Cognitive science diagnoses several disorders of consciousness (minimally conscious state, Persistent vegetative state, Locked-in syndrome, chronic coma, Brain stem death), which is curious in that we do not know (for sure) what consciousness is or is not.

Bottom line is that I agree that we need a theory-based assessment of consciousness from we can determine some norms, and then we can diagnose disorders of consciousness.

Full Citation: 
Fingelkurts, AA, Fingelkurts, AA, Bagnato, S, Boccagni, C, and Galardi, G. (2014, Jun 4). Do we need a theory-based assessment of consciousness in the field of disorders of consciousness? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience; 8:402. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00402

Do we need a theory-based assessment of consciousness in the field of disorders of consciousness?

Alexander A. Fingelkurts [1], Andrew A. Fingelkurts [1], Sergio Bagnato [2,3], Cristina Boccagni [2,3] and Giuseppe Galardi [2,3]

1. Research Department, BM-Science – Brain and Mind Technologies Research Centre, Espoo, Finland
2. Neurorehabilitation Unit, Rehabilitation Department, Fondazione Istituto “San Raffaele-G. Giglio,” Cefalù, Italy
3. Neurophysiology Unit, Rehabilitation Department, Fondazione Istituto “San Raffaele-G. Giglio,” Cefalù, Italy

Adequate assessment of (un)consciousness is not only of theoretical interest but also has a practical and ethical importance, especially when it comes to disorders of consciousness (DOC). Accurately determining the presence or absence of consciousness in patients with DOC allows informed decisions to be made about long-term care support, referral for rehabilitation, pain management and withdrawal of life support.

In spite of significant progress in neuroimaging and the introduction of clear-cut clinical diagnostic criteria, determining the (un)consciousness still presents an important clinical problem: errors are common and have been shown to be as high as 37–43% (Tresch et al., 1991; Childs et al., 1993; Andrews et al., 1996; Schnakers et al., 2006).

Assessment errors arise because the evaluation of patients with DOC is based mostly on clinical observation of subjectively interpreted behavioral responses, while conscious experience often occurs without any behavioral signs. Additionally behavioral responses of such patients are usually limited by their cognitive dysfunctions and/or by their frequent motor impairment. Therefore, determining if a non-communicative or minimally communicative patient is phenomenally conscious poses a major clinical and ethical challenge. For this reason, there is a need for paraclinical diagnostic markers for the presence or absence of consciousness.

We believe that a theoretical account of what conscious experience is and how it emerges within the brain will advance the search for appropriate neuromarkers of the presence or absence of consciousness in non-communicative brain-damaged patients.

In our view, several important considerations need to be kept in mind:

Consciousness vs. Vigilance

Consciousness is often conceptualized as a phenomenon with two components: wakefulness and awareness (Posner et al., 2007). Though such understanding is currently quite wide-spread, it confuses and mixes two different and independent phenomena: subjective awareness and vigilance. While awareness is an important component of consciousness, wakefulness belongs to the vigilance domain. Independence of these two concepts can be demonstrated by examples from a daily life: (a) we are able to unconsciously perform complex actions like brushing our teeth or driving a car while being completely awake; (b) being at the same level of wakefulness we are usually aware of some events/stimuli while unaware of others; and (c) during sleep we can be aware of our phenomenal experience (dreams) but are not awake. Hence, wakefulness is not a component of consciousness but of vigilance. Vigilance, however, affects consciousness by limiting the amount of information available for conscious access (Rusalova, 2006), thus affecting the amount of content (Overgaard and Overgaard, 2010).

Is Consciousness Gradually Continuous or Discrete (“All-or-None”)?

