Heritability as a means to predict learning outcomes? This review of  what schools can be expected to achieve in light of scientific evidence on cognitive ability – by Leon Feinstein lays it out clearly how dicey deciding on a genetic basis can be.

Reading of all this complexity, for some reason, reminded me of the multitude of lists I find all over the Internet that pound on the rules kids should be taught at home. I used to wonder if all this repetition indicated a popular belief – that many children aren’t taught the basics prior to attending school.

 

From Impulse to Competence

 

By the time they start school, kids have heard many rules. They’ve started to acquire personal awareness and decision-making skills – but they aren’t finished, yet! They still look around to find examples to follow, or who to ask. And the opportunity to learn how to think things through for themselves, even if they notice it would be a good idea, might not happen as often as taken for granted.

 

The reasoning behind the rules isn’t much talked about. Kids are simply expected to obey, backed up by correction. Any explaining is usually confined to consequences. And when they get to school – a completely different place than familiar, comfortable, home or day care – the number of rules to remember keeps increasing.

 

How often is any child thinking, I wouldn’t be allowed to do that at home, I probably shouldn’t be doing it in class? Again, they’re more likely to follow the lead of other children, than remember rules. And even more likely to follow, as work-loads and distraction levels increase.

 

An Ounce of Prevention

 

It’s easy to tell a child what to do, such as, Stop wiping your nose on your sleeve – if you don’t mind saying it over and over. It takes a little longer to add, If you don’t have a Kleenex, there’s a box on the corner shelf. Please take one if you need it. A short discussion about the health benefits of using Kleenex and how important it is to have some handy takes even longer. But isn’t the second approach more likely to result in remembering to carry and use a tissue?

 

How many similar teaching opportunities are there in a day? No matter where a child is learning, making the most of explaining reasoning behind our everyday rules adds to the thinking-things-through skills for all.

 

A lot of energy goes into jawing about what kids should know but don’t, followed by finding something or someone to blame. What about putting the effort into considering how to increase awareness all along the way? Is there something the matter with with sharing rational information with children? Understanding takes longer in the short term, but by reducing repetition and errors, speeds things up over all.

 

And if there’s anything to epigenetic theory, attending to what fosters understanding, rather than just rule-acquisition could turn out to be worth more cure than previously supposed.

Human invention is played up, and even sensationalized, far and wide. Fascination with the latest breakthroughs  keeps the media, science, and the public at large, in constant scan mode.  The latest and greatest gets top billing.  Even fear of the geek-label fails to deter. The minds of young and old alike flow into the technological groove. Encourage that race – better, faster, and above all, first! 

But few become attracted, much less attached, to improving understanding of the absolute essentials – air, water, soil. You would think that a deep and expansive knowledge of the planet would be the educational gold standard, given our ever-so-obvious dependence. But this idea is a heck of a long way from becoming any kind of a benchmark.

And even though the most innovative technological ideas derive from observation – and often flat out copying – of what already goes on in nature, the source of inspiration sure isn’t shown much, if any, appreciation.

 

Doing Battle

 

The war on insects is just one sorry example of how little ecosystem expertise there is compared to all the energy directed to single, and narrow purpose  technological interference. Insect issues are routinely reduced to:

which product is best to poison the invaders out of existence?

how and how often should we dowse them with it?

… and move on.  And if there isn’t a technological knock-out already – or the noxious after-effects of existing ones are complained about loudly and long enough – the race is back on to develop new ones.

Examination of environmental evidence often doesn’t even cover proper understanding of the target insect and how to kill it. And lately, the cavalry has shifted the sights to overtly genetically messing with nature itself. How much genetic change has already occurred with no recognition that anything is amiss – yet.  How much useful – and ultimately indispensable – information goes misinterpreted, ignored, or over-looked all together when the concentration is so intently directed at defeating the enemy, ASAP?

 

Circular

 

No matter that the invaders re-appear, sometimes even stronger and better adapted than before – or are replaced with other unwanted bugs … or worse. That many fixes turned out to be the equivalent of band-aids just doesn’t break the spell! The soil, water and air continue to bombarded with a host of unnatural, toxic or altering substances, leading to even more imbalance and undesirable outcomes – and then finding fixes for the fixes adds more to the mess.

