The TEDx Users Guide to Dr Caroline Leaf

Posted on March 26, 2015 by cedwardpitt

On the 4th of February 2015, Dr Caroline Leaf gave her debut TED presentation, at TEDx Oakes Christian School, California.

Most TED watchers wouldn’t have heard of her before, but Caroline Leaf is a well-known name in western Christendom. She has spoken from pulpits on every continent. She’s authored one of the best selling books in the Christian market and has her own TV show on cable in the US. She’s followed by more than one hundred thousand people on Facebook, and she’s even run her own conference, with another in the pipeline. She’s a mega-star in the Christian world.

So who is this woman with the stiletto-heels and slick presentation? What was her training and background? How did she make it to the TEDx stage?

This aim of this post is to provide some context and background for those in the TED universe who have seen Dr Leaf’s TEDx presentation, and want some more information in assessing her TEDx debut, and indeed, the global Caroline Leaf phenomenon.

This review will be in four main parts: first I will give some basic information on Dr Leaf, I will compare Dr Leaf’s claims in her TEDx presentation to her published research results and some basic neuroscience, and lastly I’ll outline Dr Leaf’s general work and it’s accuracy compared to current science.

WHO IS DR LEAF?

Dr Caroline Leaf was born and raised in South Africa, where she completed her school education and went on to attain the following degrees:

Bachelors of Science (Logopaedics) – University of Cape Town 1985
Masters in Audiology and Speech Pathology – University of Pretoria 1990
Doctor Philosophiae (Communication Pathology) – University of Pretoria 1997 (http://drleaf.com/assets/files/DrCarolineLeaf_CurriculumVitae1.pdf)

Officially, Dr Leaf is qualified as a communication pathologist (which is a specialized combination of Speech Pathology and Audiology – see also: http://www.hpcsa.co.za/Uploads/editor/UserFiles/downloads/speech/slh_education_training_insitutions.pdf)

Dr Leaf worked for a number of clinics and school boards as a communication pathologist in the few years following the completion of her PhD (http://drleaf.com/assets/files/DrCarolineLeaf_CurriculumVitae1.pdf).

Dr Leaf has written a number of articles for publication in minor journals (see http://drleaf.com/assets/files/DrCarolineLeaf_CurriculumVitae1.pdf). Three of her papers were published in a small Medline indexed journal, “The South African Journal of Communication Disorders”. These are:

“Mind-Mapping approach (MMA): a culture and language “free” technique”, 1993 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8047932)
“The development of a model for geodesic learning: the geodesic information processing model”, 1997 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819969)
“An alternative non-traditional approach to learning: the metacognitive-mapping approach”, 1998 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472179)

The journal happened to be edited by her supervisor and co-author, Dr Brenda Louw (see http://www.debunkingdrleaf.com/goodies), though I’m sure the selection of her articles for this journal was purely on merit.

Dr Leaf states on a number of occasions that she is a “cognitive neuroscientist”, and “a scientific and Biblical expert in the power of the human mind”. Leaf Cognitive Neuroscientist

This is despite the fact that Dr Leaf:

does not have formal qualifications in neuroscience,
has not worked at a university as a neuroscientist,
has not worked in any neuroscience research labs,
has not published any papers in neuroscience journals, and
has not had any formal theological training.

Given the weight of evidence, Dr Leaf would be better described as an academic speech pathologist and lay preacher rather than a cognitive neuroscientist.

DR LEAF’S RESEARCH RESULTS

Throughout her TEDx presentation, Dr Leaf repeatedly made reference to the results of her own research, suggesting that her pioneering work resulted in radically improved outcomes for the students involved in her research, and that her work with students one-on-one and through teacher education profoundly changed the learning of every student in her various programs.

For example, she said, “Well her IQ was 100 before the accident, it was 120 after the accident. So here with holes in her brain, and brain damage, she changed … she actually increased her intelligence. Now I’m pretty convinced at this stage, cause I’ve been working … besides her I’ve been working with lots and lots of other patients, seeing the same thing, when these students applied their mind, their brain was changing, their academic results were changing.”

Later she stated, “I wasn’t sure if this was going to have the same impact cause until this point I’d been working one on one. Well I’m happy to tell you that we had the same kind of results … The minute that the teachers actually started applying the techniques, we altered the trend significantly.”

And also, “I stand up here saying this with conviction because I have seen this over and over and over in so many different circumstances … in this country I worked in Dallas for three years in charter schools, and we found the same thing happening.”

However, her published results differ significantly from her claims.

The first research that Dr Leaf spoke of was of the sixteen-year-old girl who was the victim of a motor vehicle accident. This particular girl was Dr Leaf’s prime patient. The case study of this patient was presented in Dr Leaf’s unpublished Masters thesis, and was discussed in more detail in Dr Leaf’s paper, “Mind-Mapping approach (MMA): a culture and language “free” technique” [1], though it should be noted that no statistics were published in this paper, and on the third page of the article, Dr Leaf admitted that the result could actually have been spontaneous recovery rather than her own intervention.

Dr Leaf did further work within a number of schools for her PhD research. Dr Leaf compared the academic results for three schools for the years 1991 and 1992 to the results for 1993, during which she introduced her mind mapping approach (MMA). Generally, the results for 1993 were better than the results for 1992, which seems to indicate that Dr Leaf’s MMA training was effective. However, the results from 1991 to 1992 were already improving without her input [2: p182]. The difference in average marks between 1991 and 1992 was 1.76%, while the difference between 1992 and 1993 (the introduction of Dr Leaf’s MMA) was only 2.19%. If Dr Leaf’s program really was the cause of that improvement, then her program only resulted in a 0.43% improvement on average.

I have reproduced Dr Leaf’s original graph of the average overall results obtained in her PhD study. While Dr Leaf’s original graph makes her data look spectacular, when appropriately rescaled, the data looks quite ordinary.

At best, Dr Leaf’s program gave the already positive momentum of the students a gentle nudge.

However, it should be noted that her program may have also hindered some students. Dr Leaf notes in her analysis: “The results obtained indicate that in general the academic trend in the three primary remedial schools was altered with the introduction of the MMA methods in 1993. Furthermore, it appears that the most positive response occurred in phase one (grades 1 and 2, standard 1). A positive response also occurred in phase two (standards 2-4) but this change was just outside the significance level. Phase three (standard 5), by contrast, experienced negative effects with the introduction of the MMA methods.” [2: p181]

So to summarise, according to Dr Leaf’s own data, there was no clear benefit derived from her MMA program.

Dr Leaf then discussed her work in a number of charter schools that she performed in Dallas. This was part of testing of a program called the Switch On Your Brain 5-step learning process.

Dr Leaf claims that, “The Switch On Your Brain with the 5-Step Learning Process® was assessed in a group of charter schools in the Dallas. The results showed that the students’ thinking, understanding and knowledge improved across the board. It was concluded that The Switch On Your Brain with the 5-Step Learning Process® positively changed the way the students and teachers thought and approached learning.” http://drleaf.com/about/dr-leafs-research/

However, there has been no independent research into Dr Leaf’s Switch On Your Brain learning program or even the Geodesic Information Processing Theory, the theory Dr Leaf devised and on which the Switch On Your Brain program is based.

Dr Leaf published her own internal research into the program on her website. The project was a two year program involving teachers and students at a group of four schools in the Advantage Academy group in Dallas, Texas. This involved working with more than 150 teachers and 2000 students.

Despite her glowing self-assessment, Dr Leaf’s own published numbers suggest that the program is ineffective, or quite possibly a hindrance. For example, the graph below demonstrates the qualitative analysis of “content mastery” (which the paper describes as a combination of knowledge and understanding) for reading across all grades from 3rd to 12th, compared with the results from the previous year before the Switch On Your Brain was implemented. Dr Leaf omits a basic statistical analysis, but just by looking at the similarity of the scores, these results are more likely to be a chance effect, except for the 12th grade, where the previous cohort of students increased dramatically, where as the Switch On Your Brain cohort got slightly worse.

