Invisible Forces

Invisible Forces

By DEB SCHEIN | Growing Wonder

In late March of this year, March 28, 2023, I happened to read an article from The New York Times titled:  What Happens When an Artist Loses His Sight.  It was written by Roger Rosenblatt, a writer and contributor to both Time magazine, PBS “NewsHour”, and author of a new book titled, “Cataract Blues.”.  What caught my attention was Rosenblatt’s attention to the unseen forces in the universe and his implying, but never using, the word spirituality.

He writes that when he began to lose his eye sight, he started to reflect upon all “the invisible forces that govern our lives (such as) gravity, electric currents, magnetic fields and also love, grief, morality, faith and creativity.”  Rosenblatt goes on to include, “The presence and power of invisible things and of a secret music — of the spheres and of ourselves.”  Rosenblatt’s reflections reminded me of Lisa Miller’s book, “The Awakened Brain” (2021).  In her book, she shares that when we are healthy, when we flow with the universe, we also vibrate at the same frequency as the universe.

I thank Rosenblatt for highlighting these hidden, invisible qualities of life and earth.  Yet, it saddens me that he did not use the word spirituality.  Unfortunately, it appears that we are still unable to even talk about the word spirituality or use it even when it so applicably belongs.  Indirectly, Rosenblatt also captures how we are both naturally and innately spiritual; yet how we also require some external, connecting forces to continue our spiritual journeys.  He does this all without even mentioning the words that tie his thoughts to that missing, invisible word – spirituality.

I would therefore like to share some thoughts of my own work in spirituality.  I began looking at spiritual development of young children.  My lens has grown and changed.  I am currently writing about spiritual flourishing. Unlike development, flourishing requires connection, belonging, and relationships. Yes, spiritual flourishing is invisible and yet, it can be a very powerful force in helping us humans to be more optimistic, better able to make good choices for ourselves and the world.  Research is showing that spiritual flourishing can lead to resiliency and empathy so needed today (Miller, 2021).  The word spirituality, for me, reflects our human ability to wonder, to seek out moments of awe, and joy.  It appears that we need relationships, community, love, and nature in order to achieve this invisible accomplishment of spiritual flourishing.  I believe it should be integrated into our school curriculum, our child rearing practices, our ways of thinking of ourselves as spiritual humans.  It should no long be a hidden, unspeakable, invisible force but a desired concept that reflects who we are from a universal perspective.

Honoring Aristotle: A Science Lesson that Fosters Intellectual Humility

Honoring Aristotle: A Science Lesson that Fosters Intellectual Humility

By JOHN BICKART, Ph.D. | Science Education and Spiritual Transformation | Chapter 4: Thermodynamics

Intellectual Humility, Critical Thinking, and the Art of Making Mistakes

Is it your fervent hope that the study of modern science might cause a student to be proud of recent innovations, while maintaining intellectual humility? In a recent study done at the National University of Singapore, Ziqian Zhou ties intellectual humility to critical thinking, cautioning teachers not to promote the tendency to have a false sense of objectivity that fails to be sensitive to highly contextualized circumstances.

“the intellectual virtues in general or that of intellectual humility in particular is an integral character disposition of the critical thinker” (Zhou, 2022)

Our educational presentation of modern science can sometimes give one the feeling that we moderns know much more than the ancients and we therefore must be superior to them. Therefore, to instill a humble sense of respect in our students, while inspiring an interest in the subject matter, it sometimes helps to offset some mainstream views.

I often tell my students that the next discovery in science is constantly happening in real time. Scientific endeavors are rife with mistakes and guesses that lead us to the next uncovering of truth. And I stress that each truth we find is only true from the specific point of view of our time and our current state of consciousness – and that when you can view the same facts from another place, you can see another aspect of truth. In other words, there is not one right or wrong for all time. Humanity’s consciousness is constantly learning, forgetting, and learning again. One fun way I have done this, for over fifty years of science classes, is to stage a courtroom scene and put ancient science on trial.

Ancient Science on Trial

You are in a courtroom. You are in the jury. The trial is to decide how ancient science should be taught in public schools. The prosecuting attorney for the state is representing modern science. The defending attorney is representing ancient science. Take a seat in the courtroom as you watch the judge read some paperwork about the case. Quiet down now, he is about to begin.