It would take a while to count how many times a cure turned out to be worse than the ailment. The chances of there being consequences not even detected yet are pretty good. The outcomes already observed are unsettling enough, but we must take care in investigating.  Too often, hasty conclusions are drawn before research has barely even scratched the surface – and seriously hindering progress.

 

Technology is a Hammer – Nature isn’t a Nail

 

Technology is a helpful tool when used intelligently. It’s not a panacea and the habit of fashioning weapons with it doesn’t come of wisdom. The answers we need to understand ecological balance aren’t likely to be found by waging escalating technological warfare. The us vs them mentality is extremely narrow and limited.

It’s said that we live and learn. We also learn and live – and continue to learn so we can keep on living. Just because we’ve always fallen for the fallacy, doesn’t mean we have to persist. The option to look around for more sensible approaches is ready and available.

Awareness of how the planet operates belongs first, front-and-center in the continuous learning arena. Data gathered so far has a lot of holes, but not enough care is taken to keep this in view.  There’s far too much faulty interpreting, so while technology – and faulty explanations – race ahead, comprehension of the underlying natural foundation falls further and further behind. If we don’t figure out how to straighten up and re-pin the under-story, gravity- will prevail.

 

Planetary Prosperity and Our Own are One and the Same

 

The war mentality shuts out so much information, there’s nothing to recommend continuing with it. Constant racing isn’t sustainable, either.  Winning and losing are just more black and white thinking limitations. Recognizing and eliminating the ways we’re only succeeding at shooting ourselves in the collective foot, is long over-due.

The study of air, water and soil – and the life that depends on them – is so very new in the world’s time-line. The potential is awesome – and I mean the learning, not the capitalistic notion of, potential. The mastering the world and everything in it mindset is an incredibly myopic habit in need of a sharp correction.

Nature is the master, the mistress, has the last word – and holds the keys to the knowledge vault. The funny part is that the door isn’t locked, and the information is abundant and intended for everyone. But look how often it happens that the first idea that comes through is grabbed and run with as if it’s all there is.

Putting the attraction of shiny, new first ideas into perspective isn’t a big deal. We can do a lot better job of understanding what’s needed to heal, restore and protect. There’s almost always more than one way and curiosity doesn’t kill cats. Impulse is the real culprit. The  careful, open-minded, curious and observant approach takes more reasoning power and research elbow grease in the beginning. But taking care of the planet is taking care of ourselves, plain and simple. It’s worth doing, and it’s worth doing well.

I was reading an older post by Steve Neuman on Salon describing his wonderment of the endless reach of rhetoric and the influence it has on what people assume is for real.  As he points out, it’s nothing new. Rhetoric has been around for a couple of thousand years, but that he wishes it was something obsolete comes through loud and clear.

I’d like to toss in my two cents to the case against rhetoric.

Persuasion is everywhere. But like advice, it’s only useful if it’s reasoned and informs accurately. And no different than reasoning, it must always make human rights the bottom line.

 

Plain, but Precious, Freedom

 

Consent is required. Every single one of us are free to say no thanks to any pitch without fear of interference or consequence. An offer of reward to listen is no better than punishment –  like a true gift, there can’t be strings attached.

 

Persuasion is far too often thinly veiled coercion, however pleasant the approach – or even how good the intention! The end and the means must be reasonable. Alarmist rhetoric is bullying, too –  flat out manipulative button pushing. Mr Neuman terms this the trespass of the sacred boundaries. Fair enough, and another way of saying that human rights aren’t being taken seriously.

 

For all the fiery – or soothing – rhetorical energy poured into any pitch coming your way, how well considered are your basic rights of consent and freedom from coercive interference? If these aren’t being respected, what are the chances the speaker’s conclusions are even worth taking in?

 

Keeping it Simple

 

In the busy, noisy world, the time to really think issues through is scarce. While Mr Neuman discusses psychological research, I’ll leave it to the psychologists. Uncomplicated solutions are often overlooked. While we need to keep ourselves informed, it’s our undeniable right to choose what we listen to. If the message – or it’s delivery – is manipulative, it’s time to move along and find more sensible, reliable sources.

 

There’s no obligation explain refusal, but stating that human rights must always come first as we head for the door – or to the comments section before we leave the page – might prompt those who try to make our minds up for us rather than provide factual information we can use to decide for ourselves, to at least do the math.