Rather than blame her program, Dr Leaf simply shifts the blame to the teachers: “The few cases where we see drops can be linked to teacher knowledge, attitude and skills and is diagnostic.”

The full research paper that Dr Leaf published is available at http://drleaf.com/assets/files/Web-page-AA-research-project-1.pdf if you wish to review the results for yourself.

The ineffectiveness of Dr Leaf’s program may be for many reasons, but I believe one is that it is built on a theory that relies on mind-mapping. Dr Leaf renamed her version of mind-mapping “The Metacog”, though it’s clear from her early academic work [1] that the Metacog and the Geodesic Information Processing Model [3] were based on the work of Tony Buzan. Buzan’s concept of mind-mapping has been used across multiple professional fields [4] and remains a valuable resource for brainstorming or gathering thoughts in a visual way. However, modern research (including a controlled trial within a primary school classroom environment) shows that mind mapping is a poor tool for learning [5-8].

DR LEAF’S IRONIC INSPIRATIONS

Dr Leaf openly contradicts herself throughout her presentation, failing to realise that the stories she shared of her own patients disproved her vacuous inspirational memes.

Our biology affects each and every one of us. Our mind is a function of our brain. Our mind is to our brain as our breath is to our lungs. Put simply, without our brain, we would have no thoughts. If the structure and function of specific networks in our brains are altered, this changes our thinking. This is confirmed in everyday life – when someone suffers a brain injury or a stroke and they sustain damage to their brain, they suddenly lose the function of some, or all of their mind or body. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation, Trans-cranial Direct Current Stimulation, metabolic states, prescription medications, illicit drugs, or everyday drugs like caffeine or alcohol have all been proven to change the subjects mental state through changes to the function of their brain. Any suggestion that our brain does not control our mind is simply ludicrous.

Clearly then our biology does control our psychology. Real cognitive neuroscientists have shown that our stream of thought is simply a tiny fraction of our overall neural activity, a conscious glimpse of the brains overall function [9-11], like the tachometer is for the engine in your car. Thus, our mind does not change our brain at all. Rather, it is our brain’s directed activity causing the growth of new synaptic branches to support it, something which the brain does without the function of conscious thought from the time when we were embryos.

Dr Leaf actually confirms this fact through her stories of her brain injured patients. After all, if “the mind is separate from the brain but influencing the brain”, then how could those victims of acquired brain injury lose cognitive function after their injury? If it were true that “each and every one of us is not a victim of our biology. We are a victor over and above our biology. We control our brain, our brain does not control us”, then how could those people with damage to their brains from strokes suddenly lose function?

The fact that Dr Leaf’s patients lost their mental or cognitive function because of damage to their brains directly contradicts her insistence that our brain and our mind are separate, and that our brain does not control our mind.

FUNDAMENTALS OF DR LEAF’S OTHER TEACHING

Considered altogether, Dr Leaf’s teaching boils down to a few fundamentals;
* Thought is the main driving force that controls every other aspect of our lives (and our physical world).
* We have full control over our thoughts.
* Thought causes stress.
* Stress is directly responsible for nearly all serious physical and mental illness.
* Therefore thought causes the vast majority of human disease, making thoughts toxic, and
* If toxic thoughts cause disease, “detoxing” thoughts will cure or prevent disease.

On first inspection, each individual postulate doesn’t seem so bad. However, when fully considered and taken to their natural conclusions, they veer into conjecture and pseudoscience, as evidenced by Dr Leaf’s published works and public appearances.

For example, Dr Leaf states in her books:

“Thoughts influence every decision, word, action and physical reaction we make.” [12: p13]
“Our mind is designed to control the body, of which the brain is a part, not the other way around. Matter does not control us; we control matter through our thinking and choosing.” [13: p33]
“DNA actually changes shape according to our thoughts.” [13: p35]

On Facebook and in interviews, this translates to:

“Our genetic makeup fluctuates by the minute based on what we are thinking and choosing.” 27/9/2014
“The toxic thoughts in our minds become physical baggage in our brain, which literally cause brain damage.” 5/12/2014, 27/10/2014 and 7/10/2014
“Your mind will adjust your body’s biology and behaviour to fit with your beliefs.” 21/6/2014

“SID ROTH: But when you told me that we could change our genes I wish every doctor in the world would understand this cutting edge research because, you know, you go to a doctor and say your cholesterol was high, and they say, well, exercise, change your diet, but it could be your genes and there’s nothing you can do, so take this medicine that will have a zillion side effects. But you say, according to the latest brain research, if you follow what Jesus said you can change your genes. That’s just so amazing.
DR. LEAF: I know. It is phenomenal. If you think of it, it’s logical too, Sid …”
http://youtu.be/Uhbt_XOZTdA?t=50s. Full transcript: http://donate.sidroth.org//site/DocServer/IS571Transcript_Leaf.pdf?docID=2941

Dr Leaf draws her erroneous conclusions from the poor interpretation of poor evidence. For example, one of Dr Leaf’s favourite factoids is her statement that “Research shows that 75 to 98 percent of mental, physical and behavioral illness comes from one’s thought life.” [13: p33] Dr Leaf’s sources for this statement include, among others, an article that not only doesn’t mention the figure she attributes to it, but also directly contradicts her fundamental premise [14], and the misleading paraphrasing of an already dubious quote from a pseudoscientific author [15].

Dr Leaf also has a number of pet theories which betray her preference for pseudoscience, the main one being her assertion that the heart is actually a mini-brain that has dedicated cognitive functions. For example, in her books, she says,

“Your heart is in constant communication with your brain and the rest of your body, checking the accuracy and integrity of your thought life. As you are about to make a decision, your heart pops in a quiet word of advice, well worth listening to, because when you listen to your heart, it secretes the ANF hormone that gives you a feeling of peace.” [12: p62, 13: p127]

Dr Leaf directly quotes the work of an organisation called HeartMath for her evidence that the heart acts as a mini-brain. Dr Leaf, via Heartmath, states that:
> The heart has a network of 40,000 neurons within it, called sensory neurites, which detect circulating hormones, neurochemicals, and sense heart rate and blood pressure,
> The heart secretes “neurotransmitters” and other hormones, which have an effect on the brain, such as atrial natriuretic factor, and oxytocin,
> The heart communicates with the brain and the rest of the body through neurological, biophysical, biochemical and “energetic” (ie: electromagnetic) means [16, 17].

HeartMath clarifies, “The heart’s brain is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells like those found in the brain proper. Its elaborate circuitry enables it to act independently of the cranial brain – to learn, remember, and even feel and sense.” [16]

So the “evidence” looks plausible on the surface, but absurd when considered in a broader biological context. For example, my heart may have 40,000 neurons, many of which are sensitive to circulating hormones, neurochemicals and which sense and feel, but then again, so does my rectum. Does my rectum have a mini-brain as well? Clearly not. The only brain you have is the one in your cranium. We do not think with our heart, our rectum, or any other body part.

A more in-depth rebuttal of Dr Leaf’s scientific claims can be found in my book: “Hold That Thought – Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf”, via Smashwords (https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/466848) or iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/hold-that-thought/id908877288?mt=11).

SUMMARY

The opening question from Dr Leaf’s presentation at the 2015 TEDx Oaks Christian School was, “Can the mind change the brain?”

Clearly the answer is: “No, it can not.”

Others are welcome to disagree, but in my humble opinion, I suggest that Dr Leaf is a pseudoscientist, and that her appearance on the TEDx stage is not based on scientific acumen, but on popularity and reputation, which in turn, is based on slick self-promotion and an availability cascade (a self-reinforcing process by which an idea gains plausibility through repetition).