From the abovementioned fallacy, another misconception arises—levels of consciousness. The assumption is that consciousness itself can be somehow diminished (less consciousness) or increased (more consciousness), and thus considered to be gradual (Laureys et al., 2002; Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2010a). However, there is no introspective evidence to support this widely accepted idea (Overgaard and Overgaard, 2010). Indeed, from a third-person perspective, consciousness presents itself in varying amounts, depending on the level of vigilance of the studied subject. However, what is important is that from the first-person perspective one is either discretely fully aware or unaware of something. It is the amount of content that varies gradually (Overgaard and Overgaard, 2010). There is no additional degree of consciousness during such awareness of the content (for a discussion see Fingelkurts et al., 2012a). In other words, consciousness is not merely a quantitative matter of a degree but in fact a qualitative matter of absence or presence of a particular state (Plum et al., 1998). In this sense, when consciousness is separated from arousal/wakefulness, then it is more of a categorical (all-or-none) phenomenon rather than a continuous (gradual) one (Fingelkurts et al., 2012a). It is the degree of vigilance (wakefulness) that conflates the expression of consciousness, resulting in an illusion of its continuous or graded nature (Hudetz, 2010).

What is Then Consciousness?

It is reasonable to assume that to be conscious is to be in a particular state which has projections onto mental/ psychological, neurophysiological and cognitive/behavioral dimensions (Edelman, 1989; Sokolov, 1990; Flohr, 1991; Tononi, 2008). Currently we do not know all parameters of this state, but recent empirical studies have provided several important observations (see Figure 1):

• The realization of a particular state of consciousness requires particular level of vigilance [and hence a preservation of the autonomic nervous system (Plum and Posner, 1980; Wijnen et al., 2006)], a corresponding functional state and physical integrity of the brain (Pistoia and Sara, 2012).
• A given conscious state should have a particular duration: it must be longer than the time it takes for the simplest cognitive act to be completed, which is on the order of several hundreds of milliseconds (Pöppel, 1997; Geissler et al., 1999; VanRullen and Koch, 2003). It seems that duration less than this threshold makes a state un-conscious (still mental domain) or non-conscious (non-mental neurophysiological domain) (for a discussion see Fingelkurts et al., 2010; Bagnato et al., 2013).
• It seems that the state of consciousness is supported by medium values of such characteristics of neuronal assembles as their functional size, life span and stability (Figure 1). Indeed, consciousness is lost when neuronal assembles' size, life span and stability decrease as is the case for patients in vegetative state (VS) or under general anesthesia (Greenfield and Collins, 2005; Fingelkurts et al., 2012b). Likewise, consciousness is lost when these characteristics are changed in the opposite direction as in the case of patients during the generalized seizure (Martin, 1991). Curiously, the speed of the growth of neuronal assemblies is slow during a conscious state but it increases significantly when consciousness is lost (Fingelkurts et al., 2012b).
• Similarly, both low (like in VS or general anesthesia) and high (like in seizure) levels of synchrony among neuronal assemblies result in a dramatic loss of consciousness (Flohr, 1995; Mashour, 2004; John and Prichep, 2005; Blumenfeld, 2008; Cavanna and Monaco, 2009; Hudetz, 2010; Fingelkurts et al., 2012b) (Figure 1).
• High strength of default mode network synchrony is required to support representational content integrated within the first-person perspective (Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2010b; Fingelkurts et al., 2012c).
• The state of consciousness is dominated by EEG fast-alpha and beta oscillations (Fingelkurts et al., 2012a,b,c see also Gugino et al., 2001; Kuizenga et al., 2001; Babiloni et al., 2006, 2009; Rusalova, 2006; Başar and Güntekin, 2009) that may be considered necessary and a minimally sufficient neural condition for a conciseness to be expressed.
• The state of consciousness is independent from specialized cognitive processes like episodic memory, language, introspection or reflection, sense of space, sense of body, sense of self, or sensorimotor processing, or attention as it follows from neurological evidence (for the reviews see Tononi and Laureys, 2008; Boly et al., 2009).

