What all of these things have in common is this – we recognize certain differences between oppositions that we’ve created in our minds and then we cling tenaciously to those differences.
Once we’ve done that, we do what’s called “meaning making” – we create the reasons why the differences we’ve decided upon are right (correct).
We do it after the fact. Rarely are we allowed to come to our own decision about something. As a matter of fact, once you’re old enough to read and understand the words in this blog post, you have enough prejudices about the precise definitions and meanings of different things, words and relationships, that, unless you’re consciously trying to be open (or doing some kind of drug), you are automatically using meanings that were given to you from the day you were born by your parents and culture.
A person’s “qualifications” (usually seen, in our culture, in their resume or “curriculum vitae”) simply list the types of things they did before they started to do what they’re doing now.
That is, a resume or CV is relatively meaningless by itself. When the person began doing what they’re doing now, they were in the same position as any beginner.
This is not to say that you can just start doing something and be as proficient as someone who has been doing it for 10 years. That doesn’t make any sense.
What I am saying here is that everyone starts from where they’re at, at the moment at which they start.
What I’m saying here is – no matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road, turn back.
What I’m saying here is – whatever it is that you want to do in life – START NOW.
We don’t have to do anything in particular in order to play (be in the play-state), other than to release certain inhibitions we have about ourselves, others, and “rules.”
To do that, it may be beneficial to practice identifying the other states we assume throughout the day. For most of us, these other states will be characterized by certain “selves.”
For instance, I’ve already discussed The Victim. There are also the roles of “the persecutor,” “protector/rescuer,” “coach,” “challenger,” “cynic,” “skeptic.” And above those there may be others, like the “controller,” the “buddha/enlightened one,” etc.
For more information on this, check out the book (or videos) TED –
We each have our own unique cast of characters. And, though they’ll often assume similar roles, our cast is unlike any other cast. Each role may be played by a different person, depending on our own personal history.
As we go through the day, and experience emotions of different sorts, different characters come in to play.
In order to witness these folks, it is necessary to learn to notice shifts in our energy state – in our emotional or attentional state – as they occur.
When we feel “high,” who is in charge? When we feel “stressed,” who is in charge? When we are in love, who is in charge? When we are angry, who is it? If we feel like we’ve failed at something, who is the voice, the character, that comes up to the front of the stage of our mind?
This process requires awareness and attention, which requires slowing down.
It’s just like learning any new skill. Think about the first time you played a new game of some sort. You had to slow down to learn the technique. You may have “frozen” certain parts of your body or movements in order to work on the technique in pieces. In motor learning it’s called “freeing and freezing degrees of freedom.” You may have moved very clumsily at first, and felt awkward.*
That’s normal.
Now aware of this – that learning requires slowing down, and that awkward and clumsy is normal at first – we can begin to play with these selves when they arise.
Here’s a scenario:
I’ve failed at a big task. The “persecutor” self steps forth and begins his monologue about worthlessness, about me being crappy at this thing, about me not being good enough.
But something has changed. I’m aware that it’s the Persecutor talking. And I say to myself, perhaps, something like, “That’s interesting.”
He begins to get anxious. He looks around for help. He tries to find things to distract me…where did I leave my car keys? What time is it?…so he can continue his act.
But I stay aware, calm, slow, breathing, watching him.
King among the roles we may play in our lives is the role of the Victim.
The Victim says that everything is everyone else’s fault. That we are helpless.
We may learn this role through any number of ways – role models, peers, media, teachers…
Once we’ve learned this role, though, it becomes easier and easier to use.
The role of the Victim is an effort in energy conservation. If everything is out of our hands, we don’t have to do anything. We can get by just complaining…and suffering.
Music is another source to learn about Victim approaches.
Listen to your favorite love song, or breakup song. Most of them blame the other person for the feelings the singer is experiencing.
My father said that most “serious” classical music is written in a minor key. Why is that? His guess is that the composers were too busy to write music if they were having fun and feeling good…most of the time, they wrote when they’d broken up with their significant other, had a fight, were depressed, etc.
Look for the Victim in yourself. Track it, and when it comes up, make friends with it. It’s part of you, not to be cut out.
However, there are ways to make the Victim into something more productive.
