Ingridity

This post is an answer to a couple of questions from an acquaintance today on Facebook:

“How do you decide whether a given proposition is true or false? If science and its foundations (reason, logic, evidence, uniformity of natural laws, etc.) are somehow insufficient to form the basis of one’s truth-detection apparatus, what would you have everyone use instead?”

Ingrid:

Science is awesome. I love science. I think it is fun and interesting and you can find out all sorts of neat things about the world. Like how light can come from sound waves…and cool phenomena like that. I read science stuff for fun. When I was 8 I subscribed to scientific american. I have been a geeky science-loving girl for a long LONG time. Science is cool! I have no beef with science per se. It’s like an old friend of mine.

However… that said. Science has it’s own epistemological limits. If science could “have its way” - the world would be empty clean white laboratory where everything EVERYTHING could be tested in isolation and “discovered.” Each experiment would be entirely reproducible. Human and animal and plant subjects would all be perfectly identical to each other. All variables would be controllable. Ahhh… to dream!!!

But… life is messy. MEsssSSSSSsSSyyyyieieie. Life is changing. Every organism is different. Not all variables are knowable. It’s a big giant world of pulsing changing gooey-goo. In fact, if you step back, it’s amazing science has been able to discover ANY thing inside this messy MESSY laboratory of a world where subjects are not identical to each other, situations are constantly changing, and even that darn observer is even sometimes getting in the way of their own observations. Ahhh!!! Poor science has a very hard time working in such a crazy place.

So… what science “needs” in order to “know” something is for that something to be reproducible and testable. But the fact is, SO much of life is NOT reproducible and testable. Does that mean that those part of life are not worthwhile or “real” or worth asking science–like questions of?

Science has theoretical limits regarding how much it can “test” in this ewwey gooey world of change, but even if you don’t believe that there are any theoretical limits to science’s application, there are definitely PRACTICAL limits. We cannot run every experiment we want to run. We cannot control every variable we want to control. Amongst the billions of experiments we could choose to run, we have to choose a few thousand of them. And who gets to choose which ones that get done? I don’t. I mean, I can run a few experiments in my garage or kitchen…but that’s not nearly the same as the studies that are done by actual scientists. Those studies are often times funded by a group that has a particular interest in a particular outcome. This alone biases the study based on the fact that they’re running THIS study and not a different one, one that may more readily produce an outcome contrary to the one the sponsor is hoping for.

So not only do you look at the assumptions the scientists/sponsors are making in these studies, but you also have to consider what OTHER ways you might do a study on this topic that might produce different results, and why those other ways might not have been chosen.

Because of all this complexity, science is just not the vehicle for “truth” that we all tend to think it is. It is chock FULL of assumptions and biases that are extremely hard to avoid in “real world science.” All science starts with background assumptions, and assumptions are ideas that are taken for true, but they have not been proven true, hence they’re beliefs.

Did you know that even our mathematical system, which you’d think would be even more “solid” than science is also based on assumptions? For instance, we assume, in common math, that parallel lines never meet. And even that simple SIMPLE axiom, which everyone in their “right mind” would take as true a priori, well, even that is a big old assumption and puts the whole foundation of MATH on a cloud (instead of firm ground) as well. 2+2=4? Is that true? Turns out it’s only true if you agree with certain assumptions… which … most of us do, unless you’re, say, an astrophysicist…

So - back to your initial question… so if science is so f—ed up with regarding finding out “the truth”… epistemologically AND practically…what is a truth seeker to do???

Well, for me it’s about abandoning the search for truth and instead looking for trust instead. Think of it this way - you tend to *trust* studies when you agree with their structure, their basic starting assumptions, their ability to control the variables, the character of the people running them, etc. But are those studies getting at “the truth?” No. But they are getting at YOUR truth. That is - because you agree with their starting assumptions, you start off assuming truth. Then from that assumption of truth, you get “more truth” from the conclusions. But again, this is all just YOUR truth. Wheras if you DON’T agree with the starting assumptions, then you DON’T tend to trust the conclusions based on those assumptions. So really, think of truth in terms of *trust* instead and maybe that will help you reconcile this.

For instance, what should you have for dinner tonight? Can science answer that question for you? Kind of, sort of, but really NO, it actually can’t. You can read studies about nutrition. You can read studies about your body and what it needs. You can have blood tests done and all kinds of doctors could advise you as to the ideal dinner for you tonight. But can science tell you what YOU, Kevin, SHOULD have for DINNER… TONIGHT? No. It can’t. For what your body/mind might need tonight may actually “in truth” be different from what you needed yesterday… or what you may need tomorrow. Also, what you need at 5pm might be different than what you need at 7pm. And what you need psychologically might contradict what you need physiologically. Comfort food or salad?

So how, oh how, do you decide what to eat????

You begin  with your assumptions and go from there.  One assumption you might have is: “I should eat what I crave.” Another one might be “I shouldn’t eat meat.” Another one might be “I should eat organic.” or even “Fast food is just as healthy as regular food…so it doesn’t matter what I eat as long as I eat something.” You start with your assumptions and make a decision based on them.  Just like scientists.  Just like religious folks.  Just like… everyone.

So back to God… and those questions that lie outside the realm of scientific inquiry…when choosing between “God exists, God doesn’t exist, God sometimes exists for some people…God is purple… ” Choose the one that logically follows from your own personal assumptions about the world. Do you believe in parallel lines never meeting?  Do you believe in an orderly universe? Do you believe in your own soul? Do you believe in free will? What are your starting assumptions? Start from what you DO believe (knowing full well it’s just a belief/leap of faith) and go from there.

What you’ll end up with is not “THE TRUTH,” but instead “the truth that works for YOU.” You will arrive at something you can trust, but not necessarily “know.”

So, this color writing is by no means an original idea, in fact I am stealing it directly from this site. I liked the idea so much, that yes, it was worth stealing. You pick a paint color everyday, and write something based on that color or the color’s name.  I figured this would be a great way to jump start me into practicing my writing, something I’ve been wanting to do for a while now.

Now I don’t have a bag of paint chips to pull from here, so I need to find some online I suppose.  Ahh… behr has a whole repository of paint chips on their website.  Here we go!

First pick: Tropical Splash

Tropical Splash

When I was 9 years old I had a burning desire. It was the kind of desire that keeps one awake at night, creating strategy after strategy on how to get it. I wanted more than anything to be something.  Be something? You mean, like be an astronaut?  Or be a singer?  Yes.  Sort of. But see, that “something,” well, that something was just too embarrassing to admit to anyone.  I couldn’t possibly. I’d rather die than have anyone find out about it.  In fact, I wanted to die, for here was this burning desire, but I had no way to express it, no way to achieve it.   I was going to have to tell someone. I felt the secret would burn me up inside if I didn’t release it.

So I approached my mom one evening.  My mom spent her evenings on the living room couch, reading and smoking and drinking coffee.  I sat down next to her on the couch.  “I have something I want to tell you.” I said, probably sounding like a teenager who’s about to confess she’s pregnant.  She put down her book and looked at me.  “Ok…”  I’d start to talk…”Well, see… it’s that… oh… no.  I can’t…”   I’d lean forward several times, as if I were finally ready to say it, ready to set the truth free, like a small bird about to take flight from my open mouth…only I’d snap my mouth shut just as it was about to escape.

“I want to be…. No. I can’t.”

“Go ahead, dear.”

“I want to be… I want to be…. I want to be… No no I cant…”

I must have gone on like that for half an hour.  I must have said “I want to be…” 100 times or more.  She waited and reassured me that whatever it was, it was Ok to tell her.

I decided I should write it out for her. For once it’s written down, there’s no way to stop the words from being read, the way I could stop the words from escaping from my mouth.

