Treating Myopia

May 15th, 2008

Myopia is a condition of attention and concentration. The mind naturally defends itself and its interests. Long before and after Freud observed (invented) the Ego, it’s has been well known that we mediate between what we really want to do and what we think we can get away without shame or punishment.

Given all this work to do, and the limited amount of psychic ram available to Homo sapiens, how can we expect to attend to and take care of our long-term interests? How can we possibly even see ourselves clearly, or at least imagine how others see, hear, and judge us?

Psychic myopia is thus part of the human condition. And that’s why we need others around us to mirror us accurately, to nudge us out of our ruts, to help us to lower our fear and greed long enough to get perspective.

There is no cure for psychic myopia. But we can borrow spectacles from those whose professions enable perspective in various dimensions of life. Good therapists, good consultants, good coaches, and good spiritual advisers.

Psychic myopia, conversely, can harden when we put ourselves in the company of bad therapists, bad consultants, bad coaches, and bad spiritual advisers. They tell us, at first, that what we see is true and complete, that we are wise and that the world is foolish. They stroke our egos, blinding us with our own limited vision.

How do you tell the difference between the good spectacles and the blinders? The good spectacles make us feel uncomfortable and a bit out of control at first, but soon we feel better and more effective. The blinders make us feel good at first, but soon we grow smaller and more dependent.

If you are looking to others to gain insight into your business or your life, which help with psychic myopia are you receiving? Can you tell and feel the difference?

Technorati Tags: ,

If Scientists Wrote Like Journalists

May 8th, 2008

Everybody loves a story, and scientists are no exception. When working with young scientists, it is wonderful to witness when someone stops thinking of their papers as tabulations of results and starts thinking in terms of stories. Yes, there is a standard format for writing research papers which seems cold and dry, emphasizing clarity over story. Abstract. Introduction. Methods. Results. Discussion.

But really compelling research articles can read a bit like detective stories, transcending the limits of the research journal format. Foreshadowing, elements of suspense, the surprising ending — they can all be built into the scientific story. There is something deeply satisfying, even primal, about sharing a story of discovery.

As an editor at Science once told a senior author, “Surprise me.”
Technorati Tags: , , ,

If Journalists Wrote Like Scientists

May 7th, 2008

Writing about scientific issues has improved dramatically in print and electronic media over the past decade. Part of this may be due to sustained efforts by scientists to insist upon accuracy and to complain when journalists get the science wrong. In addition, more and more people with scientific backgrounds are choosing to become journalists.

It’s striking that this trend towards greater critical thinking in science reporting has not spread into other subjects of coverage. I’m reminded of this particularly in the coverage of politics. This morning I heard a journalist interview a Clinton campaign member who argued that Clinton is the best choice because polls say she can beat McCain more decisively. An Obama supporter countered that he is in the best position to beat McCain because he has more support among Democrats. What would a trained natural or social scientist say in response to these claims? Like so many areas that journalists cover with a straight face, these arguments have so little weight to them that they are meaningless. There’s no basis for having any sense of probability that either assertion is true.

Some people may chafe at my complaint, claiming that you can’t apply experimental methods or probability theory to test the viability of a candidate who isn’t even facing off with their opponent from the other party. That’s right. So why not challenge the supporters’ claims as mere puffery or, better yet, ignore them and move on to more substantial matters?

Reporters put up daily with pseudoscientific interpretations of poll data, which are about as reliable as weather predictions — pay attention to the forecast for the next three days, but bring your umbrella just in case. If journalists took a hard look at what they are reporting, it would be a very short news day. Which would leave more time to play good music instead. I’m all for that.
Technorati Tags: ,

The Sorry State of Coaching

May 3rd, 2008

Sadly, there is no science of coaching. Professional coaching at its best is largely based on rules of thumb, heuristics, trial and error, a limited amount of psychology, a bit of wisdom and a dash of hope.

Coaching is the proper domain of empirical psychology. The field must move towards relying on empirically validated methods for helping people identify goals, motivating them to achieve those goals, and supplying the training and support they need to get there.

When universities fully invest in the study of coaching as an applied, interdisciplinary profession, things will dramatically change. You will see a shakeout in the coaching world, and clients will be able to more reliably evaluate and choose good coaches.

Most coaching training currently takes place in private institutes, using methods inherited from self-help movements, new age philosophy, and psychological techniques that were popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The only qualification for enrolling in coaching training is a credit card. I expect that most of these schools, and the methods they use, will vanish when coaching is established on empirical foundations. I can’t wait.

Technorati Tags: , , ,