Judge: “What seems to be the problem here? Am I to understand that modern science is questioning the use of ancient science? Ah yes, I see. Very well, the court will hear arguments on both sides. Prosecution, you will begin with your opening statement.”

Prosecution: “Your honor, members of the jury, we intend to argue that ancient science has outlived its original use and as such, should be downplayed in public schools. Our argument will rest on two charges.

First, that ancient science tends to provide outdated concepts.

Second, the ancient documents that have survived are primitive and simplistic.”

Judge: “Thank you counselor. The court will now hear an opening statement from the defense.”

Defense: “Your honor, members of the jury, we feel that to some extent, these allegations are warranted. The defense has great respect for modern science. It has made incredible progress through scientific investigation of the physical world in recent times. In one way, we concede that it has distanced the ancient scientific knowledge and methodology. We do have a problem, however. Perhaps we have convicted them without proper representation.”

Judge: “Of course, of course. Everyone shall be heard. Now, prosecution, call your first witness.”

Prosecution: “The prosecution calls STEM Education. STEM, thank you for coming. Is it true that STEM is an acronym that stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics?”

STEM: “Yes, that is correct.”

Prosecution: “You have heard the charges against ancient science. Let me read it to get the exact wording. They have been charged with ‘outdated conceptsand primitive and simplistic documents’. But STEM, isn’t it true that the modern curricula have downplayed the education of ancient science, focusing more on modern science? Aren’t you just following the times?”

STEM: “Yes, precisely. We are quite aware that we accent things like modern measurement, technology, mechanical invention, and mastery over the environment. The ancients had no such prowess in these areas of scientific investigation. We show students how the last two centuries represent almost all of the crowning achievements of humankind.”

Prosecution: “Would you please tell the court what you require of your teachers?”

STEM: “We instruct them to teach the skills and facts of science so that they can encourage the next generation of invention and innovation.”

Prosecution: “Why do you do this?”

STEM: “We want students to enter the highly competitive workplace in good stead. This requires a solid, practical knowledge of science.”

Prosecution: “I see, I see … invention, innovation, solid practical knowledge of science … And does ancient science help in this pursuit of a competitive workplace?”

STEM: “Not really. Ancient science is historically interesting, but you can’t build technology with stories from a pre-technological age.”

Prosecution: “Thank you.” Turning to the defense, “Your witness.”

Defense: “STEM, I have here a record of remarks your teachers actually made to students. I would like to know if you have heard these.

– ‘The ancient scientists were a simple people and their science was primitive.’

– ‘The ancients laid foundations for modern science, but their findings are outdated compared to the strides we have made.’

– ‘They often had superstitious beliefs that were not based on physical evidence.’”

STEM: “Yes these are actual statements. But, as I have already said, we respectfully mention the ancients as foundation builders – not unlike children. But, as with children, when the adults need to move forward, they need modern techniques, not juvenile stories.”

Defense: “I have no more questions, your honor.”

Judge: “STEM, you may step down. Prosecutor, you may call your next witness.”

Prosecution: “I call, Dr. Faraday. Dr. Faraday, you are an expert in the history of science are you not?”

Dr. Faraday: “That is so.”

Prosecution: “If you are a fan of the ancients, I apologize. But truly, sir, can you deny that the ancients were necessarily more primitive than we are – especially as regards science?”

Dr. Faraday: “Primitive? I question your indictments. The charges that ancient scientists gave us outdatedprimitivesimplistic ideas is itself a gross oversimplification.”

Prosecution: “Dr. Faraday, look at the modern scientific laws and principles that have successfully enabled us to build scientific theories and incredible technology.”

Dr. Faraday: “Quite right. But the very fact that they did not constantly use technology enabled them to see much of what we have lost.”

Prosecution: “I have no more questions. Your witness.”

Defense: “Welcome Dr. Faraday, it is my honor to speak with you today. So far we seem to be looking at what we moderns

have today … that the ancients did not. I would like to look instead at what they DID have … that WE have lost. You are an expert in the history of science. Can you fill in some blanks here?”