I remember that scrap of paper so clearly.  Just a torn off corner of a piece of loose leaf paper with one word scrawled on it in the cursive handwriting of a 9 year old girl.  I folded it up several times, possibly thinking at least it will take a few seconds longer for her to unfold it, thus allowing me just a few more seconds  to keep my secret protected from the light of day.  I knew the moment I let go of that piece of paper, the truth would be out and she would know my secret.  She would know what I wanted to be. She would know. She would know.  Oh dear God, she would know!

I had to leave the room.  I was too embarrassed to be there when the truth finally came out.  So I handed over the small square of paper - folded over so many times one couldn’t possibly fold it even once more. And I left the room. I went to the bathroom and contemplated how in the world I was going to be able to look my mom in the eye ever again.

I came back a few minutes later and sat next to her on the couch.

“A mermaid?  You want to be mermaid?”

“Yes” I cringed and looked down at my toenails.

Now, I don’t remember so well what she said next.  But I do remember what she didn’t say.  She didn’t say it was stupid.  She didn’t say it was unrealistic.  She didn’t make a joke about it.  She didn’t say anything sarcastic.

She just knew.  And it was all going to be OK.

Ok - I have suffered from chapped lips in the wintertime since I was a little kid. I’ve tried EVERY kind of lip ointment thingy on the market, and while many of them are great at relieving chapped lips, and temporarily smoothing them out, none of them ever stopped the chapped lips from happening in the first place.

Well - this past winter I FINALLY FINALLY figured out a way to avoid even GETTING chapped lips in the first place. So I figured I’d write a quick note about it for you winter-dwellers who might also suffer from chapped lips who might benefit from what I figured out…

So - what do I do??? What’s my secret???

It’s really easy:
Oil up your WHOLE body once a day with some kind of all natural oil.

What kind of oil?
I’ve tried out several different kinds of 100% natural/organic oils and it doesn’t seem to matter which one I use -they all seem to work for this task. I’ve tried Olive oil, Apricot Seed Oil, Almond Oil, Avocado Oil, Grapeseed Oil, and Sesame Oil, and sometimes 100% Shea Butter.. I recommend you try a couple and see which one feels the best for you. Or go ahead and mix some together and make a custom concoction. Whatever you like. I think so far I like Almond oil the best, but really all of them have worked and it’s kind of fun to vary it up…

When?
I do this either in the morning or at night - or sometimes both morning and night if I am thinking about it and feel like I need it.

How do I know this works?
Whenever I do this routine, about an hour later I notice I have no chapped lips… but that’s not exactly what convinced me it was working. What has really convinced me of its efficacy is when I forget to do this at least once / day, my chapped lips come RIGHT back. It’s like clockwork. I will have smooth lips all week if I kept up with it everyday, but the one day I stop and get lazy, I have instant chapped lips the next day. When I DO remember to oil up, I have smooth perfect “summer time” lips the whole day long- without any need for applying chapstick or any such lip ointment. It’s SO cool! I love having normal lips again in the winter!!

I realized my problem in the past was that in the dry dry winters, my body was just very low on moisture AND oil, and I was losing moisture constantly - throughout my whole body. Even if I tried replenishing moisture by drinking lots of water, it just wasn’t good enough. I’d still be too dry because I didn’t have enough oil either. In the past I used to just moisturize my face and once in a while I’d moisturize my WHOLE body… and this clearly wasn’t enough. Plus I wasn’t using natural oils, which may have been part of the problem, not sure. By oiling up my WHOLE body - feet, arms, legs, back, stomach, etc, I am giving my body a LOT of moisture with the oil itself - AND I am in a sense preventing moisture from escaping all over my body by “sealing it all in” with a layer of oil. I get more moisture and I lose less moisture… which combines to keep me hydrated enough to not get chapped lips.

By the way, the reason I recommend using natural oils as opposed to moisturizing creams is because typical moisturizers you buy (like at Bath & Body or at a drugstore) contain many ingredients that are actually NOT very good for your body. (read the ingredients sometime…) There are artificial colors and lots of weird chemicals that are just crap for your body to deal with. Putting that stuff on your skin is almost akin to eating it - since the skin absorbs it - and I doubt you’d really want to eat some of those ingredients in those moisturizers. However- something like olive or sesame oil is perfectly healthy for your body - eating it OR just having it on your skin - and won’t have a bunch of chemical for your body to “deal with.”

If you do try this and it works for you, I’d love to know!

So my friend Mehtap (from Germany) introduced me to the idea of soaking almonds overnight many years back. I think I had just had some at her house once and asked “Why do these almonds taste different? Are these actually almonds??” and she explained how soaking them overnight makes them easier to digest…or somehow are more healthy or something to that effect. I figured it was some exotic European thing to do… and I really liked the texture of them - they’re much easier to chew and they’re slightly sweeter- and so I’ve been doing that to almonds once in a while when I have them. (Btw - only do this with raw almonds - and note that roasted almonds -while quite tasty - are not nearly as nutritional as raw ones as the heat from roasting destroys a lot of the vitamins.)

Anyway, now that Ocean is eating nuts, I have been soaking and peeling almonds for him - it’s actually the only way he’ll really eat them (well, besides in an Almond Butter or something.) Regular raw almonds are too hard for him to chew (plus they stick in your teeth a lot), but the soaked ones are nice and crisp, more like the texture of a carrot or something… not so “rock solid” feeling.

Well, today I decided to go online and research the soaking and peeling of almonds and what the deal is nutritionally. Are they actually better for you? Or are they just interesting and different? Do you have to peel them? Etc.

Turns out - that brown thin skin around the almond is fairly hard to digest… it has certain “enzyme inhibitors” in them that make it harder for the digestive system to absorb “good stuff” - like vitamins and minerals. Somehow soaking them de-activates these enzyme inhibitors, tho the husk is still a bit harder to digest as it’s very fibrous. If you remove the skin, then pretty much the almond and all it’s nutrients are better able to be absorbed by the body. Soaking the almonds overnight allows you to peel off the skin very easily (otherwise it’s nearly impossible.)

In my reading on this subject, I learned that almonds are actually referred to as “The King of Fruits” in Indian culture and that a single almond contains ALL essential minerals for the human body. It’s like the perfect little natural “multi-vitamin” for you! Some sites recommend eating 1 peeled almond per 10 lbs of body weight in the morning before you eat anything else. Supposedly eating these almonds in the morning sets your digestive system for the day - balancing your blood sugar levels for the whole day.

On this - I’ve personally noticed that I don’t crave sugar as much when I do this morning almond eating thing, which is interesting to me because I feel like I ALWAYS am up for something sweet, so it’s “weird” for me when I think to myself “Nah…I don’t feel like something sweet right now…” Perhaps it really is the almond balancing me out… Not sure. I’ll have to try it for several days in a row and see how I feel throughout the whole day.

Anyway, if any of you try this almond soaking experiment, let me know how it works for you - do you feel better during the day if you eat some first thing in the morning? Or is it just my imagination?

Here’s more that I found about almonds in general:
“According to Chinese medicine almonds…benefit the lungs, transform phlegm and soothe the intestines. In the Ayurvedic and Unani Medical systems almonds are a primary tonic food used to promote vitality and are used to treat anemia ( due to its high iron content and vitamins), mental fatigue, constipation, impotence, respiratory disorders and warm the body during the winter. “

I was driving with Eff today - taking him to the airport - and as we drove along the highway, I was daydreaming out the window, and I started to think about driving. I was thinking of how mundane a task it seemed - driving someone to the airport- …and yet…. if we could project ourselves back 200 years, that simple feat - of driving for 30 minutes in our 6 year old VW Passat at an average speed of 40mph- would be considered TOTALLY AMAZING - the thrill of a lifetime!

