Showing posts with label habit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label habit. Show all posts

Saturday, June 1, 2013


Learning to act right (34)… “Gloves are off”
Torrey Orton
June 1, 2013

 
“Gloves are off” usually signals engaging with more force, preparing for a fight of some kind, having it out. There’s another usage, at least in my life, which is perhaps equally automatic as this one, but does not enjoy its linguistic popularity. This ungloved hand is a foundation of right action.

 Right action is founded in civility in part, and civility in politenesses, and politenesses in human history, perhaps some even back to our pre-historic precursors. Among these, manners of greeting are central and mostly pass by without notice because they are automatic at the beginning and ending of events. The arrival of Melbourne’s version of winter (8C early mornings) is glove country for me. I show up around 7am at my twice weekly morning post in front of the Fertility Control Clinic to be greeted eventually by the security guard of the day. On his walking down the Clinic path I unglove my right hand with my left and offer the bare paw to him.

 
Originally, on the first such morning, he declared my ungloving unnecessary. I had to explain that it just is not right to shake a man’s hand (or any other’s, child or adult for that matter!) with a glove on. I couldn’t explain why. He had not grown up in a winter gloved  place, so it was a wonder to him, and no one on the street who I’ve chased it up with has had an idea either why it is the right thing to do.

 
My point here is not really the historical origins of my sense but rather that I have it automatically functioning, as it always has. It belongs with a number of other politenesses (public ones, especially) which arise out of me under appropriate circumstances. The most recent was standing back for others to enter a lift first. Given that I’m usually undeniably the oldest person standing wherever it is, there’s some natural deference I elicit in my efforts to honour others. A small tussle sometimes ensues of the variety specific to efforts at mutual respect which can only be resolved by one deferring to the other’s need by accepting their respect. I usually stand on my right to be respectful over theirs, but will accede to a repeatedly pled need.

 
Such habits can be changed, with serious, persistent application. For instance, I can deliver a good Chinese handshake now after a few years practice. This is seriously counter-intuitive to westerners, particularly Anglo ones, who treat any close contact between men (other than jocks in the full spiritual frenzy of sport) as suggesting sexual intent. For Chinese, length of handshake and intensity, nicely balanced and certainly not paw crushing, is a signal of presence and likely eventual persistence. Good starting places for any connection.

 
There are some other own cultural fine points: right hand only and shaking all the present hands being preferred, even if they are the paws of knowable unknowns – friends of friends; colleagues of colleague. I walked into a psych workshop a week ago and was greeted by the sponsor’s president who I’ve known professionally but distantly for 10 years. I had a coat, a backpack and the day’s course ware in my right arm/hand and offered my left to him as I moved by to let others in.  A few hours later at the midmorning break I stopped by at his table first to re-offer the shake right handed. I just had to on the way to asking a question about other matters.

 
A neuroscience influenced thinker might point out that these are behaviours intended to “down regulate” the amygdala’s wariness about anything new. I’m not sure this adds too much other than to  the accessibility of the concept of the amygdala’s function. I don’t doubt it is true, nor that an appearance of civil intent can be presented which is also keeping under cover some degree of apprehension about the other.

 
A few weeks earlier I had stopped into a local restaurant in Albert Park to pass on a long-delayed message from an industry old-timer I had seen months earlier in another place. The boss was in, as were his main 2ICs. I held out my hand to the boss and reported the message with appropriate disclaimers for my lateness in doing so. I was in a rush for some reason and went out immediately only to be stopped in my tracks 100 meters away by noticing that I had insulted the 2ICs. It’s a nice question what prompted the awareness but the proximate trigger was a video replay of the just gone event in which I notice the missing handshakes for the 2ICs!!!

 
The explanation, I imagine, is a subliminal function which checks experience against templates for right action. I turned around in the middle of my stopped tracks, retraced my steps, asked the boss to get the 2ICs back (one of whom was in the upstairs storage area of the restaurant), shook their hands and explained my need to do so, which they persistently assured me was not required nor even noticed by them. The latter point I wondered about but couldn’t stop to explore. It could have been impolite to do so – disrespectful of their explicit self-knowledges of not needing my paw then!!

 
I wonder if these behaviours can be picked up in an fMRI “light up”, or any other of its kind.

Friday, March 20, 2009

The Rectifications…of names and things (4) – ‘Wake up call…’

The Rectifications…of names and things (4) – ‘Wake up call…’
Torrey Orton
March 20, 2009

Following the suggestion of Confucius, I continue some rectification of names for our times. Elsewhere I offer some ‘solutions’ to some problems of linguistic degradation. Relevant observations appear towards the end of my most recent Dances with Difference (4) post.

“Wake up call...” We have them just about everywhere, yet few who are not awake seem to be getting more awake. So, why keep using this useless phrase. It is not influential, but once again, like other expressions I’ve rectified, saying it seems to be doing it (waking others up) for the unrepentant users. I keep thinking they’ll wake up to themselves, but they don’t. That’s a kind of sleepiness on my part, isn’t it.

Wherein lies the story of keeping asleep while appearing awake. The core point here is that most of us go about most of our lives asleep waking – that is, on autopilot much of the day, with occasional spurts of focussed consciousness when autopilot ploughs us into an unseen hill of reality. They needn’t be big but they must be sharp enough to permeate our sleepy hides. See David Brooks' effort to do this here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion.


It is no bad thing to be on autopilot, as long as the DEW line of our awareness is sufficiently powered to sense the impending. The older we are the more likely we are to be on autopilot. It is our gathered history of proven effectiveness expressing itself in workable solutions to most of living. The younger we are the more attention we have to pay, so young people must be more energetic than the old, and nature made such. This is because they are ignorant and incompetent in many ways, so much so that they prefer the discovery of that ignorance and its associated joys and pains to benefitting from our experience.

Many of our important habits, those of thought the most so, depend on human history for their foundations, core structures and images. We mostly, young and old, think through the past. Watch current reflections by quite smart people on the GFC, among other wake up calls not well answered. For example, there you will find arguments mostly couched in Adam Smith’s 250 year old theses selectively recalled to fill gaps in understanding with apparent authority. See Amartya Sen’s recent view of Smith for a counterpoint.

Like all habits, their serviceability is confirmed by their resistance to change, especially big changes. They have seen it all before. To be experienced, what’s new has to be very brightly lit and sound-staged to get through the perceptual filters of habits. And in our times more than some, we have had a constant assault on the competence of socially constructed reason – the sciences and technologies founding our world now.
This assault ranges from the struggle to make Darwin god or God darwin, to the rapid changes of ‘the research shows’ about diet, hearts, reading scores, the weather, …nearly ad infinitum. Counter evidence to the goodness of our economy also appears persistently – the fat epidemics, the greed epidemics, the extreme everything compulsions of the young, the increasing speeds of everything and the underlying denial of accountability for all these things by those who are supposed to protect and support us.

The effect of the destruction of scientific credibility for the public is to reduce the range and substance of the experiential ‘hills’ our auto-pilot missteps encounter. So the wake ups get louder, raucous, cacophonous … turning into noise which is uninterpretable. We know this produces its own defense by turning off the reception machinery and demonising the callers.

This is not a dream we can wake up to. It’s time for those in power of all sorts to start truth-telling and stop inviting others to wake up by calling from a distance and sending messages to anyones.