FIGURE 1  

Figure 1. Schematic illustration relating consciousness expression and neuronal assembly characteristics. The stepwise line represents the idea that gradual changes in neuronal mechanisms need to be accumulated to reach a particular threshold level required for qualitative change in the functional state (Bagnato et al., 2013). During VS as a result of a brain injury, the functions of the neural net subtending consciousness (awareness) are reduced in both hemispheres below the threshold level required for minimal consciousness expression. The recovery of consciousness is a dynamic process that involves many plastic changes in many brain structures. If this reorganization crosses the threshold of the minimal neuronal mechanisms that are jointly sufficient for any conscious awareness (particular level of the size, life-span, stability and speed of growth of neuronal assemblies, as well as the amount and strength of functional connectivity between them), the patient will regain consciousness (Fingelkurts et al., 2012a,b). The critical factor regulating the occurrence or absence of consciousness recovery is the distance of these functional characteristics of neuronal assemblies from this threshold level (Bagnato et al., 2013).VS, vegetative state; MCS, minimally conscious state; dashed horizontal line illustrates a threshold of the minimal neuronal mechanisms that are jointly sufficient for any conscious awareness to emerge.

Taken together (Figure 1) these findings suggest that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of coherent dynamic binding of multiple, relatively large, long-lived and stable, but transient alpha and beta generated neuronal assemblies organized as synchronized patterns within a nested, hierarchical brain architecture. It seems that these are minimally sufficient conditions at the more basic level (brain) that are required for the emergent quality (conscious mind) to manifests itself. Indeed, if phenomenal consciousness is a biological phenomenon within the confines of the brain, then there must be a specific level of brain organization and a specific spatial–temporal grain in it where consciousness resides. In other words, we could expect that at the lower (in comparison with the phenomenal consciousness) level of brain organization there should be non-experiential entities (some complex electrophysiological mechanisms) that function as the direct realization base of the phenomenal world (Fingelkurts et al., 2010, 2013a). The abovementioned nested hierarchical architecture of separate and synchronized neuronal assemblies forms the very particular level of brain functioning, so-called operational architectonics level, which on the one hand intervenes between physical level of the brain where it literally resides, and on the other, is isomorphic to the experiential/subjective phenomenal structure of the mind (Fingelkurts et al., 2010). In other words, the level of the operational architectonics has emergent properties relatively independent from the neurophysiological/neuroanatomical properties of the physical level. And the phenomenal level supervenes on this operational level with one-to-one correspondence thus making it ontologically inseparable from it (though it is separable from the brain neuroanatomical processes through the operational level) (Fingelkurts et al., 2013a).

Analytic Model for Assessing Consciousness

Patients in VS or in minimally conscious state (MCS) offer a unique opportunity to study the neural basis of (un)consciousness due to the fact that impairment in awareness of self and environment is dissociated in such patients from preserved and stable wakefulness. We believe that an appropriate level of consciousness description should articulate the operational level of brain organization where the phenomenal/conscious phenomena reside (Fingelkurts et al., 2013b). Electroencephalogram (EEG) is a suitable and adequate measure for the instrumental analysis of such operational level, because it (a) provides a direct (in contrast to indirect fMRI an PET) measure of the behavior of large-scale neuronal networks with a millisecond temporal resolution and reflects functional properties and states of brain functioning as well as being closely connected to information processing in/among neuronal assemblies (for a discussion see Fingelkurts et al., 2012a) and (b) enables clinicians to assess spontaneous brain activity at each level of vigilance and in any state of consciousness, bypassing the need to elicit a behavioral or any other response from the patient (Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2010b).

Following Baars's (1988) recommendation, an experimental analytic model for the assessment of consciousness should consider only those EEG parameters that satisfy the rule: (i) NORM ≥ MCS > VS for subjective awareness of self and environment, (ii) NORM ≥ MCS < VS for subjective unawareness of self and environment. This model was already successfully used in several recent studies (Fingelkurts et al., 2012a,b,c, 2013b).

In conclusion we argue that in the situation where there is no consensus on what would constitute the reliable markers of consciousness in the absence of the subject's report, a theory-based insight into neural substrates and mechanisms involved in conscious content may be useful for detecting the presence of conscious experiences in non-communicating subjects.