I then started to see all the various things that we, here in American, in our modern age, have - that are “THRILLING” and “AMAZING” things… if you were to just compare a typical circumstance to 200 years ago living (or even undeveloped countries where these things don’t exist so commonly…) I mean - I remember doing a tour of the Winchester Mystery House - this spooky hundred+ year old mansion in San Jose, CA. One of the rooms we saw was the oh-so-luxurious “indoor shower”… and how this was fairly rare back then to have a shower upstairs in a bathroom. Super fancy! And boy, all those people who knew about the existence of that shower must have been so jealous of Mrs. Winchester.

Anyway… there are thousands and thousands of these examples if you just start to look around. I mean, even looking around this living room I see many “miracles” and “amazing” things - like this laptop I’m writing on, the TV across from me, the phone on the shelf above the TV, the fact that the phone is wireless, the answering machine, the Apple TV, the $10 toy firetruck on the floor that make noise and lights up, the air humidifier, the camera on the shelf, the video camera hiding behind it, cookbooks on my shelves about cooking “exotic” foods - like Indian and Thai… not to mention the couch I’m sitting on that is made so well and has soft fuzzy fabric and is big enough for a whole family of 8 to lounge around on.

All these things did not exist like this 100 years ago. And if we went back in time and brought any single one of them with us, we’d be the “envy” of the whole town. We’d be like rich old Mrs. Winchester.

And yet… many of us, even with such objects surrounding us, feel “poor” or “doing OK” or like we don’t have “enough” somehow. I mean, holy cow - I have PLENTY… and yet… I still flip through catalogs of William Sonoma Home or something like that and daydream of buying some beautiful bedding or a new coffee table or some such item. My husband dreams of owning a Ferrari. My 6 year old Passat no longer shines like it once did and so it seems I should “get a new car” soon… There are so many things that we have that are totally amazing and yet, we still long for more!

Think about this, really -it’s SO weird.

I mean… here I am surrounded by items that KINGS and QUEENS would pay a fortune for 200 years ago… and yet… I don’t consider myself already rich. I consider myself… well… “getting along alright…” And why? It has nothing to do with what I ACTUALLY have. If it was about what we actually have then we would feel incredibly rich as we have SO many comforts in life that just didn’t even exist 200 years ago. So it has nothing to do with the actual “stuff” and the actual comfort it provides - it has everything to do with whether or not everyone else has what I have.

How pathetic is THAT? However - as pathetic and superficial as that sounds on the surface- somehow this is totally “natural” - I mean, for the vast vast majority of us humans, we all do this. I do this. And I’m sure you, reading this, do this too. Don’t try to paint yourself as an enlightened zen master - I know you do this.

We all look around and compare what we’ve got vs what our neighbor’s got…and if we have less, then we assume what we have is not so great and that we somehow need more. I’m not just talking about people who are extreme in this fashion - where they always have to have the next great thing. I’m saying - we ALL do this - if we didn’t, all those poor retail companies would start going out of business left and right….(Ok ok, there are SOME exceptions out there - like monks and zen masters, but for the most part these people are few and far between…)

And yet - if we could compare ourselves INSTEAD to those who were typical folks living 200 years ago, we may just feel like the luckiest people in the world just walking into our house or apartment. Indoor showers and toilets! Buy strawberries in the middle of winter! Listen to music of all kinds at our fingertips! Surf the web! Eat “Chinese Food” any day of the week! Drive around in cars at a whopping 65 miles an hour! Transport yourself across the entire country in less than a day (by flying)! What kings and queens we all are! Isn’t it great???

So many luxuries and yet we don’t feel like royalty… we don’t jump up and down in excitement about our indoor shower… and why? Because we look around - we look outside our the ACTUAL experience of life and how amazing and fun it is, and compare compare compare our situation to someone else’s looking for how it may.

I wonder why it is we choose to “ruin our own riches” like this. It seems like it’s a natural effect somehow of being human - since it’s so pervasive of a phenomena. Or is it our culture of consumerism that is so pervasive? I don’t know … I’m not sure it’s that simple to blame consumerism….

I watch Ocean play with other toddlers…and if you’ve ever watched a couple toddlers play, there is a clearly a phenomena amongst them such that a toy often increases in “value” when another toddler is seen playing with it. The toy could sit there for hours being ignored by all toddlers. But then the moment one of them picks it up with a renewed sense of interest in it, suddenly the other toddler MUST have that toy. So badly so, they’ll often go steal it away from them. Is THIS the effect of a culture of consumerism? Or is this just part of human nature - we want something that others deem or appreciate as valuable?

Personally I’m going to try to compare my living situation to a typical person from 1800. Seems like I’d be a lot happier and more appreciative of all the riches around me…

I read a headline the other day that said “Madoff ‘victims’ do math, realize they profited.” This reminded me of someone I had worked with at my old company who felt we had victimized him, but who actually made MORE money than any of us.  It’s a long story and I won’t bother to go into it here, but the headline made me think of him and “boy, if he only did the math…”

Then, in talking with a friend about it, I realized that actually, this idea of “‘victims do math, realize they profited” is something that not only applies to him, but also applies to ME… and, perhaps, all (or at least most) victims in general.

Basically anytime anything bad happens to you, while it may not be immediately obvious, there usually is some “profit” in the transaction.  Even things like illnesses or deaths of family members or whatnot… usually if you look carefully (and honestly) enough at the situation, you will find a pay-off - some way in which you are winning out by having to deal with that particularly “victimy” situation.

I’ll give you some examples from my own life to illustrate this…

When I was 8, my dad - the “love of my life” - passed away.  This event clearly painted me as a victim in losing my dad.  However - if you look carefully at the event, I can see that I “profited” in many ways from his death.  For one, it forced me to “grow up” much more quickly than I may have done on my own.  And in growing up quickly, I experienced numerous advantages compared to my peers.   Also, after encountering the reality of death, you suddenly have much more appreciation for life.  At least that was my reaction.  I savored and appreciated many things that most kids my age didn’t really even notice.  My experience of life became more vivid in a sense - I was much more aware of my life, my relationships, etc.

It also played a huge role in making me into the thoughtful philosophical person I am today (which also has served me well.) Death and the question of “what really happens when you die?” has haunted me since my dad died.  I am constantly trying to figure out reality - what’s “really” going on here… and that has led me down so many interesting paths - quantum mechanics, health, spirituality, law of attraction, etc.  It also led me to give up my religion at the time, which I’m not saying is necessarily a benefit for everyone, but for me, my questions were bigger than the religion could deal with.  Christianity was like a beautiful jacket that I had as an 8 year old, but I quickly outgrew it.  I still like it, and find parts of it very beautiful, but it doesn’t fit anymore and in outgrowing it, I was led to many new ideas and “ways of living” that weren’t necessarily open or accessible (psychologically, ie)  in categorizing myself as Christian.

Another example… the year after my dad died, I started having a problem with my right arm.  For some reason it wouldn’t extend fully.  So my mom would take me to see a physical therapist every Saturday to help me with the arm.  Every Saturday, at around 10am, we’d head off to Syracuse together.  We’d have a session, and afterwords my mom would take me out to lunch at Friendly’s and I’d have lunch and a sundae.   We’d talk there for a few hours.  Those Saturdays are actually some of my best memories of my mom.  When I look back on this now, you could think “Oh, poor little 9 year old has a problem with her arm…” but in reality, what I really *needed* at the time were these trips to Friendly’s with my mom every Saturday.  I needed parental love and attention - more than ever before.  And by having this problem with my arm, I got that - like clockwork, every Saturday. I missed my dad.  I needed extra attention and love and kindness.  And somehow -by having this physical problem, I was able to GET that extra attention and love and kindness.  That was something I needed more than having a healthy arm… so in a weird way, an exchange was made, and I profited from the exchange - even though on the surface it looked like I was a poor little 9 year old with a problem with her arm.

