Evolving Understanding

Buenos Dias Mis Monos!

I've heard people say that there is "...no point in trying to understand the world around us because the complexities are beyond our comprehension." To that I would respond, "you're correct...if you don't see the point, there is none..." However, I would argue that the pursuit of understanding is innate, necessary, and is a product of millions of years of evolution.

There are as many approaches to understanding the world around us as there are people to try to understand it. People may use theism, science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, or introspection (to name just a few) to help them conceptualize and understand their world. I know what you're thinking, "oh great, here comes another anti-organized religion spiel..." Well, first of all, I'm not going to talk about religion.

Religion = An institutionalized set of beliefs, values, and practices grounded in and holding reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe or any part therein.

Religion is too big to dissect in one Cubicle Chronicle; rather, today we'll address the psychological reasons for man's eternal pursuit of understanding; particularly, I will talk about the evolutionary-psychological basis of why mankind is obsessed with understanding and making sense of things, as well as the inherent flaw in our own conceptualization and mental processes of the external world.


Cognitive Evolutionary basis:

An advantage that we have over many other species is our developed cerebral cortex, which among other things, is responsible for our problem-solving ability. A well-developed cerebral cortex evolved because it enabled us to adapt to our environments through problem-solving and developing survival solutions. Basically, the main bi-product was an inherent drive and skill in "figuring things out".

One of the first methods humans developed for the explanation of the purpose and function of things that occur in the natural world was the conceptualization of supernatural. However, with the formalization of scientific methodology, our understanding of how things work in the natural world has exponentially increased. Supernatural and scientific explanation are thus two approaches we've developed to understanding the world around us. However, not many people attribute the creation of fire or disease to that of "supernatural causes" as they once did.

Does that mean science is being deemed a more credible approach to understanding the world?

If this were true, then we would find that the level and amount of scientific knowledge and understanding of how things work would be inversely related to the frequency and pervasiveness of supernatural explanation. In simple terms, "the more you learn and understand about the natural world, the less you use supernatural explanation."


Emotional Evolutionary basis:

In order to function in daily life we require a way of dealing with our vast range of emotions. Attributing negative natural events to supernatural causes may have been an emotionally adaptive way of dealing with ambiguity, purpose, and understanding; this was adaptive because it may have helped a person deal with stress & anxiety by believing in "life after death", "a higher purpose", or "someone is watching over me" so they could overcome survival hardships with a sense of "hope" & "promise". Along with evolved cognition, self-awareness, and emotional range, the sense of "hope" may be a bi-product that helps one cope with the complex emotions of the human mind.


Dualistic Tendencies:

According to Bering (2002), children seem to separate the death of the body and the existence of experience. Bering found that the younger the child, the more likely the child to believe, although something has died, it still may "have opinions, attitudes, feelings, or experiences."

For example: ask a young child what happens when an animal dies and they'll most likely tell you it is dead and "doesn't need to eat or drink"; but ask the child if the animal "still loves its mother", and they'll most likely say "yes")

So even before the brainwashing of "life beyond death", we are naturally inclined to separate the physiological body from the psychic nature of mind. In fact it's most likely this natural tendency to separate the mind and body that is the foundation of the "life beyond death" paradigm. This "dualistic belief" that distinguishes mind from body can be found even in adults, perhaps you can catch yourself believing them...

With that said, based upon the research in areas of psychology and neuroscience, the mind is a "product" of the brain. No brain = no mind = no memories = no feeling. Granted, research is still trying figure out some of the linkages between physiological measurements and abstract phenomena like thought, so I'm not going to go on and try to explain how the brain processes sensory information, creates memories, and how the different areas of the brain the collectively work to "git er dun", because A) it would take volumes, and B) I can't explain the every intimate process because it goes beyond my knowledge in the field.

My questions to the minds...

Do you believe that a belief in the supernatural is adaptive in modern society? Why or why not?

