Introduction
Before reading this, I suggest reading my post from yesterday since most of what I talk about here relates to it (and I end up retracting most of what I said).
'The arrogance of ignorance' is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not sure of its origins but I heard it first from Dr. Steven Novella. I think the phrase is the best way to capture a cluster of common cognitive errors. In no particular order: a) Assuming that because you are knowledgable in one domain that you know a lot about another (or are able to correctly evaluate another). b) Moving from small data sets/anecdotal experiences to broad conclusions. 'The arrogance of ignorance' is a close cousin to the Dunning-Kruger effect: You have so little knowledge of a particular domain that you are unable to assess how little you actually know and grossly overestimate how much you do know, in turn leading you to wildly wrong conclusions.
Anyhow, yesterday I was guilty of all of the above crimes. You'd think a guest pass to a hospital and a few hours of observation would give me enough authority and knowledge to correctly evaluate an entire subfield of medicine. Strangely, it didn't.
Today I went back to inpatient psych, and boy am I glad I did (from a pedagogical point of view). Let me try to both convey my experience and undo some of the misconceptions I had.
Sample bias
Most of the patients I met yesterday had been in the hospital for over a week. I was meeting them after they'd undergone treatment and had been stabilized. Of course they seemed normal to me! As I learned (and hopefully you will too once you read this post), what I did was the equivalent of walking into a surgery unit and looking only at the patients about to be discharged, then asking"why did they need surgery? They look fine to me!"
So, what are patients like on admission and early in treatment?
Obviously there are a variety of disorders but all of them are severe. Here's the thing, unless you work in a hospital or have someone in your family with a severe mental illness you've probably never actually seen severe mental illness. To most of us, this is an invisible population because most of their lives are lived in care homes or in institutions and, unfortunately, in the streets.
The patients range from very well-spoken with linear thought to having only elementary vocabulary with disjointed unintelligible thought, and any combination of the above. Regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, most of them suffer from severe delusions. Some examples: (1) Being part of an intergalactic group of assassins being pursued by the (intergalactic) mafia, (2) believing that a family member is dead who isn't and all the evidence they have should lead them to conclude the opposite, (3) being pursued by terrorists and (actually) destroying windows and cars to avoid/prevent the terrorist plot, (4) having voices in their head telling them to kill others or kill themselves. There were more but this should suffice.
Interestingly, the ones that had grand conspiracy delusions, e.g., (1) and (2), were extremely pleasant to talk to. If you were to have a conversation with them and the content of the delusion never came up, you wouldn't suspect a thing. It was as though they simultaneously inhabit two realities. When you ask them, they know where they are and why they're there. They'll say "I just want to get better" but at the same time they'll discuss their delusions as though they're just as real as the chair they're sitting on.
Unlike what I hypothesized yesterday, these people don't "just need a little more social and material support." That's the equivalent of saying someone with cancer can be healed with a back rub.
I think my reaction yesterday is probably analogous to what happens with many deniers of modern medicine. They've been in the hospital to visit a friend or they read some article online--maybe even spoken to a disgruntled doctor. But they've only seen 1 billionth of the data set, and only from the patient side of the bed. Things look very different from the doctor's side of the bed and as you get a larger data set...
Tip of the Iceberg
Another factor that led me to my (wayward) conclusions yesterday was I didn't ask enough questions about case histories. Once you read the case histories, your perspective will change very quickly. Every patient in there has a lifetime history of psychosis that is well documented. Almost all have been suffering the same symptoms since adolescence. Some have their condition for unknown or unknown biological reasons (usually genetic, as it runs in their families), others (there were 2 there) had suffered major brain injuries at some point earlier in their lives and haven't been the same since, others have their condition as a consequence of a life-time of substance abuse. For many it was a combination.
Someone who thinks that a little positive thinking or mere talk-therapy is going to solve these people's problems is extremely naive--like I was yesterday. Someone who thinks along these lines is mistaking people who have one-off breakdowns or depression with this other population. Like I said, unless you work in a hospital or have a family member (or work in law enforcement, probably) it's unlikely you've ever met anyone from this unfortunate population. Until you do, you can't fathom just how serious it is.