Through these sessions with the physical therapist, the doctors discovered I had a cyst in the bone of my arm.  They had to operate.  Again - poor little 9 year old - but REALLY what that meant was a) I got to be away from school for over a month - and I had HATED school at the time and b) I got TONS of love and attention from my family and friends -for now it was something “serious.”  In the face of losing my dad the year before, I was clearly sad and needing this extra love.  And school was a stressor for me, so getting out of that was a huge bonus to me.  For me, and my “special needs” the trade-off was “worth it.”  I can’t say I consciously created a cyst in my bone, but the body works in mysterious ways, as does one’s subconscious.  Subconsciously I could see that I may have been working on “some WAY to get what I need….” and the body came up with this “great plan…”  Another benefit was that I got out of Gym class for the rest of the year.  Gym was my LEAST liked subject and I hated the teacher.  Yet another “big win” for the “poor little girl.”

Interestingly, my dad had had an operation on his arm as well - not too long before he passed away actually.  I kind of wonder if that was where I perhaps got the “idea” from… for I very much idolized my father, so being “more like him” was a also benefit to me as well.

I can see that when you’re in the mode of feeling like a victim or being a victim, it’s hard to “do the math” and realize that you might be profiting here.  Usually all you can see is the downside of your situation.  And it seems horribly unsympathetic to say to someone who is suffering - “So, what’s the payoff here, whatcha gettin’ for all this suffering?”  But I think if you can look in your own life and see where you’ve felt like a victim or been a victim or whatnot… if you look very honestly and openly at the situation, if you “do the math” you MAY just “realize you profited.”

This isn’t to say you’re a bad person at all - for it’s very normal.   We have needs and we have to take care of ourselves.  But boy, if you do discover your pay-offs, you can learn so much from such an exercise.  You can see what you REALLY need and you may be able to figure out - on a *conscious* level, a much better and healthier way of going about getting what you REALLY need.  You can also appreciate that event in a new light and not feel dominated or oppressed by it.  If you see an event that previously caused you to be a victim, instead as an event that caused you to be a “winner”… I cannot help but think that this must be good for your psyche and soul. Less suffering over past victimizations = more happiness for you.

Read all about it!  UC DAVIS STUDY: “Autism is Environmental” (Can We Move On Now?)

FINALLY…

I agree it’s totally NUTS how much money is spent looking for the “autism gene” when clearly something else is at play here.  We have been polluting our environment -and bodies- with all sorts of crap that we already know *can* cause neurological disorders and other sorts of health problems. 95% or more of the food in a typical grocery store has some kind of chemicals added (be it pesticides or preservatives or artificial colorings, etc.)  Not to mention all the crazy household cleaners we have around the house that contain very bad-for-us stuff in them.  Not to mention shooting up our newborn babies with heavy metals and preservatives with each vaccine shot.  Our soils have been polluted for decades with nasty pesticides.   The air is in horrible condition in some major cities.  The drinking water is also contaminated.  I don’t mean to come off as Chicken Little here “THE SKY IS FALLING!!”  but darnit - it is!

Mother Nature is sending us a clear signal here - we cannot live in our own messy chemical stench anymore without major repercussions to ourselves and our offspring.  We already see this affecting animals and fish and their abilities to reproduce - is it so far fetched that such environmental pollutants also affect US?  Cancer rates have also increased by an order of magnitude over the past century - it’s not up to 1 in 3 adults!  Sorry - but looking around at genes is only going to tell us so much. And Mr. Kirby is right - STOP STUDYING GENES ALREADY AND LOOK TO THE REAL SOURCE.

Part of the problem is that “gene” studies are much EASIER to conduct (easier, meaning, less expensive typically.)  You get a lab, a scientist, a bunch of petri dishes, etc.  While the machinery may be expensive - in terms of isolating genes, the overall setup is not, and the variables can be “controlled” very easily.  It’s a much simpler and cleaner study with cleaner and simpler results.  And with this clarity more money is available… plus the results of the study are not likely to piss anyone, or any industry off.

Whereas figuring out WHICH (or which combination of) of all our environmental and body pollutants is causing neurological disorders and cancer is waaaay more complex a problem for scientists to study.  Not that it’s not worthwhile - but it’s just more complicated because there are SO many variables and people are not as “controllable” as petri dishes with genes.  People sometimes eat poorly, we don’t keep track of our eating habits, we don’t keep track of WHICH household cleaners we’ve used for the past ten years… etc.  It’s just a trickier problem.  AND to boot, when the results come out saying “Don’t use Windex + Febreeze + Eating a lot of Fish”  - your study will have pissed off the Windex people, the Febreeze people and the Fishermen!  $$$ is at stake here… and oh what a messy mess that makes of things.

This is WHY studies of genes get all the money even though it’s so obviously not the genes causing this 600% increase in neurological disorders in our kids.  If we, as a world, as a culture, can get over these political issues invading our sciences, we might just be able to help our children…

I just finished reading “Punished By Rewards” by Alfie Kohn.  Wow.  It has changed the way I look at the world.  I LOVE it when a book can do that to me.  So of course I highly recommend it - go get a copy!

What did I get from it?  What’s it about?  Why the enthusiasm?

Well, let me clarify something here - I am a mom - of a two and a half year old boy named Ocean.  And as such, my latest mommy obsession is reading and learning about the topic of “how to discipline your kids.”  I’ve been reading and thinking a lot about this - reflecting on my own childhood, my own parents’ methods, the methods of my brothers and sisters with their kids, etc.  What can I say - I like to think and rethink things.  Anyway, this is one of the several books I’ve picked up (my friend Mindy gave to me actually) that is related to this topic.  And this one REALLY shocked me - I mean, it opened my eyes, not just for how to deal with my little rebellious bean sprout of a two year old, but it also showed me how much rewards and punishments have greatly influenced and affected me in my own life - in negative ways that I’d never noticed before.

With that said, the book is actually not written as a handbook for parents.  It’s actually more theoretical and is geared to three audiences - parents, teachers/educators, and managers of employees.  He goes into how all three of these groups tend to use rewards/punishments to “get the job done” and yet, as he very convincingly illustrates, they’re not only less effective than other methods, but they can actually be quite destructive in some of the unnoticed side effects…

So, let’s dive in….

At first you read the beginning, the premise that rewards are a bad thing and should be done away with.   You’re thinking - oh come on… you’re being a bit extremist here, aren’t you?  No rewards?  No praising?  What kind of sadist is this author?  But then, if you keep listening, keep reading…you see - he has an excellent point and in fact it’s actually MORE humane to NOT use rewards systems!  Weird, huh?  Because this is a rather counter-intuitive (and radical) proposition, you basically have to keep an open mind and listen to what he has to say….

Alfie starts off by explaining that the whole idea of punishments and rewards - used with kids, with employees, with students - can be summarized as basically -”Do this, and you’ll get that.”

• If you make your bed, you’ll get to go to your friends house.
• If you keep up that attitude, you’ll spend the day in your room.
• If you’re good all day, you’ll get to go to the zoo.
• If you get straight A’s, you’ll get an award at “honor’s night.”
• If you talk out of turn one more time, you’ll go to the principal’s office.
• If you exceed your sales numbers, you’ll get a large bonus.
• If you miss your sales numbers, you’re fired.

The problem with rewards (and punishments) is manifold, and I’ll try to summarize the problems as best I can in terms of what I personally took away from the whole book.

Point # 1:  “Do this and you’ll get that” is fundamentally about one person controlling another.  Controlling people is not desirable - especially for the person being controlled - whether you’re “nice” about it or not.

Under a “rewards/punishment” system, the parent, teacher and employer are in the position of the “Controller” and the child/student/employee is the “Controllee” - the one being controlled.  Controlling situations are fundamentally undesirable for the “controllee.”  Just put yourself in the controllee position for a moment, and you’ll see what I mean.  No one likes being controlled or manipulated.  So you’re already coming from an undesirable place when you approach the situation from a methodology of rewards/punishments.  (Which begs the question - what place do you come from instead? Quick answer - from more of a cooperative and respectful place, but we’ll get to that later…)

Rewards basically are just as controlling as punishments are, even if they seem “nicer” than punishments.  They come from the same source - basically swapping the method of control from stick to carrot.