Dr Leaf’s ideas may have popular approval, but TEDx is a vehicle for ideas worth spreading, not ideas that are popular. According to its guidelines, TEDx requests that pseudoscience be avoided, specifically stating, “TED and TEDx are platforms for showcasing and explaining genuine advances in science … Speakers should avoid the misuse of scientific language to make unsubstantiated claims.” (http://www.ted.com/participate/organize-a-local-tedx-event/before-you-start/tedx-rules)

Dr Leaf’s claims, that her research has significantly changed the lives of the students who were blessed to receive it, is simply not born out by any of her own published data – from her original case study through to her MMA project and her Switch On Your Brain program. Whatever the underlying reason … whether its hubris, naivety, or denial that’s driving her continued promotion of her own programs … her claims are baseless, and therefore an argument can be made that she breached the TEDx guidelines in presenting them, and indeed, she should never have been invited to deliver them from a TEDx stage in the first place.

The theme for the 2015 TEDx Oaks Christian School event was “Ridiculous”. I would argue that it was ridiculous that Dr Leaf promoted her research as life changing when in reality, it’s not much better than a placebo. It was ridiculous that Dr Leaf would share stories of the changes to the cognitive functioning of her patients from their brain damage and then claim that the brain does not influence the mind. It seems that Dr Leaf’s presentation certainly fitted their theme, although probably not in the way they intended. Lets hope for their sake that their “ridiculous” decision doesn’t effect their ability to host future TEDx presentations.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. What do you think, TEDx universe?

REFERENCES

Leaf, C.M., et al., Mind-Mapping approach (MMA): a culture and language” free” technique. The South African journal of communication disorders. Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings, 1993. 40: 35
Leaf, C.M., The Mind Mapping Approach: a model and framework for geodesic learning, in Department of Communication Pathology, Faculty of Arts1997, University of Pretoria: Pretoria. p. 266.
Leaf, C.M., et al., The development of a model for geodesic learning: the geodesic information processing model. The South African journal of communication disorders. Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings, 1997. 44: 53
Eppler, M.J., A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 2006. 5(3): 202-10
Farrand, P., et al., The efficacy of the `mind map’ study technique. Medical Education, 2002. 36(5): 426-31 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01205.x
Wickramasinghe, A., et al., Effectiveness of mind maps as a learning tool for medical students. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 2007. 1(1): 30-2
D’Antoni, A.V., et al., Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students? BMC Med Educ, 2010. 10: 61 doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-61
Merchie, E. and Van Keer, H., Spontaneous Mind Map use and learning from texts: The role of instruction and student characteristics. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 69: 1387-94
Baars, B.J., Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in brain research, 2005. 150: 45-53
Baars, B.J. and Franklin, S., An architectural model of conscious and unconscious brain functions: Global Workspace Theory and IDA. Neural Netw, 2007. 20(9): 955-61 doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2007.09.013
Franklin, S., et al., Conceptual Commitments of the LIDA Model of Cognition. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 2013. 4(2): 1-22
Leaf, C., Who Switched Off My Brain? Controlling toxic thoughts and emotions. 2nd ed. 2009, Inprov, Ltd, Southlake, TX, USA:
Leaf, C.M., Switch On Your Brain : The Key to Peak Happiness, Thinking, and Health. 2013, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Cohen, S., et al., Psychological stress and disease. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 2007. 298(14): 1685-7
Lipton, B.H., The biology of belief: Unleashing the power of consciousness, matter and miracles. 2008, Hay House, Inc:
Rosch, P. Emotional balance and health. Science of The Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance – An Overview of Research Conducted by the Institute of HeartMath 2013 [cited 2013, 16/7/2013]; Available from: http://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/emotional-balance-health.html.
Rosch, P. Head-Heart Interactions. Science of The Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance – An Overview of Research Conducted by the Institute of HeartMath 2013 [cited 2013, October 20]; Available from: http://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/head-heart-interactions.html.

Dr Caroline Leaf – Feed your children manure???

Posted on March 19, 2015 by cedwardpitt

I was entertained somewhat by Dr Leaf’s latest Facebook post this evening. In it, there was a pairing of water and a pot-plant, and sugary drinks and a child, with the words, “If you give this (water) to your plants? Why give this (sugary beverages) to your children.”

Without looking too closely, one might think that Dr Leaf was making a good point. Water is good, and sugar is bad, right?

With just a little more thinking, one can see that the metaphor is pretty weak. Plants aren’t children. Following the same logic of the metaphor, I should feed my children manure instead of food, since it’s clearly good enough for the pot-plant.

What is worrying about this post is Dr Leaf’s linking of diet with our Christian morals. Dr Leaf tries to link the concept of drinking water to the worship of God, because your body is a temple, and “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31). By logical extrapolation, Dr Leaf is therefore saying that drinking Coke is dishonouring God and the temple he gave for you. If you drink Coke, then you’re a bad Christian.

Though that’s really only Dr Leaf’s interpretation, because the scripture that she quotes isn’t talking about the composition of the food you eat but about it’s relationship to the sacrifice to idols. As far as I was aware, Coke isn’t used in any worship of idols before it’s bottled and distributed. So really, I don’t think whether you drink coke or other sodas will have any bearing on your relationship with God.

Perhaps Dr Leaf would have better spent her time outlining the studies that back up her overly dramatic statement “that sugary drinks like soda and processed orange juice can cause neurochemical havoc in your brain” rather than just hoping people will take her at her word.

Lets be real … no one in their right mind is encouraging children to have more sugar, mainly because of the excess calories, and not the hysterical notion of “neurochemical havoc”. Dr Leaf’s trying to get it right, but her poor metaphor, and the linking of ones diet to ones honouring of God probably went a step too far.

It would be nice if Dr Leaf could reexamine her knowledge of nutritional science and the scriptures that she uses so that she doesn’t weaken her credibility with such posts in the future.

Dr Caroline Leaf and dualism revisited

Posted on January 18, 2015 by cedwardpitt

Are we a body with a mind, or a mind with a body?

This may sound like a chicken-and-egg type of conundrum, but it’s a deep philosophical question. The concept of the separation of the mind from the body is known as dualism, and has been debated for centuries because the answer to that question then guides a lot of other philosophies and theories.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She believes that the body and brain are separate from the mind, which significantly influences her teaching. Take, for example, her social media meme-of-the-day today. She posted that, “The brain does not change itself… our MIND changes the brain”. If one assumes that the mind is separate from our brain, then its plausible that the mind influences the brain.

Except that it doesn’t. Our mind is a product of our brain, not a separate entity. Neurological damage from injuries or tumours, electrical stimulation of the brain in the lab, the effect of illicit drugs on the brain like LSD or marijuana, and everyday examples like the changes to our thinking under the influence of caffeine or alcohol, all prove that changes to the structure and function of the brain change thought patterns. It isn’t the other way around. Every brain changes itself too – the brain of an embryo or foetus undergoes massive changes but foetuses don’t have streams of conscious thought. Dr Leaf’s meme is scientifically misguided.

Perhaps what is more worrying is Dr Leaf’s use of scripture to try and justify her view that the mind and the brain are separate. To introduce her meme, Dr Leaf wrote, “Read Luke 16:19-31 to see that the mind is separate from the brain – this is God’s divine design.”

There are a number of scriptures that theologians use to discuss the biblical basis for the separation of the body and soul, but Luke 16:19-31 isn’t one of them. That passage is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

It says:

‘There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
‘The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
‘But Abraham replied, “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”
‘He answered, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”
‘Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.”
‘“No, father Abraham,” he said, “but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.”
‘He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’ (Luke 16:19-31, NIV)

I’m not sure exactly where the convincing proof of the separation of our mind and our body is found in this passage. This is a description of the afterlife, and in this parable, the rich man was very specific about memories (“I have five brothers …”) as well as physical sensations (“I am in agony in this fire”) and even parts of the body (Lazarus’s finger, his tongue). Jesus isn’t telling a story of how the mind is separate to the body, but of a different dimension in which the body and the mind are still together. This passage isn’t proof for the concept of dualism, but against it.