Dr. Faraday: “I would be most happy to do so. Modern science has new ideas and new inventions, but there is much we have lost. Let’s look at a case in point. Aristotle’s Four Elements and Four Qualities are mentioned lightly – if at all – because we have lost the ability to appreciate an ancient view from an ancient consciousness.

Aristotle is considered by many to be the Father of Science and one of the most prolific philosophers. He is the tip of a huge iceberg in that, although we have recovered a great many writings, we believe that there may be up to three times as many lost. He is a good example of ancient science and what is more, almost every subject that he wrote about transformed that particular field of knowledge.

I have seen great teachers model intellectual humility and resist the tendency to minimize early scientific ideas of Aristotle simply because we have modern ones that appear to supplant them. The same applies to many of the greats, such as: Cheng Heng and Bi Sheng of China, Banu Musa Brothers of Islam, metal tool makers of Sumeria, hydraulic systems of the African Kushites, Ptolemy of Egypt, al Gazer of the Turkish Artukid Dynasty, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Euclid, and Pythagoras of Greece, the Kechuan Indians of Peru, the iron workers of Kashmir, or the Olmecs of Mexico.

So, how can we keep from speaking of them as outdated and simplistic? I’ll tell you how. Try listening to them as if they were speaking with a different consciousness. Do not project your own consciousness – your own way of thinking – onto them. Instead of reading their publications as

if someone next door said it yesterday, try to imagine a person who thinks in a very different way.

Isn’t it the responsibility of the scientific method to find the truth? When moderns look through a narrow lens of relevancewe seek to answer questions like, ‘What can this do for me?’ – or – ‘What innovation could use this?’ What if the ancient consciousness did not look at things that way – in fact – what if they would say that we moderns sometimes have an unscientific bias here.”

Defense: “I see. Do we have this bias in how we view Aristotle’s Four Elements and Four Qualities?”

Dr. Faraday: “Indubitably. Aristotle’s Four Elements spoke of four main divisions of the world, known as the four Elements: earth, water, air, and fire. We sometimes try to translate such ancient language into our own, comparing this to our periodic table. This makes the ancients seem simplistic. In this regard, we may be well shy of Aristotle’s full meaning. The consciousness of Aristotle’s time used language in a very different way than we do. The words often were inclusive of very large ideas, connected to passionate feelings that perhaps we moderns cannot even feel today. One thing we have lost here is the ability to love our world passionately.

It is the same with Aristotle’s Four Qualities: hot versus cold and wet versus dry. He paired these with the four elements as below.

 

 

Fire is Hot and Dry

Air is Hot and Wet.

Water is Cold and Wet.

Earth is Cold and Dry.

 

Yes, these are very simple, broad, sweeping concepts. Every child understands them. So, we sometimes (perhaps arrogantly) ask, ‘What is the big deal about learning Aristotle’s ideas – I understood them when I was in third grade?’ Then, we might dismiss them because they seem so naive.

And the relevance of them? Relevance in the modern consciousness can unfortunately get translated to asking, ‘What can nature do for me?’ or ‘What technology can I get out of this?’”

Defense: “I understand. By contrast, what do you see in Aristotle, Dr. Faraday?”

Dr. Faraday: “I see a consciousness that is in touch with the incredible ability to appreciate nature with the attention and wonder of a child. I believe that at least one thing he is saying is this: that a scientist should not lose touch with the inclusiveness and wonder of nature! As Goethe, who was a great fan of Aristotle’s science, says …

‘He should form to himself a method in accordance with observation, but he should take heed not to reduce observation to mere notion, to substitute words for this notion, and to use and deal with these words as if they were things.’ (Goethe, 1840/1970, p. 283)

But here is the irony. In the modern, headlong pursuit of technology and efficiency, I wonder if we have walked past the obvious. Perhaps instead, if we could peer through the lens of the ancient consciousness, we would reveal a view that is based upon, imitative of, and embedded in nature. Through this lens, I firmly believe that we could uncover at least two benefits.

  • For one, we would see that processes and mechanical contraptions that have fewer parts have fewer things to go wrong.
  • The other is perhaps an ironic epitaph to humankind’s recent love affair with the mechanical. We would start inventing new ways of living and new devices that work alongside of and even behave like nature. Perhaps such a future could be blessed by clean, friendly, harmonious technologies that sway like trees, flow like water, and grow like flames.