Point #2: Rewards can actually feel just like a punishment and in this way are really no different from punishments. So if you’re down on punishment, for all the negative side effects that approach has, you might as well be down on rewards too.  (If you’re not down on punishment, then that’s a whole other discussion…) For instance, let’s take the example of “If you’re good all day, we’ll go the zoo.”  This seems like a nice little “reward” to offer your three year old- very positive indeed.  Seems much nicer than “If you’re not good all day, you’ll get a spanking.”  However, let’s say your dear child misbehaves, and you say “Alright, that was the third time I had to remind you to share your toys with your brother - NO ZOO TODAY.”  How does that come across to the child?  When I put myself into the child’s shoes, I feel punished.  Totally punished.  I don’t just feel the “absence of a reward.”  The zoo was yanked away from me, and I’m PISSED.  And maybe I don’t feel like it was fair to do that.  Afterall my little brother TOOK my toy first.  No, this is not fair at all.  Now I’m really upset and possibly even rageful at my mom for taking away the zoo trip from me.  How could she do this to me?   Ok, so maybe I’ll throw a temper tantrum in protest - show her how unjust this decision is and how it upsets me so.  Maybe I throw my crayons at my little brother’s face - for he’s the one who caused me to miss out on the trip to the zoo.  Then, oh great, I get sent to my room for doing that.  So here I am in my room - steaming over this whole situations - am I really sitting back and thinking about my “poor choices” in not sharing my toys and how I shouldn’t have done that- or am I thinking about what a total MEANIE my mom is and how unfair this whole situation is, and how she probably loves my stupid brother more, and boy, that little brother of mine is going to PAY for this the next time we’re alone together…..

Let’s be realistic.  Most kids, will not be reflecting upon their poor choices and thinking to themselves, “Boy, mom is right, I *should* have shared my toys even though my brother took them first..I mean he is only two…”  If you really think that is what a kid is thinking when they get sent away to “think about what they’ve done” … I don’t even know where to start.  Most kids will focus on how unfair this all seems.  And - does that really teach them anything?  In fact - what DOES it teach them?   They become more resentful, more upset, more likely to “rebel” against this “unfair” authority in the future.   Or… if they decide it’s best to come out and apologize -WHY are they apologizing?  Are they really sorry?  Or are they just trying to “move on” from this whole thing?  They may change their behavior but you have to really consider WHY do they change their behavior?  Is it because they see it’s morally better to share your toys - or is it because someone who in bigger than you and in control might punish them if they don’t?  What’s the REAL lesson being taught here?

The real lesson seem to be not about morals or about being a good person - it’s about how to please the parent (authority) so you don’t get punished (or so you do get a reward.)  In the short-term, this is “fine.”  But in the long term, this is a disaster.  You’ve basically taught your child that “might makes right,” that the bigger person gets to control the smaller person. And if the smaller person wants to have any semblance of peace, they’d better not piss off the bigger person.

The author mentions how this is exactly why you so often see that children who are “bullied” (or outright abused) at home, often become the bullies at school.  They’re taught by their parents that the bigger one is the one who gets to boss around and control the smaller one.  So of course they replay that scene in school where they might encounter “smaller” people - or weaker ones.  Interesting, huh?

The lessons being taught through the use of rewards/punishments are not exactly the ones we’re intending.  No “moral” has been taught with regards to why they’re being punished… the real lesson is a lesson about control - who gets to control whom and about what.

The tricky thing with punishments/rewards is that they do tend to “work” in the immediate - the threat of a punishment or the promise of a reward- can make the child sit up and behave for the moment - but it does nothing substantial in terms of teaching them ways of behaving or thinking about their behavior - especially in the absence of the controller.

When people say “but rewards work…”  what you have to ask is, what do you mean exactly by “work” ? Do you mean they get your children to comply with your wishes in the very immediate?  In which case, yes, they do tend to work, you’re right.  (which is why they’re so widely used!)  But do you mean, your children learn valuable lessons about how to behave in society, how to be caring and empathetic, how to be responsible for their actions?  No - in which case, they don’t work AT ALL and they actually - this is the shocker - do damage to those goals.  THIS fact was probably the most interesting take-away from this book.

Point #3: Offering a reward makes your performance on the task go down.

Study after study shows that when offered a reward for doing a certain task, it can dramatically affect how well you do the task.  Now, you might guess that offering a reward for a task would make you *better* at the task - for now you have an incentive, a “motivator” - but this is completely wrong.  You actually do WORSE with the task - if the task involves any kind of creativity, problem solving, or intellectual or emotional engagement.

What I mean is - the only cases where the presence of a potential reward will improve the “quality” of the task is when the task itself is so mundane, mindless or rote - where basically an improvement in quality = improvement in speed.  (Like stuffing envelopes)  If you have to actually use your brain or any thinking for the task, and you’re offered a reward, your brain doesn’t work as well at completing the task and your performance on the task actually suffers - the quality of what you produce goes DOWN.

Why is this?  Well…  there’s a difference between doing a task and being 100% present to the task, vs doing a task and partially thinking about “what you’re gonna get” or “what’s at stake” from it.  In the first case, you are totally present to the task itself.  In the second case, you have one eye on the task and another eye on “the prize.”  This lack of focus affects how well you do with the task - because part of you is focused on the reward - not the task itself.

An example here will help illustrate this point.  We’ve all heard of reading incentive programs in schools.  Things like “Read 50 books and get a free Pizza Party…”  Well… consider for a moment you are the person being offered that reward.  How would you go about a) picking which books to read and b) actually reading the books you’ve picked?   In terms of picking books, you’d pick the easiest fastest books to read.  In terms of how you’d read them, you’d probably skim them, try to flip through them fairly quickly to get onto the next one.  And - at the end of the day, having “read” those 50 books - did you really do a good job?  No… you basically did what you HAD to do to get your reward - which is very different than had you actually picked out 50 books on your own - ones with topics you might actually be interested in…

Point #4:  Not only does the quality of the work go down when a reward is presented, but even worse is that in the future you  become inherently LESS interested in doing the task!

To explain this phenomena, I’ll give you one interesting study he cites to illustrate this concept.  (He cites many studies on this, this is just one of them…)

Two groups of kindergartners were given the same set of markers to play with. One group of kindergartners was given a small reward (like a gold star sticker) to play with a specific subset of markers designated out of a whole set of markers made available to them.  (The subset of markers were otherwise all of the same type and quality - just randomly selected.)  The other group of kids was just given all the markers with no rewards mentioned at all.

Well, as you might guess, the kindergartners in the first group immediately selected the “rewards-based” markers to play with.  In fact, this might make you think - hey, see - rewards “work” - by rewarding them, they are now playing with *those* specific markers….This is in part why rewards are used so frequently and so pervasively in our culture - they “seem” to work…

Here’s the surprising part - days after the experiment, they let all the kids play with all the markers - no mention of any rewards this time.  Well, the kids in the first group specifically avoided those “rewards-based” markers and played any of the other markers instead.  The kids in the control group just played with all the markers as usual, without any obvious preference.

Rewards work?  Sure - for getting immediate compliance.  But for long-term engagement or teaching, they have the OPPOSITE effect!

Clearly if our overarching goal was to encourage them to play with a certain type of marker by using rewards, our rewards system has completely failed us once the reward is removed - in fact, it’s worse now than it was if no reward had been mentioned at all.  Now they don’t want to play with those markers AT ALL.

So - why did the first group avoid those rewards-based markers?  What happened?  I think the reasoning is something like this…  “Why would I play with these markers for free, for nothing?  Maybe those markers are only ones you should play with if you actually get something…  there’s probably something inherently undesirable about them… otherwise why would I have been rewarded for playing with them?”

Now for the very scary part of all this.