 

Persuasion, respectfully done, and mindful of our rights, has it’s place. The sorry imitation calls for exercising our freedom every chance. But the typical – and virtually unavoidable – kind of rhetoric is long over-due for retirement. Is there a better time than right now to hand it it’s gold watch?

 

There’s an incredible array of conflicting information on the subject of depression – and the situation isn’t helping anyone.

Treating symptoms is an expensive, ineffective, and sometimes dangerous, waste of time. No one would think putting a band-aid on a broken leg is an appropriate treatment. Yet in the real world, the equivalent happens – and not just to folks with depressive symptoms. It’s likely happened to you and most of the people you know at one time or another. Treating symptoms without looking further for causes happens far too much.

Magnesium deficiency, for example, isn’t always checked for. A lack of this essential mineral  can present in many ways. One symptom of not enough is migraine. The head-aches are often controlled with pharmaceuticals.  But, the underlying magnesium deficiency, left undetected, can lead to other difficulties, some very serious. And the unnecessary migraine medications might have side-effects aside from the expense. This particular error isn’t as common as it used to be, but failing to check beyond symptoms is inexcusable.

 

Hope Matters – A Lot

 

The claim that depression is an illness, or even a disease in itself – with some even going as far as to say there’s no cure – is widespread. The possibilities of depression being a symptom are left out completely.  Clients are misinformed, and the condition misrepresented. To pronounce depression incurable is not just unreasonably hasty and inaccurate, it’s downright destructive. Practitioners have no right to mislead and take away hope.

Similar to the magnesium deficiency example, people are prescribed medication to treat what’s secondary to the actual cause. This often results in negative outcomes. Failure to identify and treat underlying conditions adds more difficulty that may range from unnecessary distress, illness, and even death.

 

A New Approach to Medical Quality and Accountability – and a Helpful List of Underlying Causes of Depression

 

A company called Healthgrades* offers this very informative run down of medical conditions related to depressive symptoms. There are more causes than listed here – ones not related to biology – but it’s a great start.

It’s also brings to the fore another pressing consumer need – for qualified, accessible, oversight of medical institutions and practitioners. The company specializes in rating hospitals and physicians. They provide consultation to help medical establishments improve treatment and services as well as offering consumers advice on the quality of medical services available. While Healthgrades only operates in the US, in time either they, or new companies, will hopefully expand. There are a lot of gaps to fill.

 

But for now, Healthgrades’ over-view of underlying causes of depressive symptoms is an invaluable resource, and is available here for everyone.

 

You can find their home page here for other services and information and here is Wikipedia’s review of the company.

 

*I’m not affiliated in any way with Healthgrades.

Communication Chaos?

Sorry, I have to leave out the over 6000 spoken languages – just dealing with English is confusing enough. Effective communication – finding the words that best get across what we mean, and skilfully interpreting what we hear – needs better than a trite saying to size up the challenge.

There’s quite a few few factors leading to stumbling, often tongue tied, conversation conditions – and plenty contributing to talking at each other instead of talking to each other. Double and triple definitions for the same word, jumping to conclusions, miss-hearing, filling-in-the-blanks and context confusion all add to the muddle. To pare things down, begin with our sense of perspective. How we mentally focus – a largely automatic process – and the way we describe this process – leaves a lot to be desired.

We’re hard pressed to find the words. We know but we can’t say.  We use one word – focus – as though it’s all one thing. The spatial, tactile, auditory and visual (and more) qualities of the way we use perspective haven’t been nailed down in the categorization and description department. I think it’s about time. How about you? The ways we use focus have quite a bit to do with how we interpret. A more exact way to think – and talk – about the process would be really helpful.

 

I know, I know, categorization has been taking a beating – for sure, there are places where it’s way over-done. But at the same time, words – the most basic labels – are, apparently, needed to communicate. Should we skip it all and head straight for the Vulcan mind meld?

 

Then again, we do have speech genes – are they epigenetic adaptations, or were we meant to have language all along? Like we have two legs, two arms, two eyes …?

 

Big questions with few answers to date – so I scale it down to what I can more-or-less wrap my head around – and make my own attempt to gather up the info and put it into some kind of coherent message. It’s a tall order, but it does have it’s rewards. The extra time spent figuring out how best to focus, interpret, and then say, generates insights that otherwise might not come to mind – new ideas that make finding the words even easier.