You know, the ancients could raise a stage hydraulically in an open-air amphitheater by diverting a stream to let the water in, then allow the entire stage to be lowered by letting the water return to the stream. The music and speaking in the amphitheater could be amplified by filtering out background noise with the limestone seats. Churches used beautiful chalices to resonate to various tonal frequencies and thereby carry sound.

It fills me with wonder to consider such natural simplicity that might be joined to the incredible strides modern science has made.”

Defense: “Thank you, Dr. Faraday.”

Judge: “The witness may step down.”

… [skip to the closing argument] …

 

Defense: The defense turns dramatically to address the jury with a passionate appeal, “Where is our HUMILITY? Let us honor in our schools that the ancients had valuable abilities – THAT WE HAVE ALMOST LOST! Our current version of civilization is not the epitome of humankind, passing everything that came before us! Imagine a fusion of our modern expertise with the nature-based approach of the ancients. Just think of the world we could make.”

************

[This lesson has been given many times to adults in a U.S. State prison, to middle and high schoolers September 1975 – March 2023.]

References

Goethe, J. W. v. (1840/1970). Theory of colours. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

Zhou, Z. (2022). Critical Thinking: Two Theses from the Ground Up. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(1), 154-171.

Looking at Spiritual Development as a System

Looking at Spiritual Development as a System

By DEBORAH SCHEIN, Ph.D | Early Childhood Educator

Let me introduce myself, my name is Deb Schein and I am an early childhood educator who has done some research in the field of spiritual development.  The goal of my research was to produce a definition of spiritual development that could be used for all children.  In the United States that means no reference to God and religion.  (Yet, for those who want to interject a religious lens, there is certainly room to do so. We might explore this in another blog.)

Today, I would like to talk about the importance of seeing spirituality as a system, especially as we consider spirituality in education.  As in any system, we must consider all its parts.  This reminds me of an Indian folk talk – Seven Blind Mice (captured in a book by Young, 1992).  In this tale each seeing impaired mouse explores an object that stands in front of them.  Each mouse has a different experience as only a part of the object is explored.  The outcome for each individual mouse is an incomplete thus incorrect image.  Only the last mouse covers the entire body of the object and only this mouse is able to perceive the whole of the object—It is an elephant with a rope type tail, palm leaf shaped ears, etc.

The need for understanding the entirety of a system is applicable to our desire to look at spirituality in education.  We must also look at what happens at the beginning of life.  We must ask ourselves, “How can we maintain and grow the spiritual essence that is found at the birth of an infant?” To look at spirituality any other way compromises what we will find; what we actually see; and what we can do to strengthen a child’s spiritual development.

Please join me in this blog on spiritual development as I look at spiritual development in young children through reflections of my research and changing thoughts and experiences.  Here is a look at what I call the system of spiritual development.

(From Inspiring Wonder, Awe, and Empathy:  Spiritual Development in Young Children.  By Deb Schein, 2018, p. 138)

 

 

Beginning a career in Early Childhood Education in 1972, receiving her PhD in 2012, Deb now provides professional development for EC educators and teaches at Champlain College.  She is an editor for Soul to Soul – an online journal for practitioners and researchers interested in all aspects of children’s spirituality.  Deb has written two books on spirituality, and continues to research the relationship between spiritual development, nature, play, peace, and well-being. You can find out more about her at growingwonder.com.

How We’re Overcoming the Stigma of Mental Health Issues

How We’re Overcoming the Stigma of Mental Health Issues

By STEPHEN HINSHAWJEREMY ADAM SMITH  | Greater Good Magazine

Shame and shunning make mental illness worse. But new studies suggest that attitudes are changing for the better—and that’s largely due to young people.

Today, people in the United States know far more about mental illness than did previous generations. They might know what it looks like: changes in emotions, thinking, or behavior that make function in daily life difficult, if not impossible. They’re much more likely to understand that most of us will experience some form of mental illness in our lifetimes, like depression or anxiety. And they know that smaller numbers of people will experience more severe conditions like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or PTSD.