Dualism also has a number of fatal scientific and philosophical flaws, in particular that dualism is conceptually fuzzy, experimentally irrefutable, considers only the adult mind, and violates physics, in particular the law of conservation of energy.

So Dr Leaf bases her teaching on a scientifically and philosophically untenable concept and then attempts to use a scripture which refutes dualism in her attempt to support it. That’s audacious, but then to claim that it’s God’s divine design is, at best, a little brazen.

Dualism may be one of her fundamental philosophies, but I think Dr Leaf should review the basis for it, and possibly reconsider her reliance on it.

For a more in-depth discussion on Dr Leaf and dualism, please see my essay: Dr Caroline Leaf, Dualism, and the Triune Being Hypothesis

Looking backward, moving forwards

Posted on December 31, 2014 by cedwardpitt

I used to think that with each new year, I was getting wiser.

In reality, I’m probably just getting older … like sun-baked plastic, slowly growing more rigid, cracked and brittle with each passing day. Which is why I no longer blog about subjects like the eleven steps to self-attainment or the seven habits of highly effective nose pickers, or new years resolutions in three easy payments. Call me a grumpy old man, but I’ve been down that road. Hey, if it lights your candle, then I wish you all the best. But to everyone else, if you’re happy to humour a cantankerous old sceptic, I’d like to share my musings on a year that was more morbid than magical.

2014 was quite a year. After suffering from depression for most of the three previous years, I was hoping that 2014 was going to be a year of consolidation. It turned out quite the opposite. I celebrated a birthday milestone with a party that was one of the most amazing experiences of my life, and is still remembered fondly by those who could. That, and I published my second book. In terms of highlights, that was it.

Otherwise, it was a year of adversity. Nearly every one of my family members was in hospital this year at some point. And death came for my wife’s mum, Robin Williams, the cricketer Phillip Hughes, and everyday heroes like Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson in Sydney’s Lindt Cafe siege. In late October, I nearly lost my wife. Many of my friends suffered untold tragedies too.

I’m not going to sugar-coat it, 2014 was a tough year. In the shower this morning, where I get all of my best thinking done, I was contemplating the year that was, and how I was going to move forward. 2014 had left me emotionally bruised and bleeding, and I will carry some of the scars forever. Though while I may be broken, in many ways, that’s not such a bad thing. Brokenness changes your perspective. I’m more grateful for my family. I can empathise on a deeper level with my patients in their distress. I’ve come to understand the wilderness experience of the soul.

I’ve come to realise that goals without deeper values undergirding them are vacuous and futile.

I have a deeper understanding of the grace of God, who despite my brokenness, misery and existential despair, was holding me up and bringing me through. He was my lifeguard, keeping my head above water, swimming me to shore.

Hmmm, perhaps I’m not as rigid or as brittle as I thought.

In 2015, I won’t be making any silly resolutions trying to better myself, because in being broken, I can finally see what’s truly valuable in my life. I may be limping, but at least I’m finally limping in the right direction.

If you’re broken and limping too, let’s limp together into a new year that is richer and more fulfilling than the last.

The pain and gain of grief

Posted on December 21, 2014 by cedwardpitt

Floral tribute to the Sydney siege victims, at Martin Place, Sydney

In many ways, 2014 hasn’t been the best of years, unless you’re a florist.

A dear friend of mine recently went through an unimaginable personal loss, but politely requested that no one send her flowers, because the unintentional metaphor of receiving something beautiful that soon withered and died simply reminded her of what she had lost. Not that I could have given her flowers anyway – it seems like all of Australia’s bouquets have been laid in Martin Place.

The siege in the Lindt Cafe was an assault on Australia’s national psyche as much as it was an attack on a small café in the CBD of Sydney, and marks a highpoint of suffering in the midst of several tragedies back to back. Soon after the tragic events in Martin Place, news came of the murder of eight children from the one family in Cairns. Two weeks before, we were rocked by the sudden death of cricketer, Phil Hughes.

Like many, many others in the last few weeks, I’ve felt that discombobulating mix of sadness, compassion, anxiety, and numbness (and many other feelings) that accompanies loss. I was grieving.

Grief is not fun. There are a wide variety of ways in which people grieve, of course, though grief is rarely described as joyous. Rather than being the five stages of grief that used to be dutifully learned by every medical and psychology student, grief is now considered a mish-mash of nearly every different emotion that a human can experience, for different lengths of time, at different intensities, in different patterns. Like your fingerprint, your emotional pattern of adapting to loss is as individual as you are. I felt helpless at the news from my close friend, shock at the death of Phil Hughes, and anxious when thinking about the Lindt Café. Each tragedy was also accompanied by a deep sadness.

As well as being emotionally draining, the process of grieving can have physical effects as well, associated with high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokine release and the changes that are associated with that (O’Connor, Irwin & Wellisch, 2009). Pro-inflammatory cytokines are also released because of physical stress or infection, so grief would physically feel like you have the flu, which is probably why grieving makes you feel physically awful as well as mentally distraught.

As awful as these feelings are, they are important to our healing and restoration. Grief functions as a way of helping us adjust to life on the other side of our loss. Like our body has to heal and adapt to physical wounds, grief helps us heal and adapt emotionally. Grief is not a disease, but a normal process that everyone experiences at one point or another.

Some authors teach that negative feelings and emotions are toxic, or that the outcome of different stresses in our life is dependent on our personal choices. If there was ever a case-in-point of the benefit of “negative” emotions, and why the outcome of stressful events is not entirely under our control, it’s grief. Grieving is a process which, by definition, is distressing. The storms of painful emotion roll through us, triggered and controlled by our subconscious brain, with our conscious mind along for the ride. As distressing as those emotions can be, they are not ‘negative’ emotions, but the process of healing,

At times of intense sorrow, we can try and ‘help’ those who are grieving by telling them how they should feel, or what they should do, but during times of grief, being too directional is usually not helpful. The blog today is more general in nature because I don’t want to try and push one particular way of grieving over another. There is no right or wrong way to grieve.

My Physical Education teacher often used to say, “No pain, no gain.” Actually, it was more barking through his megaphone, trying to make me run faster in my cross-country race. It may seem an odd match, but the principle applies here too. If you are feeling the sadness and loss over the Lindt Café, Phil Hughes, Robin Williams, or any other personal loss you may have experienced, it’s ok to feel the distress. The pain is hard. The feelings are raw, and they are real. But you will get through them, and they will help you to experience the joy in life again.

I am coming to terms with each of these different tragedies in my own way. Lets pray that 2015 is a much better year.

If you are struggling and don’t know where to go to talk or find assistance, see your GP or psychologist, visit BeyondBlue (http://www.beyondblue.org.au), or the Australian Centre for Grief and Bereavement (http://www.grief.org.au).

If you want to donate to the funds or foundations set up in honour of the Sydney siege victims, please go to http://www.beyondblue.org.au/get-involved/make-a-donation or http://thekatrinadawsonfoundation.org.

References

O’Connor, M.-F., Irwin, M. R., & Wellisch, D. K. (2009). When grief heats up: Proinflammatory cytokines predict regional brain activation. NeuroImage, 47(3), 891–896. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.049

Don’t stress about stress – Part 4: Stress breaking bad

Posted on December 14, 2014 by cedwardpitt

This is the last blog post in my brief series on stress. Today, we’re going to look at what happens when we do hit stress overload, and a few simple methods that may be able to help you through a tough situation.

