Mindfulness by Ellen J. Langer
The creation of new categories, as we will see throughout this book, is a mindful activity.
Mindlessness sets in when we rely too
rigidly on categories and distinctions
created in the past (masculine/feminine,
old/young, success/failure).
==========
One need not work through deep-seated personal conflict to make conscious those thoughts that
are
mindlessly processed. However, such thoughts will not, on their own, occur to the person for
reconsideration. In that way, they too
are inaccessible. But if we are offered
a new use for a door or a new view of old age,
we can erase the old mindsets without difficulty.
==========
When children start a new activity with an outcome orientation, questions of "Can I?"
or "What if I can't do it?"
are likely to predominate, creating an anxious
preoccupation with success or failure rather than drawing on the child's natural, exuberant
desire to explore. Instead of enjoying
the color of the crayon, the designs on
the paper, and a variety of possible shapes
along the way, the child sets about writing a "correct" letter A.
==========
Just as mindlessness is the rigid reliance on old categories, mindfulness means the continual
creation of new ones.
==========
It is easy to see that any
single gesture, remark, or act between people can have at least two interpretations: spontaneous
versus impulsive; consistent versus
rigid; softhearted versus weak; intense
versus overemotional; and so on.
==========
Even if their reasons
are hard for us, as observers, to discern, people
are rarely intentionally stingy, grim, choosy,
inflexible, secretive, lax, indiscreet,
rash, or fussy, for example. No one
tries to cultivate unpleasant qualities. Take the same list and imagine yourself in a situation
where the word might be applied to you.
If you bought someone a present on sale,
for instance, would you then see yourself
as stingy or thrifty? If you took your children out of school early one Friday in spring, would
you see yourself as irresponsible or
fun-loving? Virtually all behavior can
be cast in a negative or a more tolerable or
justifiable light.8
==========
The consequences of trying out different perspectives are important. First, we gain more choice in
how to respond. A single-minded label
produces an automatic reaction, which
reduces our options. Also, to understand
that other people may not be so different
allows us empathy and enlarges our range of responses.
==========
Second, when we apply this open-minded attitude to our own behavior, change becomes more
possible. When I used to do clinical
work, it often seemed odd to me that
many people in therapy not only had strong
motivation to change (hence their visits to me), but the desired behavior was already in their
repertoires. What was stopping them? In
looking back, now I realize that, often,
they were probably trying to change behavior
(for example, "being impulsive") that they actively
enjoyed, but from another point of view
("being spontaneous"). With
this realization, changing one's behavior
might be seen not as changing something negative but as making a choice between two positive
alternatives
(for example,
"being reflective" versus "being
spontaneous").
==========
Among other effects, increased mindfulness appears to reduce the depression associated with old
age. Larry Perlmuter and I looked at
whether we could decrease depression as
well as increase self-knowledge and
memory through a behavioral monitoring tech-
nique.2 This technique, in which subjects take note of
the choices they make in daily activities, had already been shown to be an effective way to increase
mind- fulness.3 It rests on an
assumption about the nature of choice:
The opportunity to make choices increases our
motivation.
==========
Had the rich stranger in Chapter 2 who needed a
three-by-seven-foot piece of wood
simply unhinged his own front door,
observers of the scavenger hunt might have
thought, "What a creative solution!" Many, if not all, of the qualities that make up a mindful
attitude are characteristic of creative
people. Those who can free themselves of
old mindsets (like the man on the train),
who can open themselves to new information and surprise, play with perspective and context, and focus
on process rather than outcome are
likely to be creative, whether they are
scientists, artists, or cooks.
==========
We can look at the world and ask how things differ (make distinctions) or how they are
the same (make analogies). The first
approach results in the creation of new
categories, the second usually involves
shifting contexts, both of which we have described as mindful activities. We have discussed the
mindful nature of novel
distinction-making at some length. Thinking
by analogy is equally important to both mindfulness and creativity.
==========
The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play.
ARNOLD TOYNBEE
==========
In each of these cases, a mindset of fatigue was lifted by a shift in context initiated by
someone else-the
investigator or a
friend. Mindful individuals use the
phenomenon of second wind to their own advantage in a more deliberate way. Staggering
different kinds of paperwork, changing
to a different work setting, and taking
a break to jog or make a phone call are all ways to tap latent energy by shaking free of the
mindset of exhaustion.