Despite this progress, for decades attitudes toward people with mental disorders have hardly budged. How do we know this? One of the crucial ways we measure prejudice is to ask about “social distance.” In this case, that involves asking: How close would you be willing live to someone with a mental illness? Would you live in the same state? Be in the same classroom or workplace? Participate together on a project? Ride next to them on public transportation? Go out with them? Let your offspring marry them?

When friends, family, and society shame people for their illness, and shun them, that’s stigma. This shaming can take many forms, from stereotypes (“they’re dangerous”) to moral judgments (“you’re just a coward”) to dismissive labeling (“you’re crazy”). There can be real consequences of stigma, such as lost job opportunities and social marginalization, as well as giving up on seeking treatment. Overt discrimination is a big part of stigma, too: People with mental disorders, in many states, cannot run for office, serve on a jury, keep a driver’s license, or retain child custody. Most perniciously, the stigma of mental illness can lead people to hide their troubles and refuse to get help—which is likely to worsen their condition and create a vicious cycle.

Until very recently, studies consistently showed that the desire for social distance from people with mental illness had not improved over the past 50 to 60 years. In fact, in some ways it had actually worsened, as more people than before automatically linked mental illness with aggression and violence.

At the same time, studies also showed that people had greater knowledge of ADHD, depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, and more—but just “knowing” more facts about mental illness can actually make things worse. For example, if you learn that people with schizophrenia may hear voices and become paranoid, you might consider that to be quite frightening, even threatening. Similarly, understanding that people with severe depression may come to feel that their lives are not worth living—and may therefore consider suicide—can trigger the belief that such individuals are utterly self-centered. What might not be understood is that severe depression can foster the belief, in people affected, that everyone else would be better off without them.

In other words, factual knowledge about mental disorders, alone, can actually fuel stereotypes. In addressing stigma, the missing piece isn’t knowledge—it’s contact, empathy, and humanization.

recent study published in December by the JAMA Network Open suggests that things may finally be starting to change. But the picture is complicated: Some kinds of illness are becoming less stigmatized, true, but people still want to keep distance from other forms. The good news is that young people are much less likely to stigmatize mental illness than older generations—and that there are specific steps we can take, as individuals and society, to keep making progress.

Generational shifts driving acceptance

In surveying a representative group of U.S. adults during a period of over two decades, sociologist Bernice A. Pescosolido and her colleagues found a significant and important decrease in desire for social distance related to depression over the past few years.

That is unprecedented, and of real importance. However, in the same paper, the researchers found that attitudes related to conditions like schizophrenia and substance-use disorders did not show signs of improvement—and had actually worsened.

Even though the participants in this study were many—over 4,000 adults—it would take even larger groups to understand how socioeconomic, ethnic, or racial characteristics affected changing attitudes toward mental illness. Still, from this study and a number of others, it does appear that improvements are driven mainly by younger people.

Stephen Hinshaw is the author of <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MSSM1A5?ie=UTF8&tag=gregooscicen-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B01MSSM1A5”><em>Another Kind of Madness: A Journey through the Stigma and Hope of Mental Illness</em></a> (St. Martin’s Press, 2017, 288 pages)
Stephen Hinshaw is the author of Another Kind of Madness: A Journey through the Stigma and Hope of Mental Illness (St. Martin’s Press, 2017, 288 pages)

In fact, research hints at a massive generational shift in how mental illness is perceived and socially experienced. Multiple other surveys and studies besides the one by Pescosolido and her colleagues suggest that both millennials (those born from the early ’80s to the mid-’90s) and Generation Z (who were mostly born in the 21st century) are much more accepting and knowledgeable about mental illness than previous generations.

Why? Rates of diagnosed mental illness have been rising among young people. For example, one 2019 study found almost half experience depression, peaking at 60% for teens aged 14–17—considerably more than previous generations. More recent work conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic hints at a profound mental health crisis.

When the CDC surveyed almost 8,000 high school students in the first six months of 2021, researchers found that depression, anxiety, and other disorders permeated the lives of adolescents during the pandemic. All groups reported more persistent sadness since spring 2020, though the rate rose faster among white teens than others. Nearly half of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teens reported seriously thinking about suicide, compared with 14% of heterosexual peers. One in four girls did so, twice the rate of boys.

Did that translate into higher suicide rates? Yes, and decidedly so, especially for girls. Some emergency departments have reported a significant increase in teens coming in for suicide attempts. (Note that these numbers are only provisional and could go up with time.)