The next time you hear your Victim speaking up, ask yourself, “Is that really true? Is there nothing I can do?”
It’s almost never the case (especially in our country) that there is nothing to be done about a situation. Options are endless.
The next step is to create. Begin to brainstorm ways to deal with the situation. Pick the first best one and try it. If it doesn’t work, do the next…and so on down the list.
Take your time to feel it out, and to learn whatever lesson the Victim, and your attempts at creative solutions, are telling you.
If you have apprehension about this, try to find a supportive friend who can help you in the process (one, preferably, who won’t try to rescue you themselves, but will allow you to go through the process and learn from it).
A few weeks ago I commented on a blog post by my friend JR Atwood. He had posted a brief clip from the Uncommon Schools‘ teacher training methodology. My comment, essentially, was “That looks just like dog training!”
In a private response, he mentioned that it would be interesting to see a comparison of the two – teaching methods for children vs. dog-training methods.
True to my word, I hit the books over the course of the past couple of weeks and read two dog-training texts. One of them, was Lew Burke’s “Dog Training”
Burke's book is about very specific techniques...
Ready for the comparison?
The first rule of dog training is that dogs require clear (matching your training method with your desired outcome from the dog), concise (one word), and consistent (always the same command for the same desired outcome) communication.
Regarding this first video from Uncommon Schools, we can focus on the “clarity” bit. But there’s another point, I’ll share with you after you’ve enjoyed this video:
Reward is a better motivator than punishment. More importantly, it’s crucial to discriminate between normal communication (acknowledgment, above), and praise. This is true for dogs as well. Giving a dog a friendly word is different from giving a dog a treat.
Only give a dog a treat when it has done something to deserve it.
Dog training actually goes a little deeper than that, but you have to earn that lesson…
Strong Voice
It is important to use proper TONE when speaking to your dog.
NLP literature points out that 87% of communication is body language, 10% is the tone of your speech, and only 3% of your communication is conveyed in the actual content of your words. (I’m guesstimating those percentages…too lazy to look up the exact reference right now).
This lesson carries over to dog training as well. Your dog will discern a lot about you from the way you hold yourself. Raise a fist to strike it, and it isn’t going to respond kindly. Act wildly, and it will think you’re unreliable.
Tone is equally important for dog-training. Most people who have ever had a dog have used the old trick of saying a bunch of nasty names or things about their dog in a candy-sweet voice. The dog invariably wags its tail, not connecting the content to the tone.
Few dogs – showdogs, mostly – have the range of vocabulary to really understand that last 3% of human communication anyway…
Now watch this:
Eye contact is used here. In dog training, the books used for this post mention that either direct eye contact, OR removal of attention, can be used equally well to convey your “leadership” status.
For instance, when giving the dog food, you might look directly (and seriously) into its eyes as you give the “sit” command. Again, the dog must earn everything it gets from its leader (you).
Or, you might say “sit” and look away from the dog, removing your attention (a valuable thing to a dog). When it does sit, you can bring your attention back to the dog, lavish it with praise, put the food down, and leave it to eat.
Cold Call
A dog must respond to your command any time you issue it. It cannot be sporadic response.
That being said, once a dog has learned a skill, the best way to reinforce it is through random reinforcement.
More Thoughts
Now, before you go yelling at me, telling me how insensitive I am to suggest that children are just like dogs, think about this for a second. First, I’m not just talking about children here (read my previous post on the difference between “children” and “adults”). Second, and more importantly, I think it’s time we begin looking at how we actually behave, instead of how we’d like things to be.
The use of motivational tactics is nothing new. I’ve seen plenty of parents these days with leashes on their children!
I think what is (relatively) new in our culture is the lack of consistent understanding about how animals (dogs, pigs, cattle, human beings, monkeys, whatever) behave, and how to treat animals if you want something from them.
In older times (here I go, romanticizing the past…) we dealt with animals quite a deal more. We also had very real “survival” demands to take care of (for instance, if we were farmers). Now that we’re removed from those things, we think there is some sort of “distance” (real and figurative) between us human beings and the other animals in the kingdom of animalia.
Do you think so?