One of my favourite shows of all time was Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad told the story of Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher and average family man, who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. To support his wife and disabled son after he’s gone, he uses his knowledge of chemistry to launch himself into an underworld career manufacturing crystal meth.

Allostatic overload is the term modern scientists use for stress breaking bad. Stress moves from an agent of growth and change to an agent of disease and death.

In the last few blogs, we discussed that stress is actually more of a positive than a negative. It’s not that stress can’t be bad, because we know from the stress-productivity curve and from the Yerkes-Dodson Law that too much stress overwhelms our capacity to cope with it. The model used to describe the balance of stress on our body is the theory of Allostasis.

Allostasis

All living things maintain a complex dynamic equilibrium – a balancing act of the many different physiological systems that all rely on the other systems working at an optimal range. Imagine trying to stack ten spinning tops on top of each other while trying to keep them spinning. The body does the chemical equivalent of this very difficult combination of balance and dexterity every day. It’s called homeostasis. This balancing act is constantly challenged by internal or external events, termed stressors. Both the amount of stress and amount of time that the stressor is applied is important. When any stressor exceeds a certain threshold (“too strong, or too long”), the adaptive homeostatic systems of the living thing activate responses that compensate.

The theory of allostasis is related to these homeostatic mechanisms, although not just in terms of stress, but broadly to the concept of any change of the optimal range of these homeostatic balancing processes, in response to a change in the environment or life cycle of an organism [1].

McEwen and Wingfield give an example of some bird species, which change their stress response to facilitate their breeding capacity during mating season. They note that the benefit of the increased chance of breeding is important to the bird, but also comes at a cost of increased susceptibility to some diseases because of the weakening of the stress response at the time [1].

When it comes to stress, we adapt in a similar way. A lack of stress, or an excess of a stressor in some way (either too long or too strong) results in adaptation, which is beneficial, but can come at a cost. This is demonstrated by that broadly applicable U-curve, the stress productivity curve.

Chrousos wrote, “The interaction between homeostasis disturbing stressors and stressor activated adaptive responses of the organism can have three potential outcomes. First, the match may be perfect and the organism returns to its basal homeostasis or eustasis; second, the adaptive response may be inappropriate (for example, inadequate, excessive and/or prolonged) and the organism falls into cacostasis; and, third, the match may be perfect and the organism gains from the experience and a new, improved homeostatic capacity is attained, for which I propose the term ‘hyperstasis’.” [2] And as noted by McEwen, “Every system of the body responds to acute challenge with allostasis leading to adaptation.” [3]

More often than not, we adapt to the stressor, either the same as before, or possibly better. It’s only if the response to the stressor is inadequate, excessive and/or prolonged that stress ends up causing us trouble. This is what people normally think of when they think of stress – called allostatic overload – simply stress breaking bad.

Keeping stress in check

To ensure that we keep our stress levels at the optimum to ensure maximum productivity and growth, here are a few simple techniques. Remember, everyone handles stress differently, and so which of these techniques works best for you will be something you’ll have to learn by trying them.

Breathing

The simplest tool is breathing. Sounds a little silly really, since you obviously breathe all of the time! But we usually take shallow breaths, so our lungs are not being used to their full capacity. When we focus on our breathing and deliberately take slow, deep breaths we increase the amount of air going in, and therefore allow more oxygen to enter the blood stream. This better fuels our cells and helps them do their job more efficiently. However, it also sets in motion a physiological mechanism that slows our heart rate.

Our heart pumps blood from our body, through the lungs to get oxygenated. As we take a deep breath, more blood is sucked up into our chest cavity from our veins, because breathing in causes a temporary vacuum in our chest cavity. The extra blood then fills our heart more efficiently. A more efficient heart beat reduces the need for the body to stimulate the heart to pump harder. This promotes more of the parasympathetic “rest-and-digest” nervous system activity, and less of the sympathetic “fight-or-flight” nervous system, via the vagal brake mechanism.

So, to slow your breathing down simply sit in a comfortable position. Take slow, deep breaths, right to the bottom of your lungs and expanding your chest forward through the central “heart” area. Count to five as you breathe in (five seconds, not one to five as quickly as possible) and then count to five as you breathe out. Keep doing this, slowly, deeply and rhythmically, in and out. Pretty simple! This will help to improve the efficiency of your heart and lungs, and reduce your stress levels.

Remember, B.R.E.A.T.H.E. = Breathe Rhythmically Evenly And Through the Heart Everyday.

Meditation

Meditation takes the techniques of breathing one step further, in that meditation involves deliberately switching your brain’s focus to something simple, and in the present. Focussing on nothing – just breathing and turning off your thinking for while – does take some practice. Concentrating on something in the present (not thinking about the past or the future), tends to be easier and requires less practice, although ignoring all the other thoughts that routinely clamour for your attention might be hard when you first try it.

Focusing on the present moment is part of the practice of Mindfulness. Mindfulness meditation has been studied quite extensively over the last few decades, and has been shown to have benefits over a large number of psychological symptoms and disease states [4].

Sometimes it is easier to focus on something visual, that you can see easily in your field of view, or listen to something constant, like the ocean, or a metronome. The easiest thing to do is to again, focus on your breathing. Concentrate on the sound, rhythm and feeling of your breathing, but don’t engage your thoughts, or allow others to creep in. Meditation quietens the mind, which is excellent for reducing stress, and can help to revitalise and refresh your mind.

Guided Imagery

Guided imagery is a step along from meditation. Instead of focussing on something tangible, guided imagery lets you imagine that you are somewhere pleasant, relaxing, or rejuvenating. Some people describe it as a vivid daydream.

Get comfortable, close your eyes and start to breathe slowly and deeply. Once you begin to relax, imagine your favourite scene. It could be at the beach, or in a log cabin in the snow-capped mountains, or swimming in the cool waters in a tropical rain-forest. Whatever you choose, try to imagine the scene in as much detail as possible, and involve all five of your senses if you can, like, for example, the cool water of the waterfall on your bare skin, the sounds of the birds in the trees, the smell of the moss-covered rocks, the canopy of tall trees and vines split by the waterfall and stream allowing the sunlight to spill in to the forest floor. Enjoy the details and the relaxation that this brings. To “come back”, some recommend counting back from ten or twenty, and to tell yourself that when you reach one, you will feel calm and refreshed.

Guided imagery allows you to actively replace the harassing thoughts of your daily routine with pleasant soothing thoughts. There is some early scientific literature suggesting effectiveness, although more research is required [5, 6]. Again, with practice, this can be done anywhere, and can be done quickly if you need a short break to unwind.

Visualisations

Visualisations build on the techniques of guided imagery, but instead of the rain-forest or tropical paradise, you imagine yourself achieving goals, which again could be anything from improving your health, closing that deal, or hitting that perfect drive from the first tee. Again, try and imagine the scene in as much detail as you can, and involve all of your senses.

PMR

Progressive Muscle Relaxation, or PMR for short, is similar to meditation, except that you contract, hold, and then relax your muscle groups in turn. You concentrate on the feel of the tightening and relaxing of the muscles instead of, or as well as, your breathing. Like meditation, it can be done anywhere and involves very little training.

The contraction of the muscle groups, beginning in your feet – working your way up the calves and thighs, tummy, chest, arms and neck, sequentially pumps all of the blood back towards your heart, giving you a boost of blood flow to your lungs. The deep breathing oxygenates this extra blood and hence, gives your brain a burst of oxygen.

Using PMR to meditate helps engage the vagal brake, and there is some evidence that it helps to reduce persistent pain [7, 8].

Exercise

Exercise releases stress and enhances your physical health [9, 10]. It is flexible and easily adaptable – it is usually free and can often be done without any equipment. The downside is that it is not possible everywhere (you can’t go jogging in a plane), but as a daily discipline, it will enhance your physical and emotional wellbeing.