If you take away the supernatural, what would be an alternative way of fulfilling our needs for "hope" and "stability"?

Do you believe there can ever be a balance between the emotional and cognitive aspects of our minds? And if so/not, does it even matter?

All right, click the "comments" link right below to read the responses of others, as well as jot down your own responses. Oh, and "NO" you don't have to be a member of Blogger to put in your $0.02; Just select "Other" for your identity, type in your name, and post your comments... that's it.... simple as eating really ridiculously good looking pie!

I'm going to need coffee and then a sedative to make it through today!!!!

Your Shrinking Path of Life

Good Morning Scholars!

When I was little my mommy told me I "could be whatever I want to be, as long as I work hard and go to school." I'm willing to bet that most parents utilize this same "the sky's the limit" motivational tactic. However, is it actually true? I would argue that "it depends."

"No shit." you say. "What about the quality of education, financial opportunity, individual differences in intelligence and personality, as well as social networking and values?"

Oh, your points are indeed very good, and believe me you're preaching to the choir. No my friends, my query today is much more relevant to your own adult life. You see, part of my perspective today is that time and experience are the nails hammered into the coffin of that "the sky's the limit" ideal.

Who you are today dictates your potential for tomorrow.

In our youth we dreamt of what we could do and who we could be, and we had many paths of education and opportunity yet to explore. In the formative period of our lives we are obsessed with planning who we'll be and what will happen in the future. This formative period may vary depending upon your education, work experience and various other factors so the age range could be anywhere between let's say "16 to 26".

However, as we get older our options are fewer; we choose a field of study and work, we have increased financial, relationship and familial responsibilities, our capacity to learn reduces, our physical abilities decrease, etc. In essence our options for the future decrease as we become pigeon-holed into what we have become. As a result, we transition from a "idealistic" orientation to a "reality" orientation. Young people tend to talk about the future and older people tend to talk about the past. This shift in perspective makes perfect sense since as youths we have a longer period of life yet to be lived, as opposed to when we get older, we have fewer years (unless you're immortal, then you're all set...)

"Oh Don, don't be such a fucking pessimist, isn't who we are now who we wanted to become? And besides, we could always change careers by going back to school, right?"

The better question would be "is who you are now, who you want to be?" and if not, "what can you do about it?" The future is written by what you have done and are doing right now!

What the fuck are you waiting for?

To address the second question....Well, assuming your financial and familial responsibilities are relatively low, and that you are accepted into the program of study that you're interested in (assuming education is required for your career change), bust out your degree in 2-4 years (depending how many prior credits are accepted), and then can find a job in your new field without any experience, then "sure you can do it." Not to be a dick, but my bet is that your success is unlikely unless you have nothing to lose or the transition career is not vastly different than your current career.

Anyway, here are my questions:

Who are you right now?
All this talk of "who you want to become" and "who you could be" begs the question, "What does 'you' consist of?" In your eyes; are you a profession, belief system, a collective of personality traits, that mythical creation of the "soul"? What are your perceptions of who you believe you are, or do you believe you are nothing more than a collective of matter and experience?

Regardless of who you are, isn't the point of life the actual journey?
Whether or not you are happy with where you are in life, isn't the true value found in experiencing the challenging journey towards your dreams, no matter where or what direction they lead you?

Anyone with a desire, or in the process of changing careers?
What are you doing to transition? When do you expect to complete that transition? What do you hope to gain from the career change for yourself?

All right, click the "comments" link right below to read the responses of others, as well as jot down your own responses. Oh, and "NO" you don't have to be a member of Blogger to put in your $0.02; Just select "Other" for your identity, type in your name, and post your comments... that's it.... simple as eating really ridiculously good looking pie!

I'm going back for more Lemon Zinger!

The Origins of "The Cube"...

Top of the Morning to you!