I’ll leave you with this, a quote from Nicholas Dodman’s book, “The Well-Adjusted Dog”:
“Think about it. You have removed your pet’s need to hunt by supplying food. You have removed his romantic interests by neutering him. You have removed his social needs by depriving him of pack interests and competition. He can’t even wander and explore his outside territory, let alone try to resolve his own problems – because there aren’t any…So what’s a poor dog to do? Channel his energy in unacceptable ways, that’s what.” pg. 136
Dr. Peter Gray‘s blog, “Freedom to Learn,” is a fantastic collection of thoughts, ideas, and great references regarding development, play, learning, and the effects of social structures on all of those.
I’ll be honest. I haven’t read John Ratey’s book “Spark.” I’d like to, but I have a few others on the list ahead of it. But I’m looking forward to it!
At the same time, I have to share my misgivings about the book. Especially in light of my recent experiences with pop-science books about talent.
Dr. Ratey is a scientist. But he’s not a medical doctor. Or a movement scientist. Or a physical educator. He’s a psychiatrist. That shouldn’t detract from his message, its importance, or its timeliness. The book is no less important because of his qualifications. However, I think it is slightly misguided.
I’ve read an article by Jacob Sattelmair (a doctoral student in epidemiology at Harvard, where Dr. Ratey teaches) and Dr. Ratey, called “Physically Active Play and Cognition, An Academic Matter?” In it, they describe some of the argument for physical activity, in however a reductionist and atomistic manner. I don’t want to deal with the entire article, but would like to focus on one point made in it. Particularly, that “Animal and human research primarily supports the importance of aerobic activity to enhance cognitive function” (pg 369). There are no references provided to support this statement, and it seems very strange to me.
My question relates to the specification for aerobic activity versus anaerobic activity to realize the vast number of benefits afforded by exercise, or, really, where the distinction or line is drawn between aerobic and anaerobic play for the purposes of this paper.
My understanding of the concept is that there are three types or “levels” of respiration that occur in the human body – cellular (intra-cell, glucose-to-energy), internal (inter-cell), and external (air-to-lungs). As far as I know, “aerobic” means that metabolic processes occur using oxygen, while “anaerobic” processes occur in the absence of oxygen molecules.
In exercise physiology (particularly, for me, when working with my clients), there are two ways that I recognize whether or not someone is training “aerobically” or not – 1. They’re able to pass the “talk test” – that is, they can keep up a conversation with me while they’re working; and 2. They can maintain their level of exertion for 30 seconds or more.
While the talk test isn’t always accurate, it appears to be fairly reliable. The second method is a little more “scientific,” since I’m relying on my understanding of cellular (particularly muscle-cell) energetics. As the intensity increases (either the frequency or severity of contractions), metabolism works to maintain the homeostasis of the cell. When metabolism can’t keep up, and oxygen is unable to make it into the cell at a sufficient rate to fuel cellular reactions, it goes into “anaerobic” metabolism. 30 seconds is an arbitrary number, but seems to work for most of my clients.
The common understanding of “aerobics” is long, slow, distance exercise, that can be maintained for up to an hour or more – such as jogging, aerobics/group-exercise classes, etc.
However, weightlifting activity can be maintained during aerobic cellular action. This is often done using weightlifting circuits, where exertion is circulated among different muscle groups throughout the exercise session to avoid total fatigue of a particular group. Also, heavy bouts of anaerobic weightlifting result in increased post-exercise oxygen consumption (aerobic metabolism) over/above the increase experienced from a similar-duration aerobic activity.
In light of my understanding of human evolution, every type of muscular action or metabolism has its place. As animals, we had to be able to sprint, sometimes for long distances, to avoid danger. Similarly, we had to be able to maintain long-duration activity when tracking animals, or moving to new territories. We had to be capable of lifting very heavy things at times, as well as lifting or carrying light things for long periods. Is there evidence to support strictly “aerobic” activity as a sole or preferential stimulus for brain development? It seems to me that the activity shaped the brain. And if that’s the case, then the same rules for growth now would apply as then – the rules that determine growth in anything – the more varied the stimulus (before sheer erratic randomness), with sufficient time for recovery (here – mental and physical, if you have to make that distinction, which I think is arbitrary), over a sufficient period of time, the more adaptation (“learning”) occurs.