Do we Need a Theory-Based Assessment of Consciousness for Proper Rehabilitation of Patients with DOC?

On the basis of the foregoing concepts, we may assume that patients with similar clinical behavior (i.e., VS or MCS) differ considerably in their level of operational architectonic dysfunction and that in turn translates into different expression of consciousness (Fingelkurts et al., 2012b). This is a critical point, if we consider that chances of recovery from a DOC (particularly, from a VS) depend on the interaction of two main factors: (i) the degree of impairment of neuronal systems supporting consciousness, and (ii) the amount of spontaneous and rehabilitation-induced plastic changes aimed to restore brain functions and connectivity within nested operational architectonics (Bagnato et al., 2013). If so, the precise measurement of brain dysfunction characteristics will be decisive, as it will allow rehabilitative treatments to be tailored for each patient. In the future, we may test the effectiveness of specific interventions (i.e., cognitive rehabilitations, drugs or neurostimulation) in patients in VS or MCS by evaluating the effects of the treatments on the patients' neuronal assembly characteristics mentioned earlier. We will then be able to choose the best rehabilitative intervention (or a suitable combination of treatments) for each patient with severe DOC by taking in consideration neurophysiological markers that are easily quantifiable at any stage of rehabilitation.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dmitry Skarin for English editing.

References available at the Frontiers site.

Dean Burnett's Brain Flapping blog, at The Guardian, takes a critical look at one of the most popular and easily accessible personality tests, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). I had no idea this test was created by a couple of housewives who were fans of Jung's books - and not by people within the Analytical Psychology circle around Jung. There is much more to learn here - most of it not too positive.

Nothing personal: The questionable Myers-Briggs test

The Myers-Briggs personality test is used by companies the world over but the evidence is that it's nowhere near as useful as its popularity suggests

Dean Burnett
Tuesday 19 March 2013

A rigorous and thorough personality test. Photograph: www.alamy.com

I was recently reviewing some psychological lectures for my real job. One of these was on personality tests. The speaker mentioned the Myers-Briggs test, explaining that, while well known (I personally know it from a Dilbert cartoon) the Myers-Briggs test isn't recognised as being scientifically valid so is largely ignored by the field of psychology. I tweeted this fact, thinking it would be of passing interest to a few people. I was unprepared for the intensity of the replies I got. I learned several things that day.

1. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is used by countless organisations and industries, although one of the few areas that doesn't use it is psychology, which says a lot.

2. Many people who have encountered the MBTI in the workplace really don't have a lot of positive things to say about it.

3. For some organisations, use of the MBTI seemingly crosses the line into full-blown ideology.

So how did something that apparently lacks scientific credibility become such a popular and accepted tool?

The MBTI was developed during World War 2 by Myers and Briggs (obviously), two housewives who developed a keen interest in the works of Carl Jung. They developed the MBTI based on Jung's theories, with the intention of producing a useful test that would allow women entering the workforce to be assigned jobs that would be best suited to their personalities.

This is already enough to make some people wary. Myers and Briggs weren't trained scientists, but you don't need to be scientifically qualified to make a very valid contribution to science. Look at Galaxy Zoo. Also, deriving all your information from a single source is always questionable in science, even if it weren't the work of Jung, whose theories were/are very influential and far reaching but largely scientifically untestable and subject to numerous criticisms. But the debate around the validity of Jung's theories certainly isn't something I could settle in a blogpost.

The trouble is, the more you look into the specifics of the MBTI, the more questionable the way it's widespread use appears to be. There are numerous comprehensive critiques about it online, but the most obvious flaw is that the MBTI seems to rely exclusively on binary choices.

For example, in the category of extrovert v introvert, you're either one or the other; there is no middle ground. People don't work this way, no normal person is either 100% extrovert or 100% introvert, just as people's political views aren't purely "communist" or "fascist". Many who use the MBTI claim otherwise, despite the fact that Jung himself disagreed with this and statistical analysis reveals even data produced by the test shows a normal distribution rather than bimodal, refuting the either/or claims of the MBTI. But still this overly-simplified interpretation of human personality endures, even in the Guardian Science section!