Philosophy of Science Lesson: Depression and Jade (Bear with me, You'll See How this Relates in a Moment)
What is jade? Up until the 19th century it was believed to be a kind of mineral. However, a French mineralogist (Alexis Damour) discovered that it was in fact two distinct minerals: Jadeite and nephrite, each with distinct chemical and structural properties. Nephrite is a microcrystalline interlocking fibrous matrix of the calcium, magnesium-iron rich amphibole mineral series tremolite (calcium-magnesium)-ferroactinolite (calcium-magnesium-iron). Jadeite is a sodium- and aluminium-rich pyroxene. The gem form of the mineral is a microcrystalline interlocking crystal matrix.
This isn't Rocks for Jocks 101, so why should we care? I'm getting there. Notice that both structurally and chemically, nephrite and jadeite are different. What does this mean? Well, we know that different chemical compositions will react differently and different microstructures will also also behave differently. Jadeite and nephrite have different fundament properties. From the point of view of science, if we think that science divides and studies the world in terms of its fundamental rather than superficial properties there's no such thing as jade. There's no one structure or chemical structure that is jade.
Here's another way to illustrate what I'm getting at. Why isn't there a science of green things? Why aren't there green-ologists? The reason is that green is a superficial property. Knowing that something is green gives us no predictive power in terms of how other green things will behave. It also provides no explanatory power for why it behaves the way it does.
For example, green algae has very different fundamentals chemical properties from a green glass. Suppose I put a HCL on the green algae. Based on the chemical reaction, would I be able to predict what will happen if I put HCL on green glass? Does the algae's greenness explain why it reacts the way it does to HCL? Of course not. In science, I want to lump things into categories that are going to allow me to make generalizations and predictions about other things in that category.
Learning about green algae doesn't help me learn anything important about green glass except what I already knew--they're both green. We don't lump the two into a scientific category because science is only concerned with "lumping" things in terms of shared fundamental properties rather than superficial properties. We ought to "split" superficial categories that contain objects that have different fundamental properties.
Ok, so what does all this have to do with psychiatry and psychiatric diagnoses? Consider that a common diagnosis we hear about is depression. Most cases we (by we, I mean non-medical professionals) have encountered are probably infrequent non-pathological affairs, perhaps set off by a traumatic event. We know that, with support, most people eventually work through the depression and end up fine. The problem is, 'depression' is psychological jade.
Different types of depression can manifest the same superficial symptoms but the underlying causal structures are different. (No, alt-meders, this isn't the same "root cause" you're thinking of but it's the one you ignore). So, the mistake is to think, "ah, depression...we just need to treat it with x, that's what we did with the last case". But this is to treat depression like jade--i.e., as a homogenous category based only on superficial resemblance.
For example, I learned (the very surprising fact) that for many types of deep depression the most effective treatment is ECT (electroconvulsive therapy)--yes, you read that right! I had to ask the doctor twice because I couldn't believe my ears. Apparently, it's well studied. Of course, the current procedure is quite different from how it was in the early days but still...who'da thunk?
"Jadists" about depression might think all cases of depression can be treated with ECT. This would be a mistake. There are different kinds of depression with different etiologies (underlying causal structures). It turns out that depression in manic depressives doesn't respond to ECT. Depression has its own jadite and nephrite (and more). The "root cause" of depression in manic depression is fundamentally different than it is in other kinds of depression.
Beside this overview of a famous philosophical argument, why am I talking about this? Because if you're a human being you're probably going to commit the same cognitive error that I made when it comes to psychological diagnoses. You hear that a patient (or someone you know) is depressed or has some other general psychological problem and you think about how you or someone you know dealt with it. You think, well, all they have to do is x (whatever worked for you or your friend). It's so simple!
But you're treating the diagnosis like psychological jade. The diagnosis might have the same symptoms but it doesn't mean it has the same underlying fundamental structure and thus, there is no reason to suppose it will respond to the same intervention. It's a different kind.