What’s responsible for these negative trends? That’s a topic hotly debated by scholars, with most suggesting some combination of factors like the pandemic, climate change, political and economic instability, increased educational competition, and technological changes like phones and social media. Even more, for teenage girls in particular, a toxic “triple bind” of impossible expectations (be supportive and nurturing, be super competitive, and do both of the above effortlessly while looking “hot”) plays a key role.

However, as depression and anxiety spread among young people, it does seem as though these conditions are becoming normalized—and that youth are becoming more open and compassionate with one another. And high school clubs, as well as college programs, that focus on reducing stigma with respect to mental disorders have been shown to create real benefits.

All evidence to date suggests that many kinds of mental illness carry less stigma for younger generations. As these young people attain full maturity, the tide could eventually turn even for disorders like schizophrenia—the way it has, convincingly, for issues like same-sex marriage over the past 20 years. There are steps we can take to keep pushing this process forward.

What can create more positive change?

First, from a “top-down” perspective, enforcement of anti-discrimination policies, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, can help to drive acceptance. Title I of the ADA blocks employers from discriminating against people with disabilities, including mental illness, and requires them to make reasonable accommodations. Last week, a man in Kentucky won a half-a-million-dollar judgment against the employer who fired him for having a panic attack at work, which will surely discourage other companies from doing the same.

Beyond employment protection, we need enforcement of laws mandating “parity” for coverage of mental and physical disorders, and there’s much work to do with police and the courts to make a distinction between criminal activity and mental health crises.

Such steps can limit the consequences of stigma, but they can’t erase its existence. Though we’ve learned that information all by itself doesn’t reduce stigma, that doesn’t mean we should stop educating people from early ages about diagnosis and treatment—and there is evidence to suggest public health campaigns can reduce stigma if properly funded and executed.

For example, surveys conducted two years after Scotland’s multiyear, multiplatform “See Me” campaign—which aimed to normalize mental illness—showed a 17% drop in fear of people with serious mental illness, among other good outcomes. A much briefer social media campaign in Canada called “In One Voice” resulted in a “small but significant” decrease in a desire for social distance one year after it ended—though the same study also found that people didn’t feel more motivated to actually help someone in a mental health crisis.

The contrasting results of these two campaigns suggest that size and scope matter when it comes to changing attitudes. Scotland’s much more comprehensive approach made more of an impact than “In One Voice.” And it emphasized personal contact, not just factual knowledge, asking us to “see” real people in all their complexity.

The California Mental Health Services Act is a statewide prevention and early intervention program directly addressing stigma and discrimination, including “a major social marketing campaign; creation of websites, toolkits, and other informational resources; an effort to improve media portrayals of mental illness; and thousands of in-person educational trainings and presentations occurring in all regions of the state.” An independent evaluation found that it succeeded in reducing stigma in California, “with more people reporting a willingness to socialize with, live next door to, and work with people experiencing mental illness.” Participants also reported “providing greater social support to those with mental illness.”

Policies and education do work to reduce stigma, but they alone cannot change human hearts.

It has probably helped a lot for more and more people to talk about their experiences with mental illness, on social media and through popular media like magazines and television. In 2013, the New York City chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness teamed up with marketing company JWT New York to launch the “I Will Listen” campaign. They asked people to publicly pledge on social media to hear and support individuals struggling with mental illness.

That early effort encouraged others to later speak out about their experience with depression and addiction on platforms like TikTok and Facebook, making private struggles public in a way that previous generations only glimpsed with books like William Styron’s groundbreaking 1990 memoir Darkness Visible. Or, more recently, books like Kay Redfield Jamison’s memoir An Unquiet Mind (1996), Andrew Solomon’s The Noonday Demon (2001), and Brian Broome’s Punch Me Up to the Gods (2021).

It’s important to note that there is little solid evidence to date that talking about mental illness on social media reduces stigma—and, in fact, at least one study found that social media (if it promotes stereotypes) can actually increase stigma. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try. It could simply mean that it isn’t enough for people to talk about their own experiences with mental illness; we might also need concerted efforts to limit hate speech and misinformation on social media about people with mental illness. And that personal disclosures of mental disorder need to be grounded in rehearsal, support, and timing, as is the case with stigma expert Pat Corrigan’s program, Honest, Open, and Proud.