Generally, although not completely unscientific, the MBTI gives a ridiculously limited and simplified view of human personality, which is a very complex and tricky concept to pin down and study. The scientific study of personality is indeed a valid discipline, and there are many personality tests that seemingly hold up to scientific scrutiny (thus far). It just appears that MBTI isn't one of them.

But so what? People often benefit from things with a limited scientific basis, for many reasons. Scientific validity is necessary if you're trying to diagnose a disorder of some sort, but in the everyday workplace for team building and the like? This is what MBTI is used for most, so why go on some major nerd-rant about how unscientific it is when it doesn't really matter?

Yes, the MBTI is harmless and potentially useful if you're aware of its limitations. That's the problem, though; the MBTI is predominately used in the workplace by HR departments, development/training teams and the like, who can often be clearly unaware of its limitations.

I've been fortunate enough in my career to never have been profiled by someone utilizing the MBTI, but many others haven't been so lucky.

(N.B. The following comments were among numerous emailed to me directly in response to a tweeted request. Commenters are anonymous as their livelihoods could be threatened if their identities were known).

As a member of the [Development] team I am expected to, at the very least, support the use of Myers Briggs. MBTI is the default training solution for any kind of team building event... People very often say something like "Erm, I think that I am not just a T or an F. Can I be somewhere in the middle?" And my colleagues will patiently explain that you must be one or the other. This is the most disputed aspect of the whole thing. And yet there we are explaining with complete authority that "No, you ARE either a thinker or a feeler." It is stupid. I wince when I see one of the members of my team trying to convince an employee (who I happen to know has a Psychology degree) that MBTI is infallible.

Several reports like this revealed just how deeply entrenched and rigid this faith in the MBTI really is. Training in the MBTI and its variations is typical for those in Human Resources etc. and can be quite expensive. The MBTI as an industry apparently makes $20 million a year. When you've spent so much time and money on learning something, of course you're going to have a faith in it, even to the point of cognitive dissonance.

This sort of thing has been going on for quite some time, as the next commenter reveals.

When I was back in school (25+ years ago) a lot of teachers gave the test at the beginning of the year… In one class I was asked to write about "what I learned about myself" by taking the test. I wrote a whole paper about how unscientific the test was and how I didn't learn anything. That teacher had me removed from her class within a week for unrelated trumped up reasons. It was like I was questioning her religion.

It's easy to assume that this unthinking faith in the MBTI is the preserve of businesses and companies, but it seems it's found in schools too. And I've been told about people enduring MBTI-based assessment with negative consequences in our beloved cash-stricken cuts-ravaged NHS. That's right; the health service seemingly spends a lot of money on training and assessment methods that aren't as supported by evidence as many would expect. Worrying.

The extent to which the MBTI is relied upon can reach quite farcical levels, as another commenter revealed.

I interviewed for a new job, and after the first interview stage, I received an email from my recruiter that the second stage interview wouldn't be an interview at all, but a set of tests, which would help the company to understand my mathematical and reasoning ability, my understanding of language, and my personality. That's right, just like something out of a teen magazine, my second interview would not involve me meeting the people I would work with, meeting again with management, or even a technical test, but instead, would be the grown-up, corporate world equivalent of a "Could You Date Justin Beiber" quiz!

Some employers trust the MBTI more than their own judgement? Even if potential employees were entirely passive and unfailingly honest, this would be unwise. I've even been told about companies that make a point of putting employee MBTI profiles on the doors to their offices, so people entering know how best to engage with them. Whether the employees had the results of their drugs tests tattooed on the back of their necks too wasn't mentioned, but wouldn't surprise me.

I obviously can't verify the above quotes, and I know anecdotal evidence should be taken lightly, but this is just a small selection of the responses I got from one casual query.