Worse yet, someone could dogmatically claim the all disease and/or psychological diagnoses share the the same "root cause". Such dogmatism precludes any chance of recovery since the same ineffective treatment will only be applied more and more vigorously. What's more, this way of thinking is the opposite of scientific thinking. Saying everything has the same "root cause" is just like being a green-ologist. You're confusing superficial similarity for fundamental similarity. To use the lingo of metaphysics, you're lumping when you should be splitting.
We see green-ology all over the place in alt-med. For chiropractors, the "root cause" of all disease is some sort of spinal misalignment, for Ayurvedic medicine the "root cause" is chakra alignment (or some shit), for reflexologists the "root cause" is something to do with your feet (WTF? How are these people even a thing?), etc... (While I'm pointing the finger I should make clear that I have my own "root cause" default. I have a tendency to lump various problems as being caused a general lack of meaningful social relationships, belonging to a community, and sense of purpose.) And then there's alt-med's favorite: stress. The "root cause" of all disease--physical and mental is stress. More green-ology.
To be charitable we can say that stress can trigger or make people more susceptible to disease but this is to confuse notions of causation. Let me illustrate. Suppose someone is in the hospital with a broken leg because they got hit by a car. What "caused" the broken leg? Being hit by a car, right? Now, just because the car was the trigger for the broken leg no one in their right mind would believe that removing the car will heal the leg.
I can just imagine the doctors at an all-alt-med hospital: "We've cured your leg by getting rid of the 'root cause'--the car has been destroyed! You can walk now!"
So, while it's true that stress can trigger certain reactions, it doesn't follow that the solution to the problem is merely to remove the trigger. Yes, doing so may decrease the likelihood of the same event from occurring again, just like not getting hit by a car will prevent you from breaking your leg again (that way); however, this insight is often of trivial value. No one with more than two brain cells to rub together thinks chronic stress is good for them. What's the next great insight? A poor diet isn't good for your health? Revolutionary! Please collect your Nobel Prize.
The Lesson
The causes of many diseases, physical and mental, have to do with their fundamental underlying structural properties. This is why people respond differently to different treatments. Superficial similarities can cause us to lump when we really should be splitting. Overzealous lumping leads to failed treatment and frustrated patients. Overzealous lumpers are green-ologists. Don't be a green-ologist.
Anyhow, this is just one more cautionary tale for me to heed. Hopefully, it gives you pause too the next time you diagnose someone (including yourself) and assume that superficial similarity implies fundamental similarity...
Also, hopefully this little digression shows the value of philosophy to science. You can't do one without the other.
In a Nutshell
The conclusions I drew in my last post were wrong. But I'm leaving that post up as a cautionary tale to both myself and to anyone reading this. My hope is that it reminds us how easily we can get things wrong when we only have a little bit of information, particularly about areas where we are not experts. People think it's "being a sheeple" to defer to experts. It's not. It's smart and good epistemic practice. Only arrogance fueled by ignorance would lead a person to think that they know more than an expert in that expert's domain.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2015
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Annual Fitness Advice Post: Using Social Psychology to Your Advantage
Introduction
It seems every year I end up writing a post on how to get your fitness on. But there's a prollem. All the fitness advice in the world doesn't amount to a thang if'n it ain't put into practix. So, in this year's post I'm going to focus on what we know about psychology and social psychology that can actually help us do what most of us already know we should do. For that reason, I will only briefly go over nutrition and fitness plans because I've already dealt with these topics in detail in prior posts:
http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html.
(a) when a friend becomes obese, the chances of you becoming obese increases by 57%.
Brief Overview of Fitness Programs and Methods
There is the optimal work out and there is the one you will do. Pick the latter. Do I need to explain this? Here's the low down: pick a physical activity that you will actually do at least 3 times a week. It might not be optimal, but you'll actually do it--and that's what matters most. It can be anything physical: dance, zumba, aerobics, martial arts, karate-chopping bricks, speed walking, weight training, basketball, yoga, ping pong, whatever...you get the point.
