large majority of research has been on individuals who habitually wear shoes.

Can we safely say, then, after 100 years of research, that we truly have a good understanding of normal human gait (as in “physiologically normal” – concerning the human animal as a species that has existed without footwear for roughly 100,000 years)?

Further, if, as Booth and Laye point out, it is true “that removal of 8500 steps (dropping from ~10,000 to ~1500) in the absence of a structured exercise program for two weeks results in abnormal physiological changes in healthy young men” (Booth and Laye, 2009, pg. 2), and we have not noted the daily activity levels of participants in gait research studies, can we claim to have studied “physiologically normal” human gait at all (with or without shoes)?!

First, we are studying an abnormal population in terms of morphology and kinematics, due to the use of footwear (both the restrictive effect of footwear on truly normal movement of the foot, and the accompanying loss of tissue tonus and function accompanying that loss of normal movement).  Then, we are studying a potentially (in terms of gross physiology) abnormal population (in terms of evolutionary history of the animal) due to lack of sufficient movement in general, and the accompanying loss of proprioception and tissue strength/tonus.

When we then begin to recommend “orthotic inserts” as solutions to musculoskeletal or movement impairments, based on those studies of “normal” human gait, are we treating the problem(s) itself (or themselves – namely, lack of physiologically-normal movement, both in quality and quantity), or are we treating the symptom of the problem (i.e., dysfunction caused by lack of physiologically-normal, not culturally-normal, movement)?

What are the ethical implications of pursuing science in this manner?  And shouldn’t the discussion and resolution of this ethical issue precede the practice of designing, performing, and reporting scientific research?

 

 

Booth, F.W., Laye, M.J.  (2009).  Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise’s complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery.  Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Chilcott, T.  (2009).  Daode Jing.  http://www.tclt.org.uk/translations.html

D’Aout, K., Pataky, T.C., De Ciercq, D., & Aerts, P.  (2009).  Plantar pressures in habitually barefoot walkers.  Footwear Science, 1(1), pp. 103-105.

Trinkaus, E.  (2005).  Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use.  Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, pp. 1515-1526.

Ingenuity…the playful mind in action

I recently posted with the subject heading “I shouldn’t be alive…”

It was meant to be funny, based on the TV show of the same name.  Granted, most of the people who appear in that show have real stories that back up the claim…while mine, though real, was not necessarily life-threatening.

It got me to thinking, though, writing that post, about what our culture promotes.  What types of stories we tell one another.

The stories on the show “I Shouldn’t Be Alive” are usually very grim.  And the ones I’ve seen have all been stories about survival occurring due to luck or chance.

That’s a different mentality than the story of a person who survives because they know how to.

In Wade Davis’ TED talk he tells the story an Inuit man named Olayek told him.  Olayek’s grandfather was not interested in relocating to the settlement the Canadian government was trying to put the Inuit on.  The family were worried for the grandfather’s life.  They were afraid that the Canadian government might try to force him to move.  If the grandfather rebelled violently, they might kill him.  So they did the only thing they could think to do – they took away all of his belongings.  Wade tells the rest as follows:

“The Inuit did not fear the cold, they took advantage of it…so, this man’ts grandfather was not intimidated by the arctic night or the blizzard that was blowing, he simply slipped outside, pulled down his sealskin trousers, and defecated into his hand.  And as the feces began to freeze, he shaped it into the form of a blade.  He put a string of saliva on the end of the shit-knife, and as it finally froze solid, he butchered a dog with it.  He skinned the dog and improvised a harness.  Took the ribcage of the dog and improvised a sled.  Harnessed up an adjacent dog, and disappeared over the ice floes, shit knife in belt.  Talk about getting by with nothing.”

Now that’s ingenuity!

One of my most favorite “playful thinkers” of all time is Bugs Bunny.  That rabbit always plays.  Every other episode featuring Bugs starts off with him singing a carefree song.

When trouble comes around, it’s no worry.  It’s a game.  Some of the funniest scenes are where it actually gets serious, and Bugs hightails it out of there!  You don’t see cartoons like that nowadays…at least, I haven’t.  Everything’s loaded with seriousness or innuendo.  No ingenious characters, who approach every problem with a light heart, and the power of their quick wit.

As Wade Davis points out, what changes people, and in turn, what changes societies, are the stories they tell to themselves, or to one another.

What stories are you telling yourself, and those around you?

What stories are you being told?

What story do you want to tell or be told?

Culture – Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You

Remember history class?  At any point.  High school, college, prison…wherever you took a history class.  Remember?

Remember what you studied?  Yeah, dates, events, blah blah blah.  But the important stuff, the stuff that grabbed your attention?

For me, there were two things.  The first was the great leaders in history.  Usually, they were the “conquerors” – Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc.

Then, it was the great cultures.  The rise and fall of civilizations – the Babylonians, the Greek, Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Mongol, etc.

The great leaders either represented the pinnacle of the culture they led, or became the representation of that pinnacle – the goal to reach for, for that culture (Jesus is a good example of this latter type).

I’ve been thinking a lot about culture recently.  Ever since I read Rene Dubos’ book, “So Human an Animal,” back in the Spring.

An article in “Trends and Updates” laments “The Culture of Getting and Spending.”  Which is part of our American (US) culture.  The author highlights this culture by quoting from William Wordsworth’s poem ”

There are other aspects of that culture, such as:

  • Ignorance of one’s own feelings (lack of self-awareness)
  • Self-denial (“needy” people are looked down upon)
  • An inability to communicate feelings
  • Obsessive Compulsive tendencies
  • Tendencies to Hyperactive/Attentional disorders
  • Unconscious mythmaking/Idolatry
  • Sloth and gluttony (lack of self-awareness in relation to one’s surroundings)
  • Lack of general awareness (of surroundings)
  • Disdain and/or lack of awareness of nature

There was an article published in the New York Times on September 10th called “Are Your Friends Making You Fat?”

The answer, in short, is YES.

Researchers have found that there is a direct connection between fitness levels/mortality indicators and…friends.

Your culture determines largely what you will engage in or not.  Do all of your friends smoke?  If yes, than you are likely a smoker as well.  Does everyone in your neighborhood play soccer all the time?  If yes, then you probably will as well.

Does your culture believe in faith healing?  If yes, then most likely, you will as well – and not only that, but you will likely be healed by a faith healing at some point in your life.

Sure, you might also die.  But what does that say about you?

The secret here, is to do something.  Thinking about what your culture does is fine, to get better at thinking (specifically, to get better at thinking about what your culture does…maybe not better at “thinking in general”).

If you want to get better at doing things, you have to do.  You cannot get better at doing things by thinking about them.

If you want to get thin – make friends with thin people.  If you want to be more active – surround yourself with people who are active (preferably, who’ve been where you are now, and are now active).

The age of the craftsman has almost entirely vanished.  But in that practice, there was the concept of apprenticeship.  If you wanted to learn a craft, you went and lived with the master.  This used to be true of the martial arts, as well (and still is, for some).  You made sacrifices of your personal liberties in order to learn what the teacher had to teach you.