 

We do have most of words to define focus – but the use is often scrambled. For openers let’s narrow it down to two focus modes: (paying) attention and observing. These two are quite different but the terms are often used interchangeably. This switch-er-oo influences our understanding, what we say, and our ideas about listening, too. How often are you asked for your attention – the focus mode you use to sort out information and make sense of it – when what you’re expected to do is watch and listen?  Technically, we aren’t supposed to be attending (deciding what to do with information) when we’re listening (observing – gathering information).

 

But …

 

We naturally switch back and forth between observing and attending constantly – and extremely rapidly. Much of what we’re doing is automatic.  We don’t stop to check what mode we’re using, or if we’re doing a good job of it. Recall the times when what you could have said – or what was really meant – popped into your mind hours – or even days – after a conversation. Our brains don’t seem to appreciate the plodding pace of conversation. Just listening all by itself – say during a lecture or speech – is awkward when the mental equipment insists on going full-speed-ahead on it’s own while we’re trying to hold up our end at conscious speed.

 

How often are you asked to listen then expected to answer questions immediately – before you’ve had any time to sort things out in attention mode?

 

Ever been told you’re not a good listener? Who is? Even though we’re supposed to be observing, we still have to partially attend to understand what we hear. We also need to remove our own context from interpreting, so add on having to remember to ask when we need clarification. Next, we have to figure out if we do this when the talk is finished – or if we’re to interrupt every time we need to confirm intention and meaning. Hopefully, the speaker at least allows us to ask questions at the end of the talk, rather than firing them at us! And hopefully we’ve remembered that we aren’t supposed to be thinking of what we’re going to say next while listening to someone.

And more goes on while attempting to observe – simultaneously processing visually … is just one example. If we’re also trying to follow the reasoning, it’s easy to see that what’s routinely expected in the observation department is a pretty tough row to hoe. The less aware we are of the automatic processes, the harder it is manage.

 

Some complain that reading takes too long, but compared to what we have to do to accurately listen, it starts to look like a time-saving bargain!

 

 Communication – Better Management

On topics we’re well enough acquainted with, conversation runs smoothly. The further we move from the safe and sure areas, the bumpier the course. It’s not surprising that we tend to stick to the superficial much of the time. Once we move away from what’s familiar, the more time it takes to re-adjust to new ideas and viewpoints. It’s not much of a mystery why we often hit the wall when discussing subjects we’re unaccustomed to, or have long-gone off to auto-pilot.

 

But how often, as soon as we pause to think, are we’re accused of being slow. If we can’t maintain a steady patter, there’s frequently someone misinterpreting the time needed to process as a sign of dim-wittedness. It isn’t – and it’s time for a deep breath. Now, let’s go for some flow.

 

For more progressive conversation:

 

1. Keep in mind that your rapid-fire processes are doing essential work, not sabotaging you*

 

2. Set aside a little time to meditate. This helps develop notice of when you’re observing and when you’re in attention mode. Become more aware of the difference – you’ll find yourself in much better shape at both listening and talking time.

 

3. Reasoning skills also run mostly on automatic. Refresh your memory and use reasoning rules consciously to sort when listening. Reasoning errors are the signal to check validity during, or soon after, a conversation – or reading, watching TV – or talking to yourself, for that matter. A little effort early will save time by weeding out misunderstanding.

 

4. Get a few standard answers together ahead. Use when you need more time to think things through before you speak – but your audience isn’t aware of the need to process.  A few examples:

 

This idea deserves more thought, let’s come back to it later.

I don’t have an answer right now, let’s move on.

I’d need more information before I could say.

I’ve never thought of it that way, could you tell me more?

 

5. Ask questions to find out what you need to know. Avoid second-guessing – not only is it inaccurate, it’s a form of deciding for other people. The aim is to understand what others mean from their context, not fill in the blanks with our own.

 

Now for the return serve:

 

6. When it’s your turn to talk, cut your listener lots of slack. Stay on topic. Welcome – even encourage – questions.

 

7. If your discussion partner needs more time, share this key comment for creating a more comfortable and progressive atmosphere: It’s fine if you want more time to think about it.

 

8. When with agreeable company, start a conversation about habits that add understanding to conversations – and leave plenty of room for clarifying word meanings. Get behind the over-used labels and find the gold.