Consider how much things like reading and learning and doing intellectual work, homework, etc. are structured in a rewards/punishment-based setting?  And consider what affect overall this is having on our children’s natural curiosity and love of learning?  Good God - if you REALLY think about this, we’re sending them in the exact opposite direction that we’re intending by these programs!  We are basically encouraging them to NOT like learning, to not engage with it on their own (in the absence of a reward/punishment.)

By having rewards programs like “Read 20 books, and you’ll get a free pizza party…”  we are not only

a) setting them up to be less engaged and thoughtful with reading those books - since one eye is on the prize and one eye is on the books, but we’re also

b) sending the message that you shouldn’t bother reading anything on their own unless you’re getting “paid” to do so.  Any possible inherent interest they MAY have had in reading is actively being extinguished by such programs!

For me, all this points to exactly why most kids HATE school by second or third grade even though as small children we start off incredibly curious and excited about learning.  I can see that in my toddler - he *wants* to explore, he *wants* to learn, he *wants* to challenge himself.  It’s like we come programmed with tons of curiosity and desire to learn, only something gets in the way - these kids grow up and go to school where  practically everything is structured around rewards and punishments - starting with grades, gold stars, certificates, pizza parties, etc.  Some parents even reward the reward - by doing things like giving their kids $5 for each A they receive.  Aye!

I never EVER thought rewards were a “bad” thing before, but now I see it’s basically sending kids away from learning - not towards it.

Point #5:  Rewards deteriorate the relationship between the parent and child (or teacher and child, or employer and employee.)

Another negative side effect of using rewards is that it fundamentally changes the dynamic between the “controler” and the “controllee.”  Basically it sets up the controllee to be out to “please” the controller - so they can either avoid punishment or receive rewards.  This makes it hard to have an authentic “real” relationship between the two people if one person is in control and the other isn’t.  It makes it hard for the controllee to be honest about what might really be going on in their lives.  They might try to give the impression that everything is “fine” even when it’s not…  It makes it tempting for the controllee to cheat/lie their way to getting the reward.   There’s no room for openness about actual problems, if problems would make the controllee look bad to the controller or possibly make it so that the controllee doesn’t get the reward - or could possibly be punished.  Either way, this controler/controllee set up is “in the way” of having an authentic close relationship.  Think of the difference in how you feel when you have lunch with your boss - as opposed to lunch with a fellow co-worker.  With whom are you more likely to be totally self-expressed?

The alternative of this arrangement is to have a relationship that is based on respect instead of control.  This lack of respect and authenticity in the relationship leads to the controllee lying about things that the controller would otherwise disapprove of - even if it would actually be best if the controllee didn’t lie.

My own experiences with my mom in a controller/controllee relationship

From my own life, I can see that my relationship with my own mom was altered in ways that really weren’t “best” for me or for her (as my parent) because of this controller/controllee dynamic in some areas where she was controlling.  In areas where there wasn’t this dynamic, I felt close to my mom and like I could tell her things and get her advice.  But some areas were not like this - like for instance, around sex.

I remember purposefully not discussing the fact that I was starting to have sex, as a teenager, when clearly, this topic would have been QUITE helpful for us to talk about.  Had she not taken the strong “controller” stance with regards to this topic, “You will not have sex, end of discussion, and if you do, you’re in BIG BIG trouble…”  She maybe could have convinced me to wait til I was older, more ready for that kind of behavior.  And if, in such discussions, I could be open that I felt I was “ready” even if she didn’t think I was, she could have helped keep me safe in terms of getting birth control and making sure I knew and understood the risks I was taking with my health and my future.

Instead, her controlling attitude in this area basically left me on my own to figure this all out for myself - which isn’t exactly what I think she’d intended by taking that stance.  I think she though that by being controlling she was preventing me from having sex, which… wasn’t the case.  She prevented me from TELLING her I was having sex.  That’s all this prevented.

Since she had that stance, I had to look for all that help or advice elsewhere because I knew she would “punish” me if I were to reveal that I was becoming sexually active.  From a parenting perspective, I certainly would rather have my kids get the facts and information from ME rather than their peers.  And realistically, if I want them to come to me, I have to make it “safe” to come to me - even if it’s about something I don’t particularly like or agree with.

Basically in any area where she was very judgmental or very controlling - where there was this punish/reward dynamic, basically all this resulted in was that if I disagreed with her, I had to put on the good face and basically lie to her, even though it probably was best for me (and her) if we could have talked about such issues openly and honestly.

I was pretty lucky because I was fairly mature for my age, and I made good smart decisions in regards to this topic…always using protection and all, but I know not all kids are/were like me.

Some kids desperately NEED their parents’ guidance and the kind of relationship where they can feel safe getting it…

In fact, I read in the news the other day about this horribly tragic case that reminded me of the perils of this controller/controlee relationship - in particular with regards to kids and having sex.  Basically the story was about this teenage girl who got pregnant.  She somehow managed to completely hide her pregnancy from her parents, and then one night had the baby at a hotel while she was on vacation with her parents and little brother - she basically gave birth alone in the hotel bathroom so quietly so no one would hear her - and then she promptly threw her baby away down the garbage shoot, and yes, it died.  Well… the story summarized that she just recently got sentenced to 13 years in prison as a result, and that she was “lucky” since it could have easily been a life sentence.  Many people clammored she should have gotten life.

Ok.. YES, this is a rather *extreme* example - but what went through my mind was - my god, what if her parents had had the kind of relationship with her where she could have actually felt safe in talking with them about this issue?  Clearly, like me in some ways,  she didn’t feel it was “safe” to a) tell them she was having sex b) tell them she was pregnant c) tell them she was giving birth (!)  d) tell them she had had the baby…

At each step along the way, a different relationship with her parents would have totally prevented this horrible tragedy of a newborn baby dying.  What this tragedy points to is to what lengths (some) kids will go to to avoid being punished or avoid looking bad to their parents.  All that threatening talk that her parents may have done earlier in her life about not having sex (which I am sure is the basis for her not saying anything about it) basically did nothing but make her want to hide her sex life from them - SO much so that she made horribly horribly bad choices each step along the way - not only endangering her own life (with zero health-care during her pregnancy, no medical assistance during the birth) but she also ended up killing her baby and is now spending a significant amount of her life behind bars!

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not at all saying this is the parent’s fault.  SHE clearly made these bad decisions along the way.  But in some ways, it IS partially their fault.  They clearly must have sent a message to her that she was going to be in deep trouble if she was having sex or getting pregnant.  This didn’t stop her from actually GETTING pregnant, what it did stop her from doing was getting *any* of their help or guidance once she did make this mistake.  AND BOY DID SHE NEED THEIR HELP!

Anyway, this book totally opened my eyes to pitfalls of creating a controller/controllee relationship with those I love, especially my children who I want to protect and guide through their lives.

Everyone always asks - “well, what are we supposed to do instead of rewards/punishments?”

My answer (and Alfie’s) answer is that -gosh, it really depends on what’s going on.  What’s the problem you’re facing?  Are you dealing with a two year old wanting to touch the stove?  Or are you dealing with a 12 year old and wanting them to not have sex as they grow into being a hormonally charged teenager?  Or a seven year old who doesn’t want to practice piano.

Each situation may need a different approach.  Punishing/rewarding is one-size-fits-all methodology- and so it’s tempting to use because it’s so simple and “works” - in the very short term.  But it’s tooooo simple and it has devastating effects on people, moreso than I ever really realized.  In fact, one thing that rewards/punishments do not do, which needs to be done, is to ask the question “WHY?”

Why is your child misbehaving?  Why is your child failing at Math?  Why is your pleasant little girl copping a major attitude these days?  Why is your thirteen year old starting to have sex already?  Rewards/punishments ignore asking any of these very relevant questions… questions which, if you can somehow figure out the answer to - you have the answer to your situation.