There are many possible reasons why the MBTI is so entrenched in workplaces and promoted so enthusiastically. There's the expense and training involved, mentioned above. It may be because everyone uses it, so people conclude it must be reliable, and thus its success becomes self perpetuating. Also, any personality type you get assigned is invariably positive. There is no combination of answers you could give on the MBTI which says 'you're an arsehole'.

I personally feel it's more to do with people's tendency to go for anything that offers an easy solution. People will always go for the new fad diet, the alternative remedy, the five dollar wrinkle trick that makes dermatologists hate you for some reason. For all that it may be well-intended, the MBTI offers a variation on that. People are very complex, variable and unpredictable. Many users of the MBTI believe that a straightforward test can simplify them to the point where they can be managed, controlled and utilised to make them as efficient and productive as possible. It's no wonder businesses are keen to embrace something like that; it would be the ideal tool if it were guaranteed to achieve this.

Evidence suggests it isn't though. People are far more sophisticated than any basic yes/no test could ever hope to encompass. Employers who assume otherwise in the face of all available evidence run the constant risk of alienating and infuriating those they intend to manage more effectively.

Dean Burnett's personality can be effectively assessed from his Twitter feed, @garwboy

[Spoiler warning; it's awful]

Dr. Kristin Neff - The Science of Self-Compassion

This is a cool video of Dr. Kristin Neff presenting her talk, The Science of Self-Compassion, offered via The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education, at Stanford University. This talk was a part of The Science of Compassion: Origins, Measures, and Interventions, which took place July 19th to 22nd in Telluride Colorado. Her lecture was part of panel Self-Report Autonomic and Behavioral Measures of Compassion by Kristin Neff, Ph.D.

Pierre Côté - The Relative Happiness Index

  Interesting . . . . You test your own happiness at the RHI website.

Pierre Côté - The Relative Happiness Index

ABSTRACT

Can happiness be a science? Can we actually qualify happiness with scientific notions instead of esoteric ones? How can happiness be useful? Are women happier than men? Is Montreal a happier metropolis than Quebec city? What can we learn from happiness? Brace yourself for Pierre Côté, the creator of the Relative Happiness Index, who is ready to answer all of these questions and more!

Speaker: Pierre Côté
Marketing and communication senior consultant
President and founder of the RHI (Relative Happiness Index)
Participant in the TV series Castaway Cities
Author

Join us for this unique tech talk on The Relative Happiness Index (RHI), a unique social observatory tool.

A bold visionary and very sensitive to the social reality, Pierre Côté founded in 2006 the Relative Happiness Index. The main objective of this index is to develop from happiness a real and a scientific variable that will be useful to establish a judgment or to evaluate a society, a community or a group of people.

An independent social observatory tool, the Relative Happiness Index, through the forty inquiries realised since 2006, surveyed no less than 70 000 Quebecers by asking over 800 questions.

The Pierre Côté experience and his profound knowledge of Quebec's society acquired through the Relative Happiness Index makes him a unique consultant. As such, he's regularly invited by the media to share and explain the results of his researches and to comment on different aspects of society.

This is from their website - it offers some definitions for what they are looking at trying to measure.

Abstract Concept or Tangible Reality?

[ A Selective and Relative Notion ]
[ Happiness: a Social Paradox ]
[ Happiness: Aptitude or Attitude? ]
[ Personal Assessment ]

A Selective and Relative Notion

According to French author and politician André Malraux, "happiness is for imbeciles," in the sense that it is utopian to believe that anyone can attain an absolute state in a relative world. It follows that only an absolute imbecile could believe in achieving it some day.

"We should die when we're happy," opined singer Jacqueline Dulac, in clearly demonstrating the difficult, even impossible, quest of attaining perfect happiness and the ultimate value of this state.

While many philosophers, intellectuals, and researchers have given their opinions on the issue of happiness, they agree on only a single point: happiness is subjective and relative. And it's because happiness is so subjective and relative that so much discussion and debate has focused on defining it and, to a greater degree, on determining the various methods for attaining it.