I want to expose you to an idea that I’ve been trying to integrate into my life recently. I first encountered this idea a few years ago, when I was reading about NLP, or Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP is typically associated with Tony Robbins, who popularized parts of it. Many sales training techniques will utilize the eye cues from NLP that can reveal the parts of a person’s brain they’re using during conversation (popularly, to see if the person is “lying,” though this isn’t the purpose in NLP). But I’m getting off on a tangent here…
One of the main concepts within NLP is that every person has a “map” of reality that they refer to when thinking about or doing things. An integral part of this concept of a “reality map” is understanding that every person has a positive outcome intended in every action. No one does things to achieve what they would then perceive to be as a negative outcome. They always want to create what they currently understand to be a positive outcome.
Finally, and most importantly, every person is right about what they think.
Take a second to consider these statements. Consider the worst person you can imagine. A criminal of some sort, perhaps. That person’s actions reflect their map of reality. And within that map, their actions have a positive outcome for themselves. They either gain esteem, personal wealth, or something else from their actions. Not only that, but they are completely right about that belief. While their actions may not be “right,” their thought about what their actions will get them, in relation to their map of reality, can never be wrong. They may change their map after suffering consequences other than what they believed would happen (or they may not).
Understanding and accepting this concept is the first step. Learning to accept that what another person tells you is true to them is the second (and I think, more difficult) step.
To highlight this again, let’s take another, less extreme example. A teenager is in the “rebellion” stage. They have formed a map of reality based on their prior experience, their current environment, and their perception of the future. Their actions reflect this map. They do not intend to experience negative consequences as the result of their actions. They want to express themselves and their understanding of the world, whatever it may be – to correct perceived wrongs done to them, perhaps. While they might get grounded for bad behavior, they never intended to get grounded from the outset. Again, not only that, but they were not wrong in what they believed. They were completely right, based on their map of reality, to behave the way they did.
My second exposure to this same concept happened this semester in my Motor Learning class. We learned a new definition of the word “skill,” which is skill as the ability to solve a motor problem. Skill, then, is a continuum, with several factors influencing each person’s level of skill at any moment.
The first article we read with this approach to the idea of skill was by Dr. Susan Higgins. In it, she points out that “the degree of skill we attain on most tasks is generally to the satisfaction of the individual within the constraints imposed by cognitive, morphological, or sociocultural factors. We thereby settle for a level that suits our momentary needs.”
She also says that “You cannot impose a strategy or movement on another person, but should instead regard their own solution and consider the expression of their own personality and problem-solving ability in that solution, and then find ways to enhance their chance of success at the task and increase their pool of resources for solving the problem.” Because – “Each strategy a person uses complements their strengths and weaknesses and reflects their current level of understanding and skill.”
Isn’t this directly in line with what NLP says? I think so.
But what is the lesson here? I don’t want you to think that this post only applies to physical training, or therapy, that’s why I included the NLP tie-in.
I guess my reason for this post is to make a suggestion, which is this:
The next time you’re speaking with, or dealing with another person (or even thinking about an interaction you’ve previously had with another person), consider the perspective presented here. Consider the fact that the other person is referencing their map of reality, and that it is absolutely true to them. Also consider that, whatever the outcome of the interaction, they were ultimately interested in attaining something positive for themselves, in some way.
When you see people doing things, realize that they are expressing their current level of ability in solving the problem presented to them (whether it’s a movement or other type of problem) in their world, based on their previous experience, and their level of consideration of the situation. What is their map? How can you help them to express themselves more clearly (whether it’s through actions or words)? What questions can you ask that will help you to understand them better?
Then, you can think about yourself and your own actions and reactions in this way. Examine yourself, and see how you’re trying to solve problems. What might facilitate your problem-solving capacity? How can you be more understanding and allowing toward yourself?
Finally, consider they way your map presents you to the world. How do you look to other people, based on the map of reality you reference? How can you communicate your map more clearly to others?
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
Taking this approach has been a challenging (to say the least) but incredibly eye-opening experience for me. I hope that it will be for you too!
I read Brian Grasso’s most recent post to the IYCA website, and realized something about my own approach to training – both of myself and of my clients. Brian interviewed renowned strength and conditioning coach Juan Carlos Santana about the way JC trains kids at his facility.