But yes, that takes WAY more work and effort and patience to deal with… but in the long run, it’s answering THOSE questions that will create a better relationship with your child, that will teach them REAL lessons about life and will further your long term goals of having them grow into responsible and kind members of society.

Alfie does give some guidance on what to do instead of punishments/rewards for kids…. Here’s what he has to say…

a) First just consider the reasonableness of what you’re requesting of your child. You are not faultless, you sometimes make mistakes in judgment and ask your kid to do something they’re not ready to do.  Stop for a second and reconsider your request and whether or not it’s fair or proper.  Sometimes you’ll surprise yourself.  Did you ask your child to do something (or not do something) that is reasonable for their age?  Are you treating your five year old as though he’s as mature as a twelve year old?   Is what you’re asking reasonable considering what they have going on in their lives - like did their pet just die or did they wake up not feeling well or did they just have a bad day at school?

b) Make the situation a “teachable moment” -(as opposed to a punishable/rewardable moment.) Ask something like - “What happened here, and what can we learn from this?  What should we do now to fix it?”  Work together to solve the problem.  It’s not about “letting it go” and being a permissive parent… it’s about actually NOT letting it go and instead taking a closer look - together - at what happened.  This is even less “letting it go” than if you punished them.

c) Try to get to the heart of the problem - really try to get at the WHY behind your child’s misbehavior. Is he tired?  Did something else happen today that upset him, that maybe he hasn’t told you about?  Is she jealous of another sibling and feeling insecure about herself?  Is she hungry and low blood sugar right now? I know I am much more irritable when I haven’t eaten…

d) Create a warm/nurturing/respectful environment. He says “If children feel safe, they can take risks, ask questions, make mistakes, learn to trust, share their feelings, and grow.  If they are taken seriously, they can respect others.  If their emotional needs are met, they have the luxury of being able to meet other people’s needs.”  Yelling at your kids, commanding them around… all that is very disrespectful and teaches them to do the same thing to others - smaller than themselves.  Consider how you behave towards them - and whether if they behaved the exact same way towards another - would that be OK?  A lot of parents yell at their kids.  (I’m guilty as well - but I really try not to.)   And then they turn around and get upset if their child yells at someone else.  Basically - model the behavior you want to see in your child - including “controlling” behavior.

I’m not perfect with this by any means, but here’s what I do instead of punishing… basically when I do need to control Ocean - for he’s two and obviously I sometimes need to control him, like when it’s time to leave and he doesn’t want to - I basically try to do it as kindly and respectfully as I possibly can.  I acknowledge what he wanted - he wants to stay, oh how nice it would be to stay longer… I then apologize that we have to go… and that I’m so sorry he’s disappointed. I explain why we have to go, even if it feels like I’m talking to a wall…  If he yells or screams about it, I just give him a hug and tell him I understand he’s upset and that he REALLY REALLY wanted to stay…  Basically - I try to treat him the same way I’d want someone to treat me if I were upset about not getting MY way.  I’d want them to acknowledge that what I wanted was “reasonable” (for me) and that it’s too bad I can’t get it… and I’d want them to explain WHY I couldn’t get it… and while I may not walk away grinning, I would at least feel better than if all I heard was “BECAUSE I’M BIGGER THAN YOU AND I SAID SO!”  Basically, I’m modelling for Ocean how I’d want HIM to behave if he were 10 years old and dealing with a 2 year old.  I’d want him to do the same thing with that two year old and if he did - if he acted kindly and respectfully and “firmly” … I’d be quite proud of him.

e) Be human with your kids. The more authentic you can be with them, the more they will trust you and learn from your example.  Go ahead and make mistakes in front of your kids and show, by example, how to best deal with mistakes - saying you’re sorry if you’re sorry, cleaning up your mess, etc.  Alfie even recommends apologizing to your kids about twice a month… basically to show them “how” to apologize and that even adults can make mistakes.  When I read this I couldn’t help but think of my mom, who is probably rolling in her grave at the idea of an adult EVER apologizing to a child.  But again, this is because she came from a paradigm of controler/controllee.  I think it would have done wonders for our relationship had she ever apologized to me.  Not because I feel like she really should have - I mean, those old arguments are so far gone now I can’t even remember what we may have fought about in the past - but I can see that if she had come back to me afterwards, maybe even a couple days later, and had said “You know, I was pretty harsh in that conversation, I’m sorry” I would have felt SO much closer to her.  I’d also feel like it would be easier for ME to apologize to her as well.

Well, if you’ve read THIS far, thanks for reading!

I am still a novice parent here, and I am still learning from all of this reading, observing and “trying things out” … I’ll have to report more (later on my blog) about how this whole “lack of punishments and rewards” is actually working in practice. :)  Stay tuned!  In the meantime, feel free to leave comments if you have thoughts on this whole topic.

The book - “Punished by Rewards” - Alfie Kohn.

Hello,

I just read about your study entitled “Evidence of a Causal Role of Winter Virus Infection During Infancy on Early Childhood Asthma.”

One question that went through my mind when reading this was - what about the fact that when you have a baby in the fall….they - compared to babies born in the spring for instance, spend the most number of months of their early lives mainly indoors.  (Especially in the colder climates…) As we all know, indoor air quality is much poorer than outdoor air quality in a typical American household where dozens of cleaning products are used - polluting the air, the surfaces, etc. with toxins.

It seems to me that if a little baby spends it’s first 6 months of life - it’s most vulnerable time - MOSTLY inside, dealing with all these toxins - couldn’t THIS be a factor in not only having such children be more likely to develop asthma, but could it also explain the fact that more of these kids would ALSO come down with viral infections (since their immune system is compromised by all the environmental toxins it’s been dealing with since birth…)

Hence the two would be correlated - higher rates of asthma AND higher rates of viral infections in kids born in the fall, but it wouldn’t necessarily indicate that viral infections are the specific *cause* of asthma….What it may indicate is that children who are inundated with toxins from the indoor environment are more prone to getting viral infections AND that getting such viral infections does harm their lungs even further - thus increasing their chances of getting asthma.

So instead of looking at ways to “cure” these viral infections, wouldn’t it make more sense to advise people on how to keep their homes clean during the winter without creating a toxic environment for vulnerable/sensitive newborn babies?  I mean, if they come out with (yet another) vaccine for babies to take, this may actually make things worse in that you’ll be injecting these “at risk” babies with even MORE toxins (formeldehyde or aluminum or whatnot from the vaccine itself).

I mean, one has to wonder - WHY do viral infections peak at that month anyway?  My guess is that if you’ve been living in a toxic bubble - indoors in a typical American household- over the months your immune system gets more and more depressed from that, and you see viruses better able to take hold and cause trouble for those living in such conditions.

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.  I am curious if you have studied or correlated anything with regards to what chemicals (or range of chemicals) were in these homes … or if that might be a study that could be done in the future.  It would be interesting to know if people who use minimal chemicals in their homes have less incidence of childhood asthma than those who do things like - sprinkle their carpets with carpet fresh, spray their furniture with Febreeze, wash their windows with windex, wash their floors with tilex, spray their bathrooms down with clorox, wash their clothes with fabric softeners, spray air fresheners into the air, wipe down wood furniture with Enddust, etc.   Some people “super clean” their houses like this… and if they do this kind of routine in the winter, it really builds up inside the house, potentially creating all sorts of health issues - especially in newborn babies who are most vulnerable to these toxins.

Thanks for you time and consideration, I hope you have the time to respond as I’m very curious about your study and its findings…
-Ingrid

———————————————–

Her response: (Jan 6, 2009)

Dear Ingrid,

Thanks for your message and interest.  Environmental exposures of all types are believed to be very important in asthma, and most scientists believe that many environmental factors contribute to development of asthma, not just one.  We didn’t study such exposures, and it is impossible to study every environmental exposure in every study, as measurement is very costly.  While this study doesn’t exclude this as a possibility, we simply didn’t study it.  However, the movement in time of the risk of developing asthma differs by up to several months each year, and this movement is “in-sync” with the movement of the winter viral peak for each season that we studied, providing compelling evidence of a causal relationship.  It is also possible that such environmental exposures, which you mention below, increase the risk of these infant infections, which is certainly the case for second hand smoke.