==========
In Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Urey suggest ways that negotiators can generate
within their own minds the kind of
perspectives brought by outsiders from
different disciplines: "If you are negotiating a business contract, invent options that might
occur to a banker, an inventor, a labor
leader, a speculator in real estate, a
stockbroker, an economist, a tax expert, or a
socialist."-'
==========
If a manager is confident but uncertain--confi- dent that the job will get done but without
being certain of exactly the best way
of doing it--employees are likely to
have more room to be creative, alert, and self-starting. When working for confident but
uncertain leaders, we are less likely to
feign knowledge or hide mistakes,
practices that can be costly to a company.
Instead, we are likely to think, "If he's not sure, I guess I don't have to be right 100 percent of the
time," and risk taking becomes less
risky. Employees are more likely to
suggest process and product changes that could
be beneficial. Admission of uncertainty leads to a search for more information, and with more
information there may be more options.
==========
Because people perceived as bright and knowledgeable tend to become managers, the sense that
the boss knows the answer is pervasive
and asking questions is potentially
intimidating to employees. If managers
make clear that they see certainty as foolhardy, it is easier to ask questions based on one's own
uncertainty. Questions provide a good
deal of information for managers.
Moreover, if managers seek out information from employees to answer these questions, both
will probably become more mindful and
innovative.
==========
Many of us know the energizing effects of a new job. There is an excitement in learning new
things, mapping out a new territory. As
the job becomes familiar, however,
enthusiasm and energy wane. Burnout sets
in when two conditions prevail: Certainties start to characterize the workday, and demands of
the job make workers lose a sense of
control. If, in addition, an
organization is characterized by rigid rules, problems that arise feel insurmountable because
creative problem-solving seems too
risky. When bureaucratic work settings
are of the "we've always done it this way" mentality, burnout is no stranger.
==========
Once the staff understood that their justification for these solutions were much weaker than
they had thought, they were able to find
other ways of solving the problems. By
returning some control to the residents,
they made their own jobs easier. For example, they came to realize that there was no firm
reason to believe that a blind man
couldn't learn to smoke safely. In fact,
he already knew where and how to smoke
without danger. They just had to give him a chance.
==========
In a recent experimental
investigation conducted at Lewis Bay Head Injury Facility, we offered the nurses and other
caregivers a similar kind of mindfulness
training. With the resultant change of
outlook, and a renewed sense that new
solutions were possible, the staff in this demanding and potentially depressing situation showed a
significant increase in morale and job
satisfaction.
==========
In combating prejudice,
then, the issue is not simply how we might
teach the majority to be less judgmental, but also how we might all learn to value a
"disabled" or "deviant"
person's more creative perceptions.
==========
Most of us are brought up to find the answer rather than an answer to questions. We do not easily
come
up with several alternatives. By requiring that the
children in the first group give
several different answers to each
question, we were also requiring them to draw
mindful new distinctions.
==========
One of the slides, for example, pictured a woman who was a cook. She was identified as deaf.
The experimental group was asked to
write down four reasons why she might be
good at her profession and four reasons
why she might be bad. The control group was
asked to list one good and one bad reason. This group was asked six additional questions requiring
only one answer in order to keep the
number of answers constant. Several
questions were asked of this kind about
different professions. Amanda’s
note: good ideas for developing integrative thinking.
==========
A second part of this training in discrimination presented problem situations and asked the
children "how" they might be
solved. They were to list as many ways
as they could think of (experimental group), or
they were simply asked whether they could be solved (control group). For instance, when viewing a
woman in a wheelchair they were either
asked in detail how this person could
drive a car or simply asked, Can this
person drive a car?
==========
A third exercise in making distinctions involved finding explanations for events. We gave the
children a slide and a short written
description of what was happening (for
instance, a girl spilling coffee in a lunchroom).
The experimental
group was told to think up several
different explanations for the situation while the control group again considered only one
explanation. The number of explanations
required for each set of questions
increased throughout the training for the experimental group. The same number of slides was
presented to every child.
==========
Our thoughts create the context which determines our feelings.