 

9. Remember: When you do need to pause, but someone judges your silence or request for time hastily, at least you know they’ve missed an important point.

 

Communicating is so taken for granted, it seems it only comes up when it’s not going well. And rather than figuring out what could be improved on, the tendency to complain, or avoid and move on, is common. A little time spent examining how you’re going about it boosts awareness of how well you’re getting your meaning across and taking in meaning, too. Those you chat with often, could pick up on more effective approaches, and might even be willing to discuss taking it further. But even if the don’t, your own understanding will expand.

 

Saying what we mean is an ongoing exploration. As the accuracy increases, the comprehension grows right along with it. Take a little more time to notice when you are actually listening and when you are thinking. It opens the door to doing a better job of getting the meaning all the way around, giving you more opportunity to pin-point what you really mean to say – easier said and done.

*Hardwired thinking processes are interpreted as having flaws that interfere with our reasoning, by some. There’s not much solid research to back this idea, despite all the talk. Just being more aware of the reasoning methods we’re using, gives us a really useful way to size up and improve reasoning and communication.

 

 

 

 

 

Article at Aeon Magazine, called Splat Goes the Theory – Local and Organic is a romantic myth – the future of sustainability is about smart technology and scaling up. by Louise O Fresco is President of Wageningen University and Research Centre in The Netherlands. She was formerly Assistant Director-General of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

 

Ms Fresco’s essay prompted me to examine more closely. First, we’re told there is a theory – but it never materializes – just what is the theory? Visions of trattorias and green ribbons, do not a theory make. I don’t know what it’s like in the Netherlands but I know, here in Canada, that any green house tomato I’ve ever eaten was a pale imitation of the ones I’ve either grown myself or bought from neighboring growers. I don’t have access to any nutritional studies, but since what’s in a tomato depends on the soil it’s grown in and it’s genetics, this wouldn’t be enough information anyway.

 

Pretty down on farmer’s markets – and consumers.

 

Most produce markets I’m aware off bring goods from areas outside of town or city. Transportation is involved no matter if products are headed for the market or the supermarket. The last twenty years have seen a surge in making out-of -season produce available year round in many areas of the world. Bananas, raspberries, mangoes, papaya and other perishables come from South Africa, Chile, Israel, Indonesia, and I’ve even seen FRESH New Zealand lamb from time to time. I can’t figure out how bringing locally grown produce into a city from outlying farms could be any more wasteful than shipping across the oceans by boat, then trucking from the coasts – or the airport – fancy packing or not. The fuel and pollution, for crying out loud – this all by itself makes no sense!

 

It’s stated in the article that tomatoes spoil in a matter of hours, and I notice the author jumps from this inaccuracy straight to saying that all produce will spoil if it doesn’t reach the market within a few hours. This is rubbish. People routinely store potatoes, carrots, beets, cabbage, onions, dried beans, grains, nuts, etc., for most, if not the entire, non growing season without any special technology.Tomatoes are perishable, but are good for a few days, or more, if low tech refrigerated.

 

The article moves on to talk of the resource waste that farmer’s markets represent. Here in Canada efforts have begun to recover the enormous quantities of food and scraps thrown away at supermarkets, restaurants, food processing plants, produce supply terminals, commercial and institutional buildings, and individual homes. Singling out farmer’s markets as sole and primary food wasters is irresponsible reporting.

 

Ms Fresco notes that it’s hard work picking fruit and vegetables, and I’m sure that laborers who work for the huge food conglomerates overseas will be happy to be unemployed and starving when they lose out to robots – it’s hard to buy food with no income. Oh, and these same producers are right up on building those green houses – they’re sure to be pesticide, herbicide and GM free, too. I’d love to see one of these robotic green houses that are pumping out 70kg of tomatoes per square meter. Where can I find one? What kind of fertilizer is used? Where can I find nutritional analysis of these wonder tomatoes? And hey, hi! organic growers out there. How’s your yield? You using non-hybrid, or heritage seed? Love to hear from you.
Robots and special greenhouses cost money, They also have a manufacturing footprint. How ecologically fitting either technology is, isn’t advertised.