There is the optimal work out and there is the one you will do. Pick the latter. Do I need to explain this? Here's the low down: pick a physical activity that you will actually do at least 3 times a week. It might not be optimal, but you'll actually do it--and that's what matters most. It can be anything physical: dance, zumba, aerobics, martial arts, karate-chopping bricks, speed walking, weight training, basketball, yoga, ping pong, whatever...you get the point.
Also, it needn't always be the same activity. Maybe one day you do yoga, other day you karate-chop bricks, and the other you play ping pong. Whatever keeps you engaged and avoids stagnation.
There are a few caveats: (a) If it doesn't make you sweat, it's not intense enough, or you're not pushing yourself hard enough. (b) You should do the activity for no less than 45min per session and no fewer than 3 times a week. Of course, sometimes life gets in the way and in such cases you can make exceptions, but for the most part, try to stick to these minimums.
If you're too tired one day, go the next. There are almost no good reasons for which you cannot do something 3 times a week. Also, even on a really busy day, you can go for 30min--it's not optimal but it's better than not going. Which leads me to an important psychological point.
If you're too tired one day, go the next. There are almost no good reasons for which you cannot do something 3 times a week. Also, even on a really busy day, you can go for 30min--it's not optimal but it's better than not going. Which leads me to an important psychological point.
We are creatures of habit. This quality on its own isn't a good or bad thing--what matters is the nature of the habits themselves. What does this mean for fitness?
You got it. Establishing good habits is the only way to success. Every fit person I know goes a little crazy when they miss workouts. Just as people with bad habits go crazy when their habits are broken.
You got it. Establishing good habits is the only way to success. Every fit person I know goes a little crazy when they miss workouts. Just as people with bad habits go crazy when their habits are broken.
If you create 'good' habits, you will eventually need to continue them--this means DO NOT skip workout days in the habit forming phase. The more you do, the easier it becomes to do so. Unless you're sick, you should at least drag your butt to your activity for 30min. Once you get started you'll find that you perform much better than you expected and you'll feel good about yourself for persevering. Most importantly you are further reenforcing a good habit rather than a bad one (i.e., being an out-of-shape whiny baby--waaaaa! I'm too tired to work out).
Nutrition
Nutrition
Ok, you big babies, next is nutrition. Here is my scientifical advice. Eat a good breakfast. Some protein (eggs) and some complex carbs. Begin your lunch and dinner with meal-sized salads. When you're done, eat your protein (chicken, fish, lean beef, vegetable protein). If you're still hungry have a small serving of complex carbs (brown rice, whole grain bread).
Yeah, I said it: bread. Don't give me that crap about "but I'm gluten intolerant." Bullshit. Only a very very small percentage of the population is. Oh! I know, you're soooooooooooo special and I don't understand how special you are with your gluten intolerance and sensitivity to wifi too...give me break. But I digress...
So, why eat so much salad before your meals? Cuz it will fill you up and you won't over eat the high calorie stuff that makes you jiggly. Next!
So, why eat so much salad before your meals? Cuz it will fill you up and you won't over eat the high calorie stuff that makes you jiggly. Next!
Supplements: 99% of them are total BS. Unless you live in the 3rd world and have nutritional deficiency or your diet is 100% twinkies, you're wasting your money. And it doesn't count if your naturopathic "doctor" tells you that you are a very special person due to a deficiency they discovered through applied kinesiology (i.e., magic bullshit). Besides, you can simply rectify the problem by wearing a hologram on a piece of rubber. Problem solved!
Ok, so what supplements aren't a total waste of money? For the recreational fitness participant, pretty much all. If you are training at a level beyond recreational, you might benefit from protein supplementation (protein shakes-whey is best) and creatine (plain creatine monohydrate--don't buy that over-priced other crap).
Everything else it a waste of money except Acai berries that cure all forms of cancer and every other disease and virus known to mankind. I read that on the intertubes, so it must be true. That's why there's no cancer in Brazil. What? You didn't know that? Oh, and sharks don't get cancer either, so eat sharks.