Happiness: a Social Paradox

Today, happiness appears to be turned more outwardly than inwardly. Moreover, the view of success that society imposes on us is such that saying you're unhappy is like admitting your life has been a failure. Undoubtedly, this accounts for the paradox that, while the great majority of people tend to consider themselves happy or very happy, everyday life gives us an increasing number of signs to the contrary.

Many thinkers criticize today's consumer society and its various requirements for its focus on having rather than being and on the obligation to perform, as if quality could only be achieved by quantity.

Some even claim that the many pleasures of modern society—artificial, sensational, and ephemeral—mask the true quest for happiness, push the individual further away from a minimal but essential spirituality, and reduce happiness to a simplistic, materialistic, and quantifiable notion.

Happiness: Aptitude or Attitude?

Is achieving happiness related to an ability that each of us has to accept or reject life as it is? Do some people have a greater aptitude for happiness than others?

Abraham Maslow, the father of humanistic psychology, believed so. He identified two fundamental factors defining this aptitude for happiness: solving concrete problems rather than withdrawing into one's self and avoiding social norms and conditions.

Moreover, Maslow positively stated that happiness is achieved through a higher degree of self-actualization.

There are many other models and theories that advocate striving for and focusing on the "here and now" to attain a certain level of happiness. In fact, any activity whatsoever that requires concentration here and now brings us closer to this state, with the objective being to recreate these conditions as often as possible in everyday life. This attitude then becomes a kind of philosophy and happiness takes root in all kinds of small daily gestures.

Happiness can also be expressed through "cosmic participation" which is the feeling of taking part in something bigger than yourself, something that both surrounds and contains you. This refers to the very meaning of life and to a much more spiritual definition of happiness.

From a more existentialist standpoint, can happiness only be achieved after death? Some people think so and that our time in this world is only a preparatory step. Such thinkers consider that the journey, not the destination, is what counts.

Nevertheless, most intellectuals and thinkers agree that happiness does not occur by itself: it requires personal work. The world we perceive in our minds is not the real world. The discrepancy between the two is what makes us unhappy. It's never good to maintain dissonance and illusion. We need to strive to ensure that the world in our minds resembles the real world as closely as possible.

Personal Assessment

So, is happiness an abstract concept or a concrete reality…or does it is way back and forth between the two? Certainly, it's not easy to demarcate, delimit, or, even less so, define. The Relative Happiness Index (RHI) doesn't aim or claim to do so. The assessment of happiness, however, does interest us when it is firmly rooted in the individual's perception of him- or herself and his or her life.

And who knows, you might find elements on this site that help you in your personal development.

Happy browsing!

Cindy Wigglesworth - Measuring Spiritual Intelligence

Cindy Wigglesworth has created the first validated and integrally-based measure for Spiritual Intelligence. The page I am posting here is party an advertisement of sorts to get us to buy our own personal assessment. But she also explains what she means by spiritual intelligence and what she is trying to measure.

It's a useful introduction to the topic - and if you want to buy your own personal assessment, there are links to do so. There is also a link to a SQ Glossary. There is also a handful of articles available at the site.

"SQ" or Spiritual Intelligence is defined by CPI as "the ability to behave with Wisdom and Compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the circumstances."

Spiritual Intelligence is an innate human intelligence – but like any intelligence it must be developed. This means that we can describe it and measure it by looking at the skills or competencies that comprise Spiritual Intelligence. Cindy Wigglesworth, founder of CPI, has created the first ever competency-based Spiritual Intelligence assessment instrument – a comprehensive, faith-neutral, expertly developed and tested model. CPI’s Spiritual Intelligent assessment will help you:

• Test your current level of Spiritual Intelligence or “SQ”
• Learn the 21 skills of Spiritual Intelligence
• Discover the next steps to develop your Spiritual Intelligence

After you complete the Spiritual Intelligence assessment, you will receive your report via email as a PDF file of about 20 pages in length (the assessment takes about 30 minutes). The report will give you detailed feedback on your current level of skill development on all 21 skills of spiritual intelligence, and will suggest "next steps to consider" to help you develop your SQ skills (all voluntary of course!).