Reading the interview, I realized that I approach all of my clients the way J.C. describes his approach with child-athletes.
Then I realized something else…that this focus we have on “adulthood,” and on “acting like an adult,” is another of the cultural mores I was talking about in my most recent post. Similarly with the other items on my list, being “adult” ultimately costs a lot more than being a “child.” Not in terms of energy – kids are infinitely more active in general than adults – but in terms of wear-and-tear on the system in general. Think about the things we associate with adulthood (here’s a list from Wikipedia):
Self-control – restraint, emotional control.
Stability – stable personality, strength.
Independence – ability to self-regulate.
Seriousness – ability to deal with life in a serious manner.
Responsibility – accountability, commitment and reliability.
Method/Tact – ability to think ahead and plan for the future, patience.
Endurance – ability and willingness to cope with difficulties that present themselves.
Experience – breadth of mind, understanding.
Objectivity – perspective and realism.
Decision making capability – as all of the above correspond to making proper decisions.
Priorities – Ability to determine what is necessary at that place and time.
While all of these are qualities that we associate with adulthood/maturity, and they’re all “necessary,” the degree or extent to which each quality is emphasized is a matter of debate.
In fact, I’d like to make a point, and then ask that you read that list again. I’ve seen all of these qualities exhibited in children. The degree, or ultimate direction of their action might be different than it would be for an adult,
but the qualities they exhibit are identical.
All human beings learn by doing, by interacting with their environment. They learn that they can manipulate things through the repetition of movement “experiments.” They learn responsibility when their actions come back to bite them. They learn endurance when an old method no longer works in a new situation, and they have to continue to experiment to find the answer.
What we associate with “adulthood” in this country is a certain type of demonstration of the qualities in the list above. And I think the one thing that characterizes this type – adulthood – most, is inflexibility or lack of experimentation.
Think about it. What is the one quality present in children, that is not commonly present in most adults, that is also missing from that list? Creativity.
The creative, flexible, experimental attitude of children is one of the things that allows them to learn and grow at such an astonishing rate. There are other things, such as their lack of experience, that also help them to be more receptive than adults can be at times, but the open attitude that is associated with creativity and experimentation is central to learning.
These qualities are also associated with something that is deemed “childish” by our society – Play. We look at adults who like to play (I mean, really play, not professional athletes…they aren’t playing, they’re working) as being simple or foolish. And we only allow a few of the very top professional athletes to exhibit anything remotely resembling play. Only those who have “paid their dues” or who exhibit such otherworldly performance as to be beyond reproof (or the ones we set up as our jesters, our fools, the ones whose antics are part of their work) have the right to play during their sport. This is one of the reasons that I’m a member of organizations like the IYCA and Exuberant Animal – those organizations foster growth through play – one focused on children, the other on “adults.”
So, how do I train my clients? The same way I would train anyone, of any age. First, I assess their current state. Where are they starting from? What, based on my experience, do they need to do to create a solid foundation for future health and fitness? Then, I ask them what their goals are, what their prior experience with exercise is, etc. I’ll explain to them why we might be starting at a point that seems far removed from their ideal goal-state. Then I’ll design their program. But for just about everyone (just about), the programming is the same:
Postural/structural focus
General warmup
Basic movement abilities/patterning
More specific warmup
Strength training
More movement focus
Stretching/cooldown, and more postural work.
It seems like a lot for one session at first glance, but the lines between posture-correction and warmup start to blur, as does the junction between specific warmup and strength training. Also, movement focus occurs throughout the workout. (I don’t like isolation exercises, unless there’s a very specific reason for them). That list takes about 50 minutes to an hour from start to finish – which just happens to be the length of a training session – and provides a workout that supplies stimulus to every movement ability my clients possess.
One of the main things I try to do in every session is to create opportunities for creativity, problem-solving, and exploration. I can do this subtly, by asking the client to perform a new movement, or one that they haven’t done since they were a child, or more directly, by having them choose the next exercise, or the way the exercise is performed (within the limits of safety, of course).
Basically, I just try to do what every good parent does – create a safe place where the individual’s capabilities can flourish. And you know what, they always do.