Psychology and Healthy Eating
What counts as healthy eating shouldn't be much of a surprise to most people, so why do we so often fail at it? One reason big is weakness of will. Side-stepping the philosophical question of what 'will' is, lets assume the common (vague) understanding.
Here's what we know about will power: (a) it is finite, (b) it diminishes as the day progresses and as we tire. These facts aren't good or bad in themselves, what's important is how we apply them.
Just Say "No" Once: If I know that my will power is finite then it is easier to turn down ice cream 1x than it is to turn it down 10x in the same day. But how do we apply this? It's like this y'all.
When you go shopping DO NOT buy unhealthy food. This is you saying 'no' once. But if you buy it and bring it into your crib, you will have to say 'no' every time you walk by the fridge or think of ice cream. The psychological laws predict that the ice cream will eventually win. Don't let the ice cream win!!! You are better than ice cream!
Just Say "No" Once: If I know that my will power is finite then it is easier to turn down ice cream 1x than it is to turn it down 10x in the same day. But how do we apply this? It's like this y'all.
When you go shopping DO NOT buy unhealthy food. This is you saying 'no' once. But if you buy it and bring it into your crib, you will have to say 'no' every time you walk by the fridge or think of ice cream. The psychological laws predict that the ice cream will eventually win. Don't let the ice cream win!!! You are better than ice cream!
Shop and Cook Yur Food in Advance. Next implication: Our will power decreases as the day progresses and as we tire (the two usually go hand in hand). What do we do with this information?
Here's a familiar scene: Waaaaaa! I'm a big baby. I'm tired from work. I don't feel like cooking. I'm just going to grab some fast food at _____. Sound familiar?
We can't do anything about you being a big baby, but we can do something to prevent you from buying fast food cuz there's no food in the replicator: Cook your food in advance. Either cook your dinner when you make your lunch, or make dinner in a slow cooker when you leave for work, or cook a bunch of food at a time so you have meals for a few days, or cook a lot of food and freeze it in portions.
Or do what I do: start cooking your protein first, then eat your salad while it's cooking. When you're done your salad, dinner will be ready. Ta! Da! Good habit preserved and bad habit averted!
Or do what I do: start cooking your protein first, then eat your salad while it's cooking. When you're done your salad, dinner will be ready. Ta! Da! Good habit preserved and bad habit averted!
I should add that all this requires that you keep healthy food in your house. There is no greater deterrent to cooking than a tired and hungry person without any healthy food in the house.
As with exercise, the same applies to nutrition--it's about creating good habits. But enough of this habit stuff. That habit stuff don't mean crap if I can't do it long enough to create the habit. Am I right? Ami right?
Ok, so this is where we're going to appeal to social psychology to keep us on track long enough to establish good habits...
Social Psychology and Beginning & Keeping Good Habits
Premise: We are extremely susceptible to the influences of our peers. Not surprisingly, this also applies to health and fitness habits. In a really cool 30 year study which followed 12, 067 people and their social networks these interesting conclusions were drawn:
(a) when a friend becomes obese, the chances of you becoming obese increases by 57%.
(b) family and neighbor obesity had much smaller effects on an individuals obesity.
(c) the greatest influence was on close friends: if someone was close friends with someone who became obese, the non-obese person's likelihood of becoming obese rose to 171%!
(d) the same effect was observed for weight loss.
(c) the greatest influence was on close friends: if someone was close friends with someone who became obese, the non-obese person's likelihood of becoming obese rose to 171%!
(d) the same effect was observed for weight loss.
(e) the proposed mechanism is that friends affect each others' perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad. "You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you."
For a more detailed analysis here's a good write up: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25iht-fat.4.6830240.html?pagewanted=all
So, how can we use this information to our advantage? Should we drop our close friends if they become obese? Probably not. Instead we should also seek out peers that have healthy habits we wish to emulate. This will have the effect of countering an obese peer and at least give us a fighting chance. 171% is a lot to overcome! But don't forget, the effect works both ways...
But where am I going to find peers with healthy lifestyles? Um, maybe at the fitness activity you skipped out on yesterday to eat cupcakes with your other friend!