Are you plugged in? Are you just another component of the electrical circuitry of industry? Slouched in an ergonomic office chair, hands lain upon the keyboard alter, your eyes staring at the electrically stimulated liquid crystal display that transfers images of your input... A complete circuit leading from thought, to keyboard input, to a flat-screen monitor, and back to you for interpretation and response; some mutant human-computer hybrid circuit from 9am to 5pm.

Ahhh, the joys and fulfillment of being apart of the professional world...

Perhaps the greatest poster-child of the monotonous routine imprisonment of the information age is the "cubicle".

But where did it come from? Was the cubicle discovered by anthropologists studying our ancestors that tirelessly sat upon linearly-arranged stumps while they skinned animals and prepared meat for 8 hours a day under the mission statement of their Alpha Male? Perhaps Area 51 had something to do with the discovery of such an efficient solution for the modern day office?

Today we're talking about the origins of the cubicle in the workplace, its current impact, and the future of our fabric-walled holding cells.

A Brief History of the Cubicle: (http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/magazines/fortune/cubicle_howiwork_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes)

• In the late 60's Robert Propst, who at the time was the Director of Research for Herman Miller (cool furniture), had an idea to create a workspace that he felt would revolutionize productivity; he simply called it the "Action Office"
• The Action Office "included plenty of work surfaces and display shelves; partitions were a part of it, intended to provide privacy and places to pin up works in process. It even included varying desk levels to enable employees to work part of the time standing up, thereby encouraging blood flow and staving off exhaustion."
• Economic factors in the late 60's such as rising real estate and building reconfiguration costs, as well as depreciation rates of office furniture, shifted demand towards "a cheap way to pack workers in"
• As a result, Bob Propst's innovative idea of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the worker was traded for the efficiency of packing workers into a limited space.
• The Action Office continually was twiddled down to basic space-conscious "systems furniture", or furniture that was basic, connectable, interchangeable, and space efficient; the birth of "The Cube"!
• Since 1970, there have been challengers to the mighty Cubicle, but none that have been as economically viable and spatially frugal.

Will the Cube continue its reign as the dominating super-power of office space furniture solutions?

Congressman Frank Wolf (much to my "shit my pants" surprise is a "Republican") is on a mission to dissolve the power held by the mighty Cube and has made telecommuting his pet project.

"'There is nothing magic in strapping ourselves into a metal box every day only to drive to an office where we sit behind a desk working on a computer,' he told a congressional committee. Wolf sees telecommuting as a way to decrease traffic, reduce air pollution, increase productivity, and frustrate terrorists. In 2004 he launched a campaign to penalize government agencies by docking funds if they
fail to support telecommuting. Now the SEC, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and four other big agencies are required to offer every eligible worker the opportunity to telecommute."

Let's take a look at some Pros & Cons to the reduction or elimination of the "Cube":

Pros:

• Lower real estate costs for organizations
• Lower expenses of commuting for employees
• Potential for better "life/work" balance for employees
• More autonomy and perhaps job satisfaction for employees

Cons:

• Less observable supervision of employees
• Higher opportunity for loafing
• Information security risk of mobile workstations & wireless internet
• Less interpersonal contact with co-workers (technically, could be a pro or con, depending whether you love or hate your co-workers; but we'll consider it impediment to communication & information exchange, unless Instant Messenger software is used)

I ask you all, cube dwellers and free birds alike, the following:

What are your thoughts on the evolution of the solutions to Office Space? Will the Cube be replaced, or will mobile work stations only be a viable solution for certain industries, positions, and persons? What other possibilities could be used in the workplace as alternatives?

What are some factors that we need to take into consideration when asked "to Cube" or "Not to Cube"? Will fewer face-to-face interpersonal interactions impact the way we relate to each other and our work? Will it further our isolation as the internet and computer have already influenced our society? What are some other Pros & Cons?

Would you be willing or able to switch to the mobile workstation solution in your current position? Why or why not?

Okay, click on the comments below, read, think, and spit some opinions...

This chimp is out!

Science in Scientology?

Good-Day Mates!