The benefits of exercise are firstly physical. It gets your heart pumping, the blood flowing and your lungs working to their full capacity. It builds physical fitness, which is important to enable the heart and lungs to work efficiently at all times. Exercise has effects on mood, improving depression [11] and anxiety [12].

It can also act as a form of meditation – the solitude of a run or swimming a few laps, concentrating only on the splash of your strokes or the pounding of your feet on the ground – is similar to meditation except that you’re moving (whereas meditation proper involves being still and relaxed). But the outcome is the same, and stress is often reduced by a session of physical exercise.

Music

Music is almost as fundamental to human existance as breathing, and it’s almost as diverse as mankind itself. Listening to ones favourite music can enhance feelings of control and can increase pain tolerance and improve short term anxiety (stress) [13]. The common characteristics of ‘therapeutic’ music was music which had less tonal (pitch) variation, less prominent chord changes, bass lines, or strong melodies [14].

But the key element was personal preference overall, as some of the participants in the study chose music like Metallica. So enjoy music. Make it part of your day. Even Country and Western may be considered therapeutic!

Yoga

Yoga is an ancient practice that has several components including physical postures (asanas), controlled breathing (pranayama), deep relaxation, and meditation.

It’s not for everyone, but it has clearly defined and scientifically validated benefits to your physical and psychological well-being. “It is hypothesized that yoga combines the effects of physical postures, which have been independently associated with mood changes and meditation which increases the levels of Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Other effects that have been noted include increased vagal tone, increased gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) levels, increase in serum prolactin, downregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and decrease in serum cortisol, and promotion of frontal electroencephalogram (EEG) alpha wave activity which improves relaxation.” [15] So, translated: Yoga is good for stress relief!

Most gyms and community centres will have yoga instructors, so go ahead and make some enquiries.

Massage

I love massage! The first time I had a proper massage was in the small city of Launceston in the tiny Australian state of Tasmania. After just 30 minutes of the therapist kneading my muscles with her fingers of iron, I felt pretty good, but when I sat up, I was actually light-headed for a little while. My heart rate and blood pressure had reduced so much that it took me a while before I could stand up properly!

Deep pressure massage has also been shown to help release the vagal brake enhancing the activity of the parasympathetic (rest-and-digest) part of the autonomic nervous system. There is good evidence of this effect in pre-term infants [16]. The evidence for adults isn’t so strong, although that’s probably because of a lack of quality research [17]. The good studies that have been done show a reduction of cortisol, blood pressure and heart rate after massage, with some studies showing small persistent effects [17].

The data might be thin, but there is enough evidence to make it worth trying at least once.

Probiotics

I add probiotics to this list as a reference for the future. There is good evidence of the anxiolytic effect of having a friendly bacteria garden in your intestines that interacts with your gut and your immune system in positive ways. But there is, at this point, very little in the way of good quality human clinical trials. And we still don’t know exactly which strains of probiotics are the most helpful for different conditions [18, 19]. But given that they are unlikely to be harmful, it may be worth trailing a course of probiotics, and see how you feel in 30 days.

The bottom line – stress is not the enemy. Sure, if it isn’t handled right, stress can overwhelm us and make us sick, but most of the time, stress makes us productive and strong, and helps us to grow. So, don’t stress about stress.

References

McEwen, B.S. and Wingfield, J.C., What is in a name? Integrating homeostasis, allostasis and stress. Horm Behav, 2010. 57(2): 105-11 doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.09.011
Chrousos, G.P., Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2009. 5(7): 374-81 doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2009.106
McEwen, B.S., Stressed or stressed out: what is the difference? J Psychiatry Neurosci, 2005. 30(5): 315-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151535
Keng, S.L., et al., Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: a review of empirical studies. Clin Psychol Rev, 2011. 31(6): 1041-56 doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006
Jallo, N., et al., The biobehavioral effects of relaxation guided imagery on maternal stress. Adv Mind Body Med, 2009. 24(4): 12-22 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20671330
Trakhtenberg, E.C., The effects of guided imagery on the immune system: a critical review. Int J Neurosci, 2008. 118(6): 839-55 doi: 10.1080/00207450701792705
Baird, C.L. and Sands, L., A pilot study of the effectiveness of guided imagery with progressive muscle relaxation to reduce chronic pain and mobility difficulties of osteoarthritis. Pain Manag Nurs, 2004. 5(3): 97-104 doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2004.01.003
Morone, N.E. and Greco, C.M., Mind-body interventions for chronic pain in older adults: a structured review. Pain Med, 2007. 8(4): 359-75 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00312.x
Fletcher, G.F., et al., Statement on exercise: benefits and recommendations for physical activity programs for all Americans. A statement for health professionals by the Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation, 1996. 94(4): 857-62 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772712
Warburton, D.E., et al., Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ, 2006. 174(6): 801-9 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051351
Rimer, J., et al., Exercise for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012. 7: CD004366 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004366.pub5
DeBoer, L.B., et al., Exploring exercise as an avenue for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Expert Rev Neurother, 2012. 12(8): 1011-22 doi: 10.1586/ern.12.73
MacDonald, R.A., Music, health, and well-being: a review. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being, 2013. 8: 20635 doi: 10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20635
Knox, D., et al., Acoustic analysis and mood classification of pain-relieving music. J Acoust Soc Am, 2011. 130(3): 1673-82 doi: 10.1121/1.3621029
Balasubramaniam, M., et al., Yoga on our minds: a systematic review of yoga for neuropsychiatric disorders. Front Psychiatry, 2012. 3: 117 doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00117
Field, T., et al., Preterm infant massage therapy research: a review. Infant Behav Dev, 2010. 33(2): 115-24 doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.12.004
Moraska, A., et al., Physiological adjustments to stress measures following massage therapy: a review of the literature. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2010. 7(4): 409-18 doi: 10.1093/ecam/nen029
Bested, A.C., et al., Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part II – contemporary contextual research. Gut Pathog, 2013. 5(1): 3 doi: 10.1186/1757-4749-5-3
Bested, A.C., et al., Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: part III – convergence toward clinical trials. Gut Pathog, 2013. 5(1): 4 doi: 10.1186/1757-4749-5-4

Going green – why envy is an adaptive process

Posted on December 7, 2014 by cedwardpitt

The Bible says, in Job 5:2, “For wrath kills a foolish man, And envy slays a simple one.”

A German proverb goes, “Envy eats nothing, but its own heart.”

Dr Caroline Leaf, communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist, posted today on her social media feeds, “Jealousy and envy creates damage in the brain … but … celebrating others protects the brain!”

Yes, sometimes envy isn’t good for us. Emotions guide our thought process, and like all emotions that are out of balance, too much envy can cloud our better rational judgement and bias our perception of the world. Thankfully, envy doesn’t literally eat out our hearts or literally cause brain damage.

If anything, envy when experienced in a balanced way can actually improve our brain functioning. According to real cognitive neuroscientists, envy and regret are emotions that help us because they both fulfil the role of effectively evaluating our past actions, which improves our choices in the future. As Coricelli and Rustichini noted, “envy and regret, as well as their positive counterparts, share the common nature that is hypothesized in the functional role explanation: they are affective responses to the counterfactual evaluation of what we could have gotten had we made a different choice. Envy has, like regret, a functional explanation in adaptive learning.” [1]

When it comes to the human psyche, there is no black or white, good vs evil distinction between different feelings or emotions. B-grade life coaches and slick pseudoscience salespeople dumb down our emotions into a false dichotomy because it helps sell their message (and their books). Every emotion can be either helpful or unhelpful depending on their context in each individual.

As Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck wrote, “Emotion is integral to all phases of the coping process, from vigilance, detection, and appraisals of threat to action readiness and coordinating responses during stressful encounters. However, adaptive coping does not rely exclusively on positive emotions nor on constant dampening of emotional reactions. In fact, emotions like anger have important adaptive functions, such as readying a person to sweep away an obstacle, as well communicating these intentions to others. Adaptive coping profits from flexible access to a range of genuine emotions as well as the ongoing cooperation of emotions with other components of the action system.” [2]

If you find your thoughts and feelings tinged by the greenish hue of envy, don’t worry, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Your heart isn’t going to consume itself and you won’t sustain any brain damage. Use envy or regret as tools of learning, tools to help you evaluate your choices so that you make a better choice next time. Having balanced emotions is the key to learning and growing, coping with whatever obstacles life throws at us.

References

Coricelli, G. and Rustichini, A., Counterfactual thinking and emotions: regret and envy learning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2010. 365(1538): 241-7 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0159
Skinner, E.A. and Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., The development of coping. Annu Rev Psychol, 2007. 58: 119-44 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705

Dr Caroline Leaf and the law of great power

Posted on December 4, 2014 by cedwardpitt

Tonight as I was flicking through Facebook one last time, a post caught my eye. It read,

“The thought you are thinking right now is impacting every single one of the 75-100 trillion cells in your brain and body at quantum speeds”

Dr Leafs social media gem gave me an eerie sense of deja vu. It was only the end of October when she posted the same factoid on social media. Today’s version has been tweaked slightly, although in all fairness, I can’t describe it as an upgrade.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. On the 23rd of October 2014, she posted this on her social media stream, “Every thought you think impacts every one of the 75-100 trillion cells in your body at quantum speeds!”

On comparing the pair, Dr Leaf has added “brain” into the number of cells under the influence, and then massaged the opening slightly. I already had significant concern about the scientific validity of the previous meme in October. That hasn’t changed. Rather than improving the accuracy of her meme, Dr Leaf’s changes have left it missing the mark.

The fundamental fallacy that thoughts are the main controlling influence on our brain is still there. Thought is simply a conscious projection of one part of the overall function of our brain. Our brains function perfectly well without thought. Thought, on the other hand, doesn’t exist without the brain. Our brain cells influence our thoughts, not the other way around.

The myth of “quantum speeds” is still there. Our neurones interact with each other via electrochemical mechanisms. Like all other macroscopic objects, our brains follow the laws of classical physics. It’s not that quantum physics doesn’t apply to our brains, because quantum mechanics applies to all particles, but if you think you can explain macroscopic behaviour using quantum physics, then you should also try and explain Schrodingers Cat (see also chapter 13 of my book [1] for a longer discussion on quantum physics). Dr Leaf is particularly brave to make such bold statements about quantum physics when even quantum physicists find it mysterious.

What made me slightly embarrassed for Dr Leaf is the new part of her statement. In my blog on Dr Leaf’s previous attempt at this meme, I pointed out that Dr Leaf’s estimate of the number of cells in our body was more than three times that of the estimate of scientists at the Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/?no-ist). The fact that Dr Leaf so badly estimated, when all she needed to do was a one line Google search, suggested that she just made the number up. Failing to cite her source eroded at her credibility as a scientist.

Today, Dr Leaf still claims that there are 75-100 trillion cells in the brain and the body. The Smithsonian still hasn’t changed its estimate. Dr Leaf still hasn’t cited her source, and has ignored a world-renowned scientific institution. Perhaps Dr Leaf believes she knows more than the scientists at the Smithsonian? Perhaps she has a better reference? We’ll never know unless she cites it.

Taken as a whole, her meme is no closer to the truth than it was six weeks ago. Some may ask if it really matters. “Who cares if we have 37.2 trillion cells or 100 trillion cells or even 100 billion trillion”. “So what if our thoughts influence us or not.” If this was just a matter of a pedantic argument between some scientists over a coffee one morning,then I’d agree, it wouldn’t be so important. But Dr Leaf claims to be an expert, and more than 100,000 people read her memes on Facebook and many more on Twitter, Instagram, and the various other forms of social media she is connected to. Nearly every one of those people take Dr Leaf at her word. Ultimately the issue is trust.

If Dr Leaf can misreport such a simple, easily sourced fact, and not just once but twice now, then what does that mean for her other factoids and memes that she regularly posts on social media? If Dr Leaf incorrectly says that every thought we think impacts every cell in our body, then hundreds of thousands of people are wasting their mental and physical energy on trying to control their thoughts when it makes no real difference, and if anything might make their mental health worse [2, 3].

This is more than just a pedantic discussion over a trivial fact. These memes matter to people, and can potentially influence the health and wellbeing of many thousands of lives.

Peter Parker, quoting Voltaire, said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Just because Spiderman said it doesn’t diminish the profundity of that statement. This law of great power applies to Dr Leaf as much as it does to Spiderman. I hope and pray that she gives this law of great power the consideration it deserves.

References

Pitt, C.E., Hold That Thought: Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf, 2014 Pitt Medical Trust, Brisbane, Australia, URL http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/466848
Garland, E.L., et al., Thought suppression, impaired regulation of urges, and Addiction-Stroop predict affect-modulated cue-reactivity among alcohol dependent adults. Biol Psychol, 2012. 89(1): 87-93 doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.09.010
Kavanagh, D.J., et al., Tests of the elaborated intrusion theory of craving and desire: Features of alcohol craving during treatment for an alcohol disorder. Br J Clin Psychol, 2009. 48(Pt 3): 241-54 doi: 10.1348/014466508X387071

Dr Caroline Leaf and the cart before the horse, take two

Posted on December 1, 2014 by cedwardpitt

In between her sightseeing in the UK and ballet concerts in the Ukraine, Dr Leaf, communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist, took the time to post some more memorable memes.

Today, Dr Leaf posted, “A chaotic mind filled with thoughts of anxiety, worry, etc. sends out the wrong signal right down to the level of our DNA.”

Hmmm, that one looked familiar … actually, Dr Leaf posted the exact same phrase on the 5th of October this year. I’m all for recycling, but of renewable resources, not tired ideas.

This meme has been soundly rebuffed before, and the idea that the mind controls our DNA has been thoroughly dismantled. Reposting it won’t make it any truer.

This meme is better off being put into the trash than the recycling bin.

(For more information on the rebuttal of the mind over matter meme, see also “Hold that thought: Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf“, “Dr Caroline Leaf: Putting thought in the right place” Part 1 and Part 2, “Dr Caroline Leaf and the matter of mind over genes“, “Dr Caroline Leaf, Dualism, and the Triune Being Hypothesis”, “Dr Caroline Leaf and the Myth of the Blameless Brain” and “Dr Caroline Leaf and the Myth of Mind Domination” just to name a few references).

Don’t stress about stress – Part 3: Coping

Posted on November 23, 2014 by cedwardpitt

In our last two blogs, we’ve been looking at stress, and why stress is usually more helpful than harmful.

It’s not that stress can never be harmful. Stress can be a trigger to some illnesses (although not as many as the popular media often portrays). What is it that makes the difference between helpful and harmful? What is it that causes one person to surf the tsunami of sewerage that often confronts us in life, while another person sinks?

The answer lies in resilience.

WHAT IS RESILIENCE?

Resilience is the term given to the individual’s capacity to cope.

Researchers in the field of psychiatry often use the term resilience, which “is the capacity and dynamic process of adaptively overcoming stress and adversity while maintaining normal psychological and physical functioning” [1] although psychologists and social science researchers would use the term “coping”, which is defined by Compas et al as, “conscious and volitional efforts to regulate emotion, cognition, behavior, physiology, and the environment in response to stressful events or circumstances.” [2] Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck define coping as, “action regulation under stress.” [3]

Considering the definitions used, the terms are essentially interchangeable. The other observation to be made here is that coping/resilience is an active process. It’s not something that happens despite of us – we actively cope with stress. In the face of a situation involving emotional arousal (danger or stress), we take steps to deal with our inner and outer environments (the physiological processes of our body, as well as the environment around us). Sometimes these steps are conscious and/or under our control. But theorists also consider automatic, unconscious, and involuntary responses to also be part of the coping spectrum [4].