 

It’s stated that organic produce is grown without fertilizer – this is flat out false. And again, the poor worn out tomato is either/or compared in green house and non green house water use. In-season tomato growing relies on rain. Water that evaporates, eventually falls back down as more rain – and you can generally store rain water in case of unexpected dry spells. If you want to grow food where it’s so dry irrigation is necessary, you might as well do it in a green house – you won’t have to import as much water. Better yet – grow something suitable for the environment.

 

Next comes the wonders of dairy industry left overs! Modified milk ingredients -yes – what this stuff contains doesn’t have to be declared, and can be imported from anywhere, no matter what lack of pesticide, herbicide or food safety regulations exist at point of production. It’s found it’s way into almost every dairy product in Canadian grocery stores – and I can’t eat it. It makes me sick! I have to buy full fat dairy to avoid it – and even then I have to check to be sure. Almost all of the cheese has it added, regardless of fat content. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people thinking they’re lactose intolerant or allergic to dairy, when the real culprit could be this additive – or then again, it could be the thickeners, colorants, preservatives, etc., also commonly found in reduced fat dairy products. By-products can be useful, but do have to be tested, and regulated, if necessary, for safety’s sake. Not making it clear what added by-products contain is a serious health hazard.

 

It’s been known for a while that cooked tomatoes release more beta carotene that raw, so tomato sauce, paste, puree, etc., deliver more of that nutrient. Commercially prepared ketchup is extremely high in added sugars, flavorings and preservatives – it qualifies as ultra-processed – and can’t be considered healthier than a fresh tomato as the articles claims. And what ketchup has to do with cooking and Ms Fresno’s way-out-there suggestion that cooking food had something to do with brain evolution, I can’t even see a correlation.

 

I see no excuse to denigrate consumers. – we don’t decide what winds up in our store bought food – scientists that work for huge corporations do the lion’s share of that. And more and more often, we’re denied the right to even know what’s in commercially supplied food. More fallacies: science is always right, and food is affordable. The only cheap food I see these days is ultra-high processed – not real, and not nutritionally useful.

 

 

There are so many possibilities to improve things. Here’s just a few ideas:

 

 

decentralization

reclaiming and rehabilitating poisoned land

seasonal food production with the use of greenhouses where warranted for near or total local food sufficiency
breeding open pollinated varieties that do well in greenhouses and maintain or even improve nutritional quality ( long-term)

total nutrient recovery within in co-operative towns – extract every bit of fertilizer and fuel value from local biological sources

autonomous housing within independent towns – no grid, no pipelines

run towns and connecting public transport on wind, solar, bio hydrogen and bio methane
putting a stop to pollution

I don’t think sustainability is to be found at today’s farmers’ market or supermarket without a lot a change. I don’t see much of what’s described in this article as superior food on my plate. If any reader has yet to learn to grow a few vegetables, do head to your community garden – you be growing in no time – please don’t listen to this:

 

The closing statement:

“If you do not believe me, give growing tomatoes a try on your windowsill or in the garden. Most likely, your tomatoes will wither on the vine or be eaten by other hungry species. Hopefully, this will leave you full of admiration for all those who work to get flawless tomatoes to your table: the farmers, the processors, the scientists, the greengrocers and retailers. They need our respect and support to make your tomatoes even more sustainable – and then to feed the world”
These condescending words polish off a highly biased attempt to dismiss all that is organic and local as antiquated and wasteful. Modern organic farms use up-to date information and methods to grow excellent produce, in good yield, with minimized, yet appropriate, inputs. Fertilizers are used, but they are organic amendments, usually produced locally. These additives ensure that soil retains the structure, biological activity, and fertility needed to successfully grow sound, nutritious produce. Soil quality is monitored. Non persistent and minimum impact biological pest and disease control is employed when needed, and must meet strict standards. Non GM seed use is also strictly enforced. Spoiled produce and trimmings are not waste. They’re an important part of the materials used to naturally feed the soil. That’s why food waste is now diverted from landfill. It’s composted and used properly as soil improver.

 

The costs of moving produce a few hours by truck, while not ideal, eliminates the need for advanced packaging or other expensive technological interventions. Locally produced foods – allowing sale within a few days of harvest – are a far better option on the basis of the environmental cost of transcontinental, artificially modified and controlled shipping, alone. Alternative power for local delivery would be a huge improvement, and hopefully will come soon.

 

And surely I’m not the only one that’s seen tomatoes – and a lot of other vegetables and fruit – growing on balaconies! All in all, Ms Fresno’s biased essay leaves out most of the facts and plays fast and loose with the few she’s chosen to include. What’s really unsustainable is her attitude and unreliable opinions.

“And here we come to the crux of the matter. Muzzling represents an erosion of the principle of free speech and impoverishes the public debate. We can’t hope to make sound decisions on complex problems like climate change without input from those who know the most about it — the scientists. But instead, we have a federal government silencing scientists in a scurrilous “attempt to guarantee public ignorance,” as the New York Times put it.”

Re-quoted from thetyee.ca  Article by Thomas J. Duck is an associate professor in the Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is on the advisory board of Evidence for Democracy.
Scientific censorship has stopped in Canada, but it appears to have just begun south of the border. The state of the polar icecap, in particular, and the research regarding it needs to be kept free of political interference – world climate information doesn’t belong to any one country and the Canadian debacle stands as a clear warning to the rest of the world – it’s happened once, it can happen again:

I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations

Victoria Herrmann

 

Each of us have our own unique thinking combinations.The contradictory information I find on the subject of creative thinking may come of the highly individual nature of creativity. Another point to consider is the messiness that centers around the artistic and the creative. While it’s common to find them combined, they aren’t one and the same.

Artistic thinking and expression share impressions and evoke experiences. With the exception of story-telling and imagining – fiction and fantasizing – the artistic involves complex combinations of physical, spatial, visual and/or musical skills. Art may represent reality in form, or completely ignore the boundaries of reality all together. To imagine outside of the boundaries of what our senses can take in – or what has yet to be imagined – needs the artistic. To understand and define the newly discovered boundaries, needs the creative.

Listening to the enchanting music doesn’t add much understanding of how it came to be or create skill in composing or playing it. It’s meant to be experienced and, hopefully, enjoyed. Watching a lively mathematics video may encourage, but doesn’t replace, actually doing the the sums – and won’t give much of a clue on how to make a video, either. Artistic thinking inspires, but can’t take the place of, creative thinking.

Creative thinking heads straight for understanding reality. To grasp, as fully as possible, how it really is, how it really works, – and what can come of this understanding – is the goal. A few reach far in this pursuit, but we all think creatively – or are meant to. And the possibilities are essentially endless – it’s not likely we’ll run out of unexplored reality any time soon.

 

Now that you know what I mean by creative, how do we let it loose?

Most of us are up to our ears in a constant stream of information. We long ago developed ways to filter the incoming. This sifting happens below the threshold of awareness and we carry on our daily business without a second thought about it – maybe without even a first thought about it. Highly creative thinkers – innovators, inventors, investigators, designers, etc., – are reputed to have some kind of special gift or talent. In part, what really goes on is letting in more – or different – information through the filters than most do. This increases the number of possibilities to notice.

Whether or not you or I could be as all-fired innovative and inventive as some of the geniuses of history is unknown, but most of us can definitely let more of our creativity shine through.

One so-called talent ascribed to creative thinkers was described by DeBono as noticing what seems unrelated, or even impossible, but is related, possible, and can be explained reasonably. He called this kind of thinking lateral.

How we’re accustomed to taking in information causes us to dismiss as unimportant, or over-look altogether, key information that would lead to clearer understanding of what’s possible.


First Impression:

 

Now Stand Back:

 

Now really stand back – let more information in:

Creative ideas are snippets of think big. When a lateral idea pops into mind, it’s often accompanied by this question: Why didn’t I think of that before?! 
Everyday thinking sifts out too much. Taking apart common ideas is a way to recognize conventional habits that interfere with more realistic thinking. Here’s one:
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

The notion that not reaching goals is due to lack of effort gets a lot of airplay. If we push ourselves and it so happens that we meet the expectation, it’s a short jump to the conclusion that the correlation is proof that lack of effort is always the cause of failure. But lack of effort is only one possible cause of many. Quick acceptance of inaccurate interpretations doesn’t get us where we need to go – and this idea isn’t lost on creative thinkers:

Work smarter, not harder.