I live in Ybor City. A couple blocks away from my humble home is "Centro Ybor", an entertainment complex that houses fashionable clothing stores, a selection of restaurants and bars, a movie complex, as well as many other little "entertaining" venues. One inconspicuous neighbor of the complex is the "Scientology Workshop". The employees of this little workshop can be seen gallivanting around the streets of Ybor offering free personality tests if you but follow them back to their burrow of knowledge. Being a person trained in psychology and measurement, I will not address the validity or integrity of these "personality tests" that these individuals are dispensing because I intend to continue to be in a sociable mood today. However, I believe the better inquiry would be, "what is Scientology?" and "what does it have to do with science and religion?"

Scientology Roots
Before Tom Cruise and the other morons of the entertainment industry began touting the miracles of Scientology, the movement began in 1950 with a man named L. Ron Hubbard and his book "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" . From the information that I've gathered (http://www.lronhubbardprofile.org/index.htm), (http://www.scientology.org/), & (http://www.scientologytoday.org) it seems as though Mr. Hubbard was a good-intentioned, intelligent, insightful and influential man; however, he is not the subject of evaluation today.

Scientology Beliefs

"Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in
relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion
comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability."

Awwwww, isn't that sweet, warm and fuzzy? It gets better.... There are "8 Dynamics (urge, drive, or impulse)":

• 8th Dynamic: Infinity - also commonly called "God", the supreme being or creator.
• 7th Dynamic: Spiritual - anything spiritual with or without identity, life source
• 6th Dynamic: Physical Universe - with its four components of matter, energy, space and time.
• 5th Dynamic: Life Forms - Including all plant and animal life.
• 4th Dynamic: Mankind - as a species
• 3rd Dynamic: Group Survival - whether friends, a club, company, nation or race.
• 2nd Dynamic: Family and children and all other creativity.
• 1st Dynamic: Self - the individual, including his body, mind and immediate possessions.

"Through Scientology, a person realizes that his life and influence extend far beyond himself. By understanding each of these dynamics and their relationship, one to the other, he is able to do so, and thus increase survival on all of these dynamics."

The "pseudo-Science" of Scientology
They go on to talk about their creation of the "Tone Scale" which basically is a linear scale from 0 to 40, where 0 is "Body Death" and 40 is "Serenity of Beingness". The scale is in no apparent interval, nor are the points in any particular type of measurement (i.e. behaviors, feelings, classifications, perceptions, etc. are all on the scale; For those unaware of metrics, when something is a linear scale, the points on the scale should be indicative of degrees of different intensity or amount of a common variable, not a bargain bin full of different varibles on one scale).

Following their insightful "Tone Scale", they go on to explain how they frown upon the use of drugs and that those who use them must go through "The Purification Rundown". You see, according to these experts, the residue of drugs are stored in the fatty tissues of the body (some, but not all drug residue is stored in fat cells; but what does science know), and that exercise,vitamins, and sweating should be used to "purify" the body of all its toxins.

The "E-Meter", or "Electropsychometer", claims to "measure the mental state or change of state of a person, helping the auditor (idiot listening & reflecting in the psuedo "patient-counselor" session) locate areas of spiritual distress or travail so they can be addressed and handled in a session.

Conclusion
Scientology can be summed up by the flaky unrealistic nature of their aim:

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology."

My questions to you:

Do you think our Scientologist friends are trying to bait people in with the illusion of "scientific credibility" to their obvious "spiritual" guide to living?

What is your perspective on Scientology in comparison to other religions? Do you see Scientology as part of a religious evolution from "sun gods" to more of a "personal spirituality"?

Where the fuck is the science that supports some of their "assumptions" and ideas such as the "8 Dynamics", "Tone Scale" and "E-Meter"?

For those not in the "know" click the comments link right below to read and share your perspectives on this; I really hope Tom Cruise logs in and explains why he freaked out on Oprah, as well as how he bagged Katie Holmes!!!