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO RESILIENCE?

Coping Strategies

What makes up those actions? What influences the action steps?

Psychologists have described hundreds of individual methods of coping through recent research, although there have been efforts to consolidate the plethora of individual coping strategies into “family” clusters, based on function. For example, a primary tier is to “Coordinate actions and contingencies in the environment” which involves “finding additional contingencies” which on the third level involves “reading, observation, and asking others.” [3] Table 1 in the paper by Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck [3] summarize the many ways of coping and how they can be grouped together into families, and their corresponding adaptive process.

Personality factors

Coping strategies follow along the lines of personality type [5], as well as the stage of development in children [3]. Personality types such as Neuroticism and Openness have been well studied, with Neuroticism associated with maladaptive coping strategies, and Openness correlated with adaptive coping (in marital relationships [6] and in public speaking tasks [5]).

Further research has shown how personality significantly influences coping, with the severity of the stress, and the age and culture of a person influencing the strategy and strength of the coping response [4]. Of course, personality traits like neuroticism sound bad, but they confer their own strengths. For example, negative affect has protective benefits by enhancing the detection of deception [7].

Biological factors

The shared connection that personality types and coping responses have is in their shared genetics, with personality and coping styles influenced by common genes [8]. This makes perfect sense as it has been shown that changes in individual genes effect the ability of the brain to associate the correct value to rewards [9], which then influences both mood [10], and learning [11]. Even though environmental variables are important in determining personality and learning aspects of coping with stress, the brains underlying capacity to process the incoming signals correctly will significantly influence the direction and outcome of the learning process, which includes learning which coping strategies work best for each individual.

On a deeper level, there are several biological processes that make up the features of resilience. Animal studies on resilience, as a whole, have shown that resilience “is mediated not only by the absence of key molecular abnormalities that occur in susceptible animals to impair their coping ability, but also by the presence of distinct molecular adaptations that occur specifically in resilient individuals to help promote normal behavioral function.” [12] That is, resilient individuals have the full complement of critical components in the resilience pathway, and have some extra tools too.

Human studies thus far have shown strong links to genetic changes that affect the proteins in the stress system. Epigenetic mechanisms are involved, and the role of the environment is also significant, especially uncontrollable early childhood trauma. Wu et al list the current studies of genetic changes that effect resilience in humans [1: Table 1]. The proteins involved are responsible for the growth of new nerve pathways (BDNF), and for their function, especially within the stress system (CRHR1, FKBP5) and in control of mood and reward systems (COMT, DAT1, DRD2/4, 5-HTTLPR, the HTR group).

Wu et al [1] also summarised the currently known facts about epigenetic factors in resilience. Interestingly, they noted an animal study in which chronic stressors increased an epigenetic marker called histone acetylation in the hippocampus in mice, which enhanced the protective effects of the stress (epigenetics will be the subject of a future blog)

Resilience on a personal level

So coping and resilience are known protective factors for stress, and are more commonly deployed than most people realize. Despite all of the publicity that stress has generated, human beings remain remarkably unscathed. It’s estimated that, “in the general population, between 50 and 60% experience a severe trauma, yet the prevalence of illness is estimated to be only 7.8%.” [12] (Note: By ‘illness’, the authors were referring to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, not all of human sickness).

But when it comes to recommending different coping strategies on an individual level, it is a much harder thing to do. What is adaptive in some situations and for some people is maladaptive in other situations and for other people.

For example, in animal studies, “stressed females tend to perform better than males on non-aversive cognitive or memory tasks … Conversely, in tests of acute stress or aversive conditioning, stress enhances learning in males and impairs it in females … the literature suggests that in cognitive domains females cope better with chronic forms of stress, whereas males tend to cope better with acute stress.” [12] So animal studies confirm a difference in the biological stress response between men and women. If these studies in animals can be extended to humans, it may explain the tendency for men to engage in “fight-or-fight” responses to stress where women usually move to “tend-and-befriend” mode [13].

Human studies on coping also demonstrate that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. Connor-Smith and Flachsbart confirm that, “In particular, daily report and laboratory studies suggest that individuals high in sensitivity to threat may either benefit from disengagement or be harmed by engagement in the short term, with the opposite pattern appearing for individuals low in threat sensitivity.” [4]

So in other words, just because engaging may be a positive method of coping does not mean that it should be recommended to everyone. Some people will have more harm from trying to engage. Care should be taken when giving people advice about how to manage their stress. Ill-informed instructions can actually make things worse.

SUMMARY

It’s well established that stress can have negative impacts on your physical and mental health. But contrary to the popular view, stress is not always bad. As a number of authors point out, most people go through significant stress at some point in their lives, but only a fraction succumb to that stress.

The difference is the factors that make up resilience. Where we are along the stress spectrum (that is, whether you are wired to be more stressed, or more resistant to stress) depends on our genetic predisposition, which determines the physiology of our stress system and our personality, and the ways we learn to cope.

How we cope best depends on our individual traits and the situation. There is no one-size-fits-all. Pushing a person into a form of coping that’s not suitable can actually cause a lot of harm.

Remember, we normally find what coping strategies work for us automatically as our resilience is mostly innate, and we all go through severe stress at some point or another in our lives, but only a small fraction of us will succumb to that stress.

In the last blog in the series, we’ll have a brief look at what happens when stress overwhelms us … when stress is breaking bad.

References

Wu, G., et al., Understanding resilience. Front Behav Neurosci, 2013. 7: 10 doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00010
Compas, B.E., et al., Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychol Bull, 2001. 127(1): 87-127 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11271757
Skinner, E.A. and Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., The development of coping. Annu Rev Psychol, 2007. 58: 119-44 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705
Connor-Smith, J.K. and Flachsbart, C., Relations between personality and coping: a meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2007. 93(6): 1080
Penley, J.A. and Tomaka, J., Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and individual differences, 2002. 32(7): 1215-28
Bouchard, G., Cognitive appraisals, neuroticism, and openness as correlates of coping strategies: An integrative model of adptation to marital difficulties. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 2003. 35(1): 1
Forgas, J.P. and East, R., On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008. 44: 1362-7 http://bit.ly/Jm66a7
Kato, K. and Pedersen, N.L., Personality and coping: A study of twins reared apart and twins reared together. Behavior Genetics, 2005. 35(2): 147-58 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10519-004-1015-8
Dreher, J.-C., et al., Variation in dopamine genes influences responsivity of the human reward system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009. 106(2): 617-22
Felten, A., et al., Genetically determined dopamine availability predicts disposition for depression. Brain Behav, 2011. 1(2): 109-18 doi: 10.1002/brb3.20
Ullsperger, M., Genetic association studies of performance monitoring and learning from feedback: the role of dopamine and serotonin. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2010. 34(5): 649-59
Russo, S.J., et al., Neurobiology of resilience. Nature neuroscience, 2012. 15(11): 1475-84
Verma, R., et al., Gender differences in stress response: Role of developmental and biological determinants. Ind Psychiatry J, 2011. 20(1): 4-10 doi: 10.4103/0972-6748.98407

Dr C. Edward Pitt

Faith, Hope, Love, Science.

Category Archives: Psychological

The TEDx Users Guide to Dr Caroline Leaf

Dr Caroline Leaf – Feed your children manure???

Looking backward, moving forwards

The pain and gain of grief

Don’t stress about stress – Part 4: Stress breaking bad

Going green – why envy is an adaptive process

Dr Caroline Leaf and the law of great power

Dr Caroline Leaf and the cart before the horse, take two

Don’t stress about stress – Part 3: Coping