But where am I going to find peers with healthy lifestyles? Um, maybe at the fitness activity you skipped out on yesterday to eat cupcakes with your other friend!
Accountability and Support within Peer Groups
We increase the probability of our following through on something when we are held accountable and given support by our peer group. Big whoop. How does this apply? Well, for example, in one study of those who went into a weight loss program with a friend, 95% completed the program (10 month program) and 66% maintained the loss.
While the numbers vary between studies, the general effect is clear. Those who enter weight loss programs with peers have higher completion rates and long-term success rates.
The moral of the story? Get a fitness buddy or group to keep you on track, motivated, and accountable.
One interesting model I heard about on NPR was people starting using social networking for motivation and accountability. This can be done on your personal page or you can create a private group. In the show they talked about people announcing their starting weight and having to report every determined interval.
I doubt many people who are already self-conscious about their weight would be comfortable with publishing their weight on facebook or even to their close friends. I suggest the following solution. Don't publish your weight. Your weight is 'x'. However, you do need to publish after each week how many pounds you've lost or gained. You might also considering publishing whether you've attended your fitness activity as you promised to your friends.
Aside: This brings up a side issue of whether body weight is a good measure of fitness and health. I won't engage in that debate. Use whatever measure you like--BMI, waist circumference bicep size--whatever. It's not that important in the early stages. Personally, I just look at my abs. If I can see them, I'm on track. If I can't, I've got work to do.
Aside: This brings up a side issue of whether body weight is a good measure of fitness and health. I won't engage in that debate. Use whatever measure you like--BMI, waist circumference bicep size--whatever. It's not that important in the early stages. Personally, I just look at my abs. If I can see them, I'm on track. If I can't, I've got work to do.
The Power of Competition
Most, but not all, of us like to compete. Modern techmology has made quantification and comparison of fitness activities easy. My sister wears a little device on her waist. It's about the size of a thumb drive. It uploads how much distance you cover in a day and about how many calories you've burned as well as other biometric info like heart rate.
Now, here's the cool part. Her company started a program where you can have all this info uploaded to a common website. Everyone who opts in gets their info uploaded to this site. So, everyone can see how everyone else is performing.
You'd be surprised how engaged people get in the competition. Now, instead of driving a short distance, employees walk so they can 'beat' the other competitors for calories burned or distance covered. Add incentives and you have a workforce full of fitness freaks.
You'd be surprised how engaged people get in the competition. Now, instead of driving a short distance, employees walk so they can 'beat' the other competitors for calories burned or distance covered. Add incentives and you have a workforce full of fitness freaks.
Trust me. My sister's a maniac about it. Every time we've gone for a run she has to bring her little device so she can beat the other employees.
This same mentality can easily be harnessed between groups of friends. For example, everyone puts $20.00 into a pot, whoever burns the most calories over t wins the money or gets to donate it to the charity of their choice.
Bottom line is that the most powerful motivational forces for humans are social. Use them to your advantage in conjunction with rewards, punishment, and emotional support. And go with your friends to buy one of those gadgets my sister has!
Rules vs "The Reasonable Person"
This is an interesting one. This belongs more to the realm of psychology proper rather than social psychology. To illustrate consider the following typical scenario:
You're at home watching the boob tube. You say to yourself "I'm just going to have one square of chocolate--besides, it's got antioxidants so it's good for me!" Next thing you know you're thinking, "I've already broken my rule so I might as well have a few more pieces. Five chocolate bars later you're not feeling so hot. Then you think, "well, I've already broken my diet, I might as well eat the ice cream too."
This is an interesting one. This belongs more to the realm of psychology proper rather than social psychology. To illustrate consider the following typical scenario:
You're at home watching the boob tube. You say to yourself "I'm just going to have one square of chocolate--besides, it's got antioxidants so it's good for me!" Next thing you know you're thinking, "I've already broken my rule so I might as well have a few more pieces. Five chocolate bars later you're not feeling so hot. Then you think, "well, I've already broken my diet, I might as well eat the ice cream too."