Beyond social media, news and entertainment media have a long way to go in representations of mental illness. Many studies through the years have shown that stigmatizing portrayals result in more social stigma and can make suffering much worse in people suffering from mental illnesses. Although more accurate and humanized accounts do appear, the predominant themes are ones of incompetence and violence. We simply need better, more accurate, and more humanized media portrayals—and perhaps that needs to start with targeting journalists and other content creators with specialized education in college, graduate school, and professional development courses.

As well, better access to evidence-based treatments is a huge priority for the entire mental health profession. We now understand that many forms of psychotherapy and family-based treatment, as well as medications when needed, can combat some of the most serious symptoms and impairments related to mental disorders. But distressingly low proportions of those in need of such care actually receive evidence-based treatments. For many, even just regular therapy is financially out of reach. At an overall per-capita level, funding for mental health research, via the National Institute of Mental Health, remains far lower than for conditions like cancer.

That is quite ironic. Several generations ago, cancer was highly stigmatized as a disease triggered by one’s loss of will to live. Indeed, if your relative died from cancer, you would instead put in the obituary that she passed away from an unknown illness. Today, though—given the huge spike in disclosure and acceptance—cancer has become a true cause, engendering support and large economic outlays in the battle against it. Understanding that treatment can be effective might help reduce stigma of mental illness, if we can grow to see it as just another human problem that medicine can address, given the time and tools.

Finally, as noted above, young people appear, in many surveys, to be the drivers of changed attitudes and behaviors. A devastating kind of stigma is self-stigma—and the evidence indicates that millennials and Gen Z are turning away from seeing themselves as broken for feeling depressed and anxious, toward seeing themselves as having common illnesses that can be managed and even overcome with treatment, group support, and solidarity.

Young people are the key. Not just because they are always the ones who will shape the future, but because today’s youth are facing formidable mental health challenges. If we can support their mental health through these waves of stressful social change, they might have the compassion and the wisdom to alleviate the suffering of those with mental illness, instead of making it worse with stigma.

Moving Your Body is Like a Tune-Up for Your Mind

Moving Your Body is Like a Tune-Up for Your Mind

By  KIRA M. NEWMAN| Greater Good Magazine

If we want a healthy, happy mind, we need to move our body more, a new book explains.

Movement and exercise feel good, as you know if you’ve ever experienced a runner’s high, the restorative power of a pandemic afternoon walk, or a heart-pumping Zumba class. But what accounts for these benefits?

The answer offered by science journalist Caroline Williams in Move!: The New Science of Body Over Mind is deeper and more provocative than just endorphins, and it highlights how our bodies and minds are interconnected in ways we may not even realize.

Drawing on the work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, Williams explains that our bodies are constantly processing signals from the world and making adjustments to keep us healthy. At the same time, they’re sending signals to the brain about the state of our bodies. As she writes:

The unconscious messages coming from the body provide not only the basis for the self but also a kind of undercurrent to our consciousness that sets the mood for everything else that happens. These ‘background feelings,’ as [Damasio] calls them, act a bit like the soundtrack of a film: They have the power to make us feel happy, sad, hopeful, or on edge, for reasons that we can’t quite put our finger on.

In other words, while we may not recognize it, our moods and feelings have a lot to do with how our bodies are functioning—and that’s where movement comes in.

If our body is communicating to our brain that we are sedentary or weak, that might create underlying feelings of depression or anxiety, insecurity or uncertainty. On the flipside, moving and building strength could create positive changes in our bodily systems that, when passed along to the brain, give us a subtle sense of happiness, confidence, and positivity.

Williams’s book provides an overview of the many ways that moving our bodies can influence our brains for the better—and she offers tips for incorporating mood-boosting, mind-nourishing movement into our busy lives.

How movement helps our minds

But first, the bad news: Sitting may be “the new smoking,” but the ills of a sedentary lifestyle aren’t just for our physical health. Our mental health seems to suffer when we don’t move, as well. For example, people with more sedentary lifestyles have a greater risk for anxiety and depression, as well as lower self-esteem.