To take CPI’s fun and expertly developed SQ Assessment and to get your 20 page report, click here now. (After purchasing you will receive an email within 24 hours with instructions).

NOTE: If you have already purchased an SQ Assessment and have your password please click here to complete your Assessment.

A Simple Model of Multiple Intelligences:
CPI uses more than one model of multiple intelligences, but this one is a good one to start with since it is the simplest. It begins with Physical Intelligence or “PQ” – which is our earliest focus (think learning to crawl!), then IQ or logical and verbal intelligences – which is the focus of our educational system, and then Emotional Intelligence or EQ. If you are not familiar with Emotional Intelligence we highly recommend any book by Daniel Goleman – but especially Working with Emotional Intelligence. EQ has been found to be more predictive of success in the business world than IQ. IQ appears to act as a “gateway to entry”…if you don’t have a minimum IQ you can’t enter the field…so you need a minimum IQ to become a lawyer or a nurse, for example. But once you are in – what distinguishes star performers is their EQ. Goleman, Boyatzis, and The Hay Group have developed an instrument that measures Emotional Competencies (the skills of EQ). CPI offers this measurement instrument.

Spiritual and Emotional Intelligences
CPI believes that EQ and SQ are related but different intelligences. We believe that you need “at least a little EQ” to authentically begin a spiritual journey. Specifically, a little self-awareness and empathy is needed to start! But once you begin your spiritual practices, SQ can be very reinforcing of EQ growth, and EQ growth can then nourish SQ growth…so they are positively reinforcing each other. Visually it would look like this:

Measuring SQ or Spiritual Intelligence
We believe that Spiritual Intelligence skills can be broken into 4 Quadrants:

1. Higher Self / Ego self Awareness
2. Universal Awareness (awareness of interconnectness, etc)
3. Higher Self / Ego self Mastery
4. Spiritual Presence / Social Mastery

Each quadrant has approximately 5 skills in it. Each skill has 4 or 5 levels of “skills attainment.” For example:

Sample skill from Quadrant 1: Higher Self/Ego self Awareness

Spritual Awareness Skill: Awareness of Ego self and Spirit Self / Higher Self
Levels of proficiency in this skill:
1	I can communicate an understanding of the psychological impact of family, roles and culture on Ego self (sometimes called Personality self)
2	I demonstrate an ability to observe my own Ego in operation and comment on what seems to trigger my own “Ego eruptions”
3	I demonstrate an awareness of and ability to periodically "listen to" Spirit or Higher Self as a separate voice from Ego self *
4	I can hear the voice of Spirit or Higher Self clearly and understand the "multiple voices" that Ego self can have. I give authority to the voice of my Higher Self in important decisions. *
5	My Spirit or Higher Self voice is clear and consistent. Authority is consistently given to Spirit Self. My Ego self is present and is in sustained joyful service to Higher Self.*

*Note that the inner voices I refer to here are not in any way pathological or signs of psychosis. These are the “voices” of our own nature which debate with us, criticize us, and tell us why we shouldn’t do things. One author refers to this committee of critics as his internal “board of directors.” The “voice” of our Spirit Self is, in contrast, typically a quiet voice – easily ignored in the loud noise of ego voices. Yet it is this quiet Spirit voice which is the voice of our hope, our conscience, our source of ethical courage, and our guidance system when we need to know “What should I do?”

To take Cindy Wigglesworth’s fun and expertly developed Spiritual Intelligence Assessment and to get your 20 page report, click here now. (After purchasing you will receive an email within 24 hours with instructions)

Tags: Integral, Spirituality, intelligence, assessment, Psychology, Cindy Wigglesworth, Measure, Spiritual Intelligence, SQ, wisdom, compassion, inner peace, Conscious Pursuits, AQAL, integral theory