Sincerely,
Tina Hartert

Tina V. Hartert, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Director, Center for Asthma Research and Environmental Health
Director, Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research
Director, Medical Scholars Program
Director, Vanderbilt Environmental Health Science Scholars Program (NIEHS K12)
Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Institute for Medicine and Public Health
Center for Health Services Research, 6107 MCE
Nashville, TN 37232-8300

———————————————–

My response to her response (Jan 6, 2009)

Hello!

Thank you for responding!

So… I think what you’re saying is that it is a possibility that the viral peaks and the asthma peaks being in sync are in sync because both could be caused by the same source - ie - environmental toxicity, but since that wasn’t a factor studied (because it’s so hard to control for) it’s not clear.

I mean - *if* it turns out that the toxic indoor environment IS the root of the problem of both the increase in viral infections AND asthma rates, then to get to the root of the problem for babies born in November is to figure out how best to reduce the toxicity of our indoor environment, not how to obliterate such viruses… correct?

I agree, it’d be very hard to ascertain that it’s the indoor environment since households are not uniform in this regard and thus a much harder subject to study.  But I am just thinking - if it IS the indoor environment, then this is a much easier problem to “fix” for parents with November babies than developing new vaccines for these viruses and all.  Plus it’s “healthier” overall for people and might solve other health issues for people.

I have a short anecdote for you… and I know this is just an anecdote, but I have a friend who is an organic dairy farmer.  I mentioned to his wife the other day - “Wow, this is not exactly the kind of job where you can take a week off for being sick, huh?… what do you DO when he gets sick?”  She said - “he doesn’t. He hasn’t been sick in ten years… “  (We live in upstate NY…)  What’s extra “amazing” about the fact that he never gets sick is that after he does his early morning milking, he goes and drives a school bus for the district.  He then drives the kids home from school as well in the afternoons.  So - here’s this guy who hangs out with “germy” kids twice a day for a couple hours in a confined space M-F, and yet doesn’t ever get sick. (!)

I realized he may not get sick because a) he gets a good dose of exercise and fresh air EVERY day - morning and afternoon - dealing with milking the cows and those chores that go along with that.  b) he drinks this organic raw milk everyday which has tons of great enzymes and vitamins with nothing artificially added or taken away from it c) they are an “organic” minded family in general and minimize anything known to be toxic in their household.

Anyway… just thought I’d mention it.

I personally think a lot of diseases are coming from our environment…not just the overall environment, but also the environment we create in our homes.  We use way more toxic cleaners than we did 100 years ago.  We tend to assume the products in the grocery store are “safe” for us to use… and in small doses (with open windows) they probably are just fine… but when combined with many of these various products, in a confined space with poor air circulation, I can see how they could easily be quite toxic to our bodies - especially for a vulnerable little newborn baby.  I just is “common sense” to me…

I’d love to see more studies about this - though I know how complex they can be to structure.  I just think the results of such studies would be so much more helpful and valuable in that the solutions would be rather obvious and would really get to the root of the problem - if it IS the toxicity of our indoor environments.

Thanks for listening and responding to my last email… good luck with your research projects,

Ingrid

———————————————–

So this year I got asked a few times by friends and family whether or not I’ve introduced Ocean to the idea of Santa.  Basically my answer is no, I haven’t…and I kind of hid behind the fact that Ocean is only two, and so wouldn’t really “get” Santa anyway just yet.  But really, in all honesty, I’m not sure we will “do Santa” with Ocean anyway.  Whenever I’ve mentioned this as a possibility the reaction is pretty much “Oh, no… you MUST do Santa…”

I haven’t fully decided against the Santa idea, but I am hestitant for several reasons… Why wouldn’t I do Santa?  Well…  here’s why…

For one, it’s lying.  I have a really hard time reconciling the idea of lying and deceiving my child, but at the same time wanting him to know I’d never lie to him.  I really don’t want to ever send the message that what I’m saying might actually be a lie.  I want him to know that whenever he comes to me for information on how the world works, that he’ll get a straight answer and won’t be lied to.  Granted, this sounds extreme perhaps - no Santa??  I know.  That’s why I have said I haven’t FULLY decided on this whole issue yet…

The second reason I am averse to the idea is that in general it’s used to manipulate kids.  “Be good and Santa will bring you presents….”  Again, I’m not really “into” the idea of manipulation.  I think regardless of Ocean’s naughtiness or niceness, he should get presents on Christmas.  I’m giving him presents because I love him, not because he’s “been good.”  And to make getting presents contingent on him being nice is…well, not so nice.  It’s not in the spirit that I embrace at Christmas.  (And besides, how many parents REALLY withheld presents on Christmas due to misbehavior? It’s mostly just an idle threat…)

Part of this reason is influenced by the fact that I just finished a book called “Punished by Rewards” which basically convinced me that using any kind of reward to encourage “good behavior” actually has the opposite effect on kids.  It may get them to behave in the moment, but once the reward is removed, the lesson learned is not “be nice because it’s the nice thing to do” - it’s “be nice in order to get something” - which is definitely NOT what I want to teach him.  I have a whole blog entry started on what I discovered in this book and I’ll publish that soon enough and it will explain more about this phenomena of how rewards are actually quite harmful…

The third reason I’m hesitant to promote “Santa” around our house is that he’s sort of creepy.  Let’s face it, many kids are SCARED of Santa.  I know I was… for a few years when I was little.  I never wanted to really climb up on his lap by myself and tell him what I wanted for Christmas…  yikes. Scary! And about the time I got over being scared and intimidated by him, I was almost old enough to realize he didn’t actually exist.  My sister Kathy says how her son Nick was horrified by the idea of a man coming into their house at night…and insisted that she let Santa know to leave the presents outside and not to come in.  That makes for a cute childhood story about her son, yes, but I’m just not sure I want to introduce the idea of a weird man coming into our house late at night to Ocean… he may end up being more scared than excited by him ANY way…

So… the whole pretending Santa exists, when “unwrapped” I see that it’s a lot about lying and manipulating my child and possibly making him fearful… and I just don’t feel totally comfortable with that trade off.  It would be fun for me to see him believe in Santa and talk about Santa as if he actually existed, but in reality - this is fun FOR ME.  It’s cute to see him believe something that isn’t true…. but is that enough to justify the lying and manipulation and all?

I see that I can always remove the manipulation piece and not tell him that Big Brother Santa is watching and judging his every move… but the fact is our culture promotes this “naughty or nice” idea anyway… so even if I don’t threaten him with Santa’s wrath, our culture does it for me.  If he believes Santa is REAL, then he may very well believe the songs about him watching his behavior and rewarding it or punishing it….

What can I do instead?  Is there a way to still embrace Santa during Christmas without compromising my values?  I am not sure exactly.  It’s not like I want to totally ignore Santa.  Maybe I’ll tell him about Santa, but from the perspective of St. Nicholas - the original story of Santa.  I could tell him about the idea of giving gifts to people anonymously as a way of delighting people and of feeling good about oneself - about what true generosity and giving is all about.  Maybe what we could do at Christmas time, is pick different people to give presents to “from Santa”…and that could be part of our “Santa” tradition.  Ocean could also in turn receive presents “from Santa” and understand that when something is from Santa, he just doesn’t KNOW he gave the present to him…  but it’s from someone who cares about him and wants him to be happy and surprised.  Yea, that sounds nice, so maybe that will be how I introduce Santa to him…

If you’re reading this and have any suggestions, feel free to leave a comment, I’d be happy to hear of some ideas on this topic.