This is the problem with rules. Once we break them, there's no reason for us to act on them so we easily rationalize further transgressions. I.e., "I've already broken the rule, so breaking it more isn't going to matter."
The problem with rules is that they are often binary. We are allowed to eat chocolate or we aren't. We're on a diet, or we aren't. We exercise, or we don't. Once we put ourselves on one side of the disjunct, there's nothing preventing us from being extreme. So, what's the solution?
The reasonable person approach: We ax ourselves what a reasonable person would do in the situation. Would a reasonable person who is overweight eat 5 chocolate bars and a tub of ice cream? Nope. Would a reasonable person skip the gym because they only have 30min rather than the usual 45min? Nope. When we avoid thinking in binary terms, the door opens for reasonable action.
The reasonable person approach: We ax ourselves what a reasonable person would do in the situation. Would a reasonable person who is overweight eat 5 chocolate bars and a tub of ice cream? Nope. Would a reasonable person skip the gym because they only have 30min rather than the usual 45min? Nope. When we avoid thinking in binary terms, the door opens for reasonable action.
This is not to say rules don't have their place. Rules are a good pre-emptive defensive strike against rationalizing ourselves into doing unhealthy things. In other words, I'm not saying you should do away with rules completely, but we should not be over-reliant on them. Perhaps a hybrid approach will be more fruitful.
Furthermore, the reasonable person approach is not without its own difficulties. As Hume said, "Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal."
Furthermore, the reasonable person approach is not without its own difficulties. As Hume said, "Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal."
For more on this listen to the most excellent podcast "Very Bad Wizards" Episode 7.
Apps.
There are a whole bunch of apps that will help you with self-discipline. Some of these harness the effects of social psychology and some don't. Opt for the ones that do.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Psychology of Grappling: Wrestling vs BJJ
Wrestling vs Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
I've had a couple of glasses of wine so I apologize in advance for any incoherence beyond the usual. My whole life (20 years of it, anyway) I've been a wrestler but in the last 2 weeks I've finally started to understand what it means to be a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) player.
Lets begin first with wresting. Wrestling is all about breaking your opponent's will. If you can establish physical dominance, then he will break mentally, then you win. Wrestling practice focuses on establishing physical dominance---both strength and enduance; technique, although important, is only one of the means by which you accomplish your ultimate goal--breaking the will. In practice the coach tries to break your will by pushing your physical and mental limits; this prepares you for competition. I have to admit, there is something deeply satisfying when you break your opponent's will. You can usually feel when it happens. It satisfies something primal.
BJJ is different. BJJ is all about outsmarting your opponent. It's physical chess but you don't win by force, you win by anticipating your opponents moves and countering them. I've messed around with BJJ on and off for over a decade but it's only in the last 2 weeks that I finally understood what it was about. For the last 10 years I've been doing BJJ as a wrestler; but BJJ doesn't work that way.
The beauty of BJJ is that a less physically gifted opponent can beat the physically gifted opponent if he's clever. The most difficult thing for a wrestler to do is to adopt the practice mentality of BJJ. In wrestling you never ever ever let yourself get pinned (or beaten in any way) in practice because if you allow yourself to get beaten in practice it will happen in competition; also you will develop a mentality of losing. In wrestling practice, if you are going to get pinned in practice or taken down, you fight out of it as if your life depended on it--as though you were in a match.
BJJ is the opposite. In BJJ practice you allow yourself to get beaten to understand what not to do and to practice getting out of that situation. The mentality is the opposite from wrestling; in BJJ practice, the more you lose, the more you learn--assuming you analyze why you lost and how you might escape next time. In fact, many BJJ players will intentionally allow their practice opponents to put them in a bad situation in order to figure out how best to escape it.
The most difficult thing for a wrestler doing BJJ is to adopt the mentality that it's ok to lose in practice. For ten years I was a wrestler doing BJJ--this explains why I plateaued after 2 years, but as of a few weeks ago I had this revelation. It's not easy undoing almost a lifetime of habits but it's the only way to learn...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)