Seems pretty obvious, but consider:

If you find a way to make life easier for yourself, they call it lazy.
If you find a way to make life easier for others, they call it genius.
-unknown

Trying to make headway with unconventional ideas is the bane of the creative thinker. And the intention to turn uncommon ideas into practical, useful, reality can be an long uphill trudge if backing is needed. Many start-ups bootstrap out of necessity, not just to maintain control of their ideas. This situation puts off many would-be creative entrepreneurs. Crowd-funding is a help, but creative support is in general, is shaky at best.

Another link in the chain: established expertise can be over-confident and go hard against ideas that challenge what’s accepted as the norm. On the one hand, not every new or different concept is well thought out – scepticism is healthy. But on the other, certainty that what’s new or different must be bunk, interferes with genuine creativity far too often. The antidote is it to remove bias from our own thinking. The happy side effect of this effort is clearer – and more creative – thinking. It also makes it easier to understand, and sometimes even communicate with, those who automatically reject innovative ideas.

 

Promotion of Free Creative Thinking Begins With Boosting Our Own

 

We tend to look at our progress as making our own path, but this is a linear view. Growth happens on many different levels and in many directions. The path analogy serves to symbolize what’s difficult to imagine, much less describe. Learning could look more like this:

Visualizing thoughts and ideas flowing in your mind – just allowing the picture to form itself, rather than constructing it – has a relaxing effect, and often brings fresh ideas to the surface.

 

 

Taking a Break is a Creative Action

 

Another creative resource is what’s called an ultradian rhythm – one of many natural biological cycles that recur within a twenty-four hour period. The particular rhythm I’m referring to is usually called daydreaming, and some studies report the frequency as every ninety to one hundred and twenty minutes, while other findings have it at every four hours, throughout the day.

Research is just now scratching the surface of the various less-than-fully-conscious states we experience. The emphasis has been on the opposite – full high awareness – and ways to maintain it. The daily peaks and valleys are associated with high and low dopamine levels. In the few people tested as they lapse into daydreaming, the brainwaves were found to be the same as first stage sleep.

That somewhat zoned-out, reverie-like states and unrecognized possibilities coming to mind go hand in hand has long been reported. Since this little shut down in consciousness happens whether we want it to or not, do what you can to make the best of it.

Keep a way to record handy while you kick back for the reboot and just let the mind off the hook to wander free. Your system is telling you it’s break time, anyway. What you may have looked at as inconvenient down-time is prime time for creativity.

And at the end of the day, be sure to have a note pad or recorder by the bed. As you wake up from a nights sleep – or nap – there are usually a few not-your-everyday kind of thoughts drifting around. Catch them first thing, before you get up –  they fade fast. You’ll recall some dreams too, but these have been known to deliver unique insights from time to time, so you’ll increase your creative harvest.

 

Active learning feeds creative – and artistic – thinking, but remember:

 

You already have a huge store of knowledge that’s just waiting to re-combine and evolve into bigger thinking. Take advantage of your know-how and the natural, more creative cycles that happen during your day – and don’t be surprised as innovative thoughts begin to flow beyond the chains of set ideas

There’s not much that can be proved without a doubt, scientifically or otherwise. Science relies on what is most likely, somewhat likely, and not very likely, in general, along with what can’t be considered in a general way. Our language shifts all over the place and I long ago learned to leave out words like faith, believe, and to avoid using right/wrong, true, etc. The words have a limiting effect, leading to full stops where it would be far better to explore beyond. And where there is disagreement at these full stops, defensiveness, or even outright combativeness takes over if discussion continues. The point is missed – and isn’t the point of understanding to find it? Having faith in science makes even less sense to me than having faith in a belief system. Science is a system of inquiry and discovery, not of belief.

Technically, assumptions and theories are open for review, revision, and occasionally, outright replacement. This constant updating is essential. Human error, machine error, misinterpretation, biases, criminal fudging, new evidence, improved techniques, and more, continuously influence the thinking and researching. This constant change must be taken into account – nothing is carved in stone. But in the real word, the necessary openness is too often left in the dust by those who insist – we are right and they are wrong. This mindset doesn’t just slow progress, it jams it into reverse. The time wasted having to back track, due to what could have been avoided in the first place, can’t be recovered. Just believe it isn’t appropriate, Take nothing for granted might seem a slow and picky standard to maintain in the short-term, but the planet’s future – and future generations – count on it.

Story – Nobel Winner says. “I placed too much faith in underpowered studies – read the rest at Retraction Watch