Our big brains evolved partly to help us move, explains Williams. For our ancestors, movement meant the ability to run away from danger and run toward food and reward. In fact, one evolutionary anthropologist theorizes that we developed the capacity to think into the future because we needed to plan our movements, back when we were still swinging from tree branches.

So when our brain has no movement to oversee, we suffer. In fact, our brains actually reduce capacity when we’re more inactive, removing cells from areas like the hippocampus.

“Moving is at the heart of the way we think and feel,” Williams writes. “If we stay still, our cognitive and emotional abilities become seriously compromised.”

Meanwhile, the emotional benefits of movement are well-documented. For example, strength training can boost our self-esteem and self-worth, reduce depression and anxiety, and make us feel more capable of meeting emotional challenges. In other words, the strength in our muscles—signaled unconsciously to our brains—may translate to a sense of strength and confidence in the world.

“Having the physical skills to get out of sticky situations makes a big difference in how mentally capable and emotionally resilient we feel as we battle our way through life,” writes Williams.

Similarly, covering distances as we walk or run could give us a sense of moving forward in life—and, in fact, walking does make us feel more distant from our pasts.

<a href=“https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1335914048?ie=UTF8&tag=gregooscicen-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1335914048”><em>Move!: The New Science of Body Over Mind</em></a> (Hanover Square Press, 2022, 256 pages).Move!: The New Science of Body Over Mind (Hanover Square Press, 2022, 256 pages).

Dancing is another potent form of movement. Dancing to music releases dopamine, and dance therapy can help teen girls with depression improve their emotional health, reduce stress hormones, and increase feel-good serotonin. Dancing also makes us more aware of our own emotions. The mind-body connection here? Finding new and creative ways to move our bodies as we groove or waltz may help break up rigid emotional patterns and allow us to find new ways of thinking, feeling, and coping.

Exercise even seems to help budge post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Research suggests that resistance training and yoga can both alleviate PTSD symptoms, and that adding a physical component to therapy makes it more effective for veterans and others with complex PTSD.

In general, the more physical activity you do, the more you’ll tend to have a sense of control over your life. (There’s even some research suggesting that movement can help resolve conflicts with other people.)

“The truth is that brain, body, and mind are part of the same beautiful system,” writes Williams. “And the whole thing works better when it’s on the move.”

How to add more movement to your life

 

Luckily, since our bodies are designed to move and all, we don’t need much guidance on how to be more active. But in her book, Williams offers some ideas for different ways of moving that have different kinds of mental health and cognitive benefits.

In addition to strength training, walking, and running, we can try synchronized movements like tai chi and group exercise to tap into feelings of connection with others. Moving to music can also create that sense of connection and allow us to get lost in the rhythm and disconnect from rumination.

We might also try out what some call “functional movements,” or exercises like jumping and climbing that mimic the way we would move if we were surviving in the wild. Obstacle course races or swimming in nature can be a fun opportunity to conquer physical challenges.

Moving more doesn’t require going to the gym every day (or at all). It’s more a matter of incorporating movement into our daily lives, says Williams. If your job is sedentary, she suggests getting up to move every half an hour. You can do a little gardening, go for a walk, or just have a “movement snack”—a couple minutes of walking like a crab or balancing on one leg. It sounds silly, but what could be sillier than sitting with our butt in a chair for eight hours straight?

With all these benefits in mind, Williams argues that we could do more as a society to acknowledge the importance of movement. That might mean prioritizing recess and PE classes, which more and more U.S. schools are cutting. Elders need encouragement and fitness classes designed for them, not a culture that surrenders to the inevitability of frailty in old age. And Williams would like to see more practitioners incorporating movement and body-based modalities into therapy.

Maybe then more of us would grow up to be adults who move not to burn calories or get our steps in, but just because it feels good for our bodies to do what they’re meant to do.

20 Opportunities to Transform Yourself While Teaching

20 Opportunities to Transform Yourself While Teaching

By JOHN BICKART | Teacher/Author
A workshop taken from actual experiences that honor spirituality in education.

Participate in 20 interactive examples of moments in teaching where the teacher can have a transformative experience. Each is a practical example where you experience an opportunity to model truly transformative learning for students. The activities of the workshop anticipate that each participant will be able to perform the following…