==========
Part of the reason they fail is that all the positive aspects of the addiction still have a strong
appeal. The relaxation, the taste, the
sociable quality of stopping for a
cigarette remain tempting. A more mindful approach would be to look carefully at all these
pleasures and to find other ways of
obtaining them. If the needs served by
an addiction can be served in other ways, it
should be easier to shake.
One day, at a nursing home in Connecticut, elderly residents were each given a choice of
houseplants to care for and were asked
to make a number of small decisions
about their daily routines. A year and a half
later, not only were these people more cheerful, active, and alert than a similar group in the same
institution who were not given these
choices and responsibilities, but many
more of them were still alive. In fact, less
than half as many of the decision-making, plant-minding residents had died as had those in the other
group. This experiment, with its
startling results, began over ten years
of research into the powerful effects of what
my colleagues and I came to call mindfulness, and of its counterpart, the equally powerful but
destructive state of mindlessness.'
==========
The costs of mindlessness, and the potential benefits of increasing mindfulness, became
particularly clear to me while
conducting research with the elderly. In
1976, with Judith Rodin, a colleague from Yale, I explored the effects of decision making and
responsibility on residents in a nursing
home.' We divided the residents into an
experimental and a control group. Those
in the experimental group were emphatically encouraged to make more decisions for themselves. We
tried to come up with decisions that
mattered and at the same time would not
disturb the staff. For example, these
residents were asked to choose where to receive
visitors: inside the home or outdoors, in their rooms, in the dining room, in the lounge, and so on.
They were also told that a movie would
be shown the next week on Thursday and
Friday and that they should decide
whether they wanted to see it and, if so, when.
In addition to choices of this sort, residents in the experimental group were each given a
houseplant to care for. They were to
choose when and how much to water the
plants, whether to put them in the window
or to shield them from too much sun, and so forth.
This group was contrasted with members of a comparison group who were also given plants but were
told that the nurses would take care of
them. Those in the comparison group were
not encouraged to make decisions for
themselves but were told that the staff was
there to help them in every way possible. For example, if they wanted to visit with people inside
the home or
outside the home, in their room, in the dining room, or in the lounge, we suggested that they tell
a member of the staff, who would help
them arrange it. We tried to make the
issues between the two groups as similar
as possible except for the distinctions about who was responsible and in control.
Before the experiment began and three weeks after it ended, we used various behavioral and
emotional measures to judge the effect
of this encouragement. Measures of
behavior (like participation in activities of
the nursing home), subjective reports (how happy residents felt), and ratings by the staff (how alert
and active they judged the residents to
be) all showed clear and dramatic
improvement for the group that had been
given more responsibility.
Eighteen months after the study, we went back to the nursing home and took the same measures.
The residents who had been given more
responsibility still took more
initiative, and were significantly more active,
vigorous, and sociable than the others. When Judith Rodin gave a lecture at the nursing home, she
found that those who participated
actively and asked the most questions
came from the experimental group. At that
time we also measured the residents' physical health. While, before our study began, the health
evaluation ratings of the two groups
(based on their medical records) had
been the same, eighteen months later the
health of the experimental group had improved while that of the comparison group had worsened.
The most striking discovery, however,
was that the changed attitudes we had
initiated in these nursing home residents
resulted in a lower mortality rate. Only seven of the forty-seven subjects in the experimental
group had died during the eighteen-month
period, whereas thirteen of the
forty-four subjects in the comparison group had
died (15 percent versus 30 percent).
Because these results were so startling, we looked for other factors that might have affected
the death rates. Unfortunately, we
cannot have known everything about the
residents prior to our experiment. We do
know that those who died did not differ significantly in the length of time that they had been in
the institution or, as pointed out, in
their overall health status when the
study began. The actual causes of death that
appeared on the medical records varied from one individual to another in both groups. Thus, the
larger number of deaths in the
comparison group was not the result of a
certain disease being more prevalent in one
group than in another. The changes brought about by the experiment in the lives of the residents
did seem to lead, literally and
figuratively, to more living. When we
look closely at our "treatment"-encouraging choice and decision making and giving residents
something new to look after-it seems
appropriate to see it as a way of
increasing mindfulness. These results have been
confirmed by much research since that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment