Sometimes I take myself too seriously. It usually happens when I am to ‘do’ something new in front of other people - like the time I officiated at my friend’s wedding or the time I gave a speech at a large fund-raiser. If it entails ‘performance’ and the surroundings are new, my fear system kicks into high gear and I worry.

This sort of anxiety is part of normal development but in the extreme, if it causes impairment, it can fall under the heading of ’social phobia’ by the diagnostic bible of psychiatry (DSM-IV). People with social phobias can fear many different types of social interactions - from small talk at a cocktail party to eating in public to public speaking. There is something awry with their social relating networks - the physiological system underlying social interactions. People with social phobias have learned to fear certain forms of social interactions at times when it is unnecessary. Many factors contribute to the development of social phobias including genes, personality, and trauma.

Working with social anxiety - and phobias - can take many forms including therapy, meditation, and medication. And I have found that humor also helps.

My husband recently sent me an email with a subject line ‘you snoring’. He captured it on his iphone when I fell asleep the other night during a movie in our living room.

Aaeerrggggg……

Nothing breaks the cycle of self-centered worry as much as the recognition that being Human means ‘being human’ - snoring and all.

Social fear arises because we only want the world to see our perfection, that is the beauty in us, not our human foibles - ugly as they may be.

But to be human is to be both invincible and vulnerable, beautiful and ugly, even good and evil.

Accepting this - with loving-kindness and a little humor - can counter fear of any sort.

So the next time I begin to spiral down into worry over an upcoming performance, I think I’ll do what I already do
1. prepare
2. meditate
3. take a prescription med if needed

and play the file of me ’snoring’ and laugh.

I’m embarrassed to say I read Louise Hay’s “You can heal your life” at times when I have a stiff neck, lower back pain, or sinus flare-up. Her book is full of body to emotion relationships with positive affirmations offered as a means to counter what she considers the underlying cause of many illness, negative thoughts and feelings. The feeling of embarrassment stems from my training in science and my respect for the rigors of science, for the power of an accumulation of empiric data to back up hypotheses in life. As far as I know there is no scientific data that can be used to support Hay’s connections. Perhaps Louise Hay is right, perhaps she is wrong. Using science as a means of deciding cannot help at this point in time because there is no scientific research that has yet tested the specific mind-body relationships she puts forth.

There is a growing body of data supporting strong mind-body connections and studies over the next decade or two will likely yield great leaps in our understanding of them. But this post is not about Louis Hay, it is about the value of intuition vs. reason in gaining knowledge about the world. Louis Hay is an interesting example because her book is largely based on her first-person experiences with clients from her church and her intuition of mind-body connections. Despite the lack of scientific studies behind it, she has a massive number of followers around the world.

Intuition is, by definition, a non-rational means of knowing. In the world of science - a system based in reason - intuition is precluded as a viable means of knowing.

There is however a growing interest among scientists to better understand intuition, from the biological correlates of it to times when intuitive judgments may be valuable. In decision-making, problems solved by intuition, called ‘insight’, have revealed that specific neuroanatomical correlates (e.g. right temporal lobe) are involved. Other studies have shown times when intuitive decision-making is advantageous over reason (perhaps in cases with numerous decision points). And, scientists have long seen the value of intuition in moving their own field forward, how bursts of insight, so-called ‘Aha!’ moments often yield unforeseen and useful discoveries that at times lead to paradigm shifts. Jonas Salk, a scientist who valued intuition, once wrote “the intuitive mind tells the thinking mind where to look’.

For many years I closed my mind to intuition, thinking only science held the key to understanding. I now see intuition as crucial to humanity and attempt to keep an open mind to everything. In Western society, we have leaned so far toward reason that we have forgotten the value of intuition.

My interest in Hays is to illustrate the ease with which we shut the doors of intuition in the absence of science. I am pretty sure most of my scientist colleagues would discount her mind-body connections as speculative at best and ‘new age psychobabble’ at worst. Perhaps it is wise to remind ourselves to stay ‘open’ to ideas until they have been rigorously examined, to not shut doors of intuition until science has also played its part, to withhold judgment until exploration is complete.

I’m often struck by quick I am to judge an idea, while catching myself if I judge a person or place by its cover. But an idea seems to slip beneath by radar and I find I have closed a door too quickly time and time again. Reminding myself to pause and say nothing is the most valuable way to let ideas flow.

Perhaps if we were each to pause and consider how best to use both intuition and reason, and observe our relationships with ideas generated by the two, humanity would benefit in the process.

The other day at the end of a meeting, my colleague remarked how much I doodle - in the course of our conference call, I had ‘defaced’ a holiday card, an article we were reviewing, and created an entire landscape of doodles on miscellaneous papers lying nearby. I confessed that I love to doodle and only apologize if I’ve doodled on someone else’s papers. My 40-something-year-old academic colleague confided that in second grade (catholic school) he had been caught doodling to the horror of his teacher/nun and punished severely. He never doodled again.

I offered my pen to my friend and encouraged him to try again.

Doodling is the expression of a wandering mind and new research is suggesting that a wandering mind may be a good thing for humanity. A wandering mind appears to be a time when our brains are not ‘doing’ but rather ‘being’ and in that state (called a default brain state) we seem to increase in self-awareness (Raichle et al., 2001; Lou et al., 2004). By that I mean we gain a greater intuitive understanding of ‘who we are’ in relation to our bodies, thoughts, feelings, and actions, to others, and the universe at large. This increase in intuitive self-awareness may be a key to authentic happiness (Cloninger, Feeling Good, 2004).

Daydreaming is a process associated with the default brain state and one likely important for “integrating lessons learned from the past into our plans for the future” (New Scientist, Nov 15, 2008). In light of these new findings, it is a bit disturbing that we seem to be reducing daydreaming in our children’s lives through the extreme emphasis in schools on doing and producing at the expense of ‘wandering’. The environments that enhance such wandering may be things like being in nature, unstructured play, boredom, and probably many of the arts, particularly when unstructured (painting, singing, etc.).

I remember singing The Happy Wanderer song as a child, “I love to go a-wandering along the mountain track, and as I go, I love to sing, my knapsack on my back….val deri val dera, val deri, val dera ha ha ha ha ha ……..”

Wandering minds, wandering bodies, wandering pens doodling away - they will inevitably lead to laughter and self-discovery if we don’t block their way.

References:

The secret life of the brain. November 5, 2008, New Scientist.
A relation between rest and the self in the brain? Wicker et al., Brain Research Reviews, 2003, 43(224-230).
Feeling Good, Robert Cloninger, 2004.
Parietal cortex and representation of the mental self. Lou et al., PNAS, April 27, 2004 (vol 101: 17: 6827-6832).
A default mode of brain function. Raichle et al., PNAS, January 16, 2001. Vol 98 (2): 676-682.