Tara Brach - It's Not What's Happening, It's How You Respond

Tara Brach is a clinical psychologist and Buddhist teacher. She is the author of Radical Acceptance: Embracing Your Life with the Heart of a Buddha (2004) and True Refuge: Finding Peace and Freedom in Your Own Awakened Heart (2013). This short article is adapted from Radical Acceptance, a book that I found quite useful when I first read it.

It's Not What's Happening, It's How You Respond

Posted: 05/03/2013


By Tara Brach, Clinical Psychologist, Author, Teacher of Buddhist Mindfulness

One of my favorite stories took place a number of decades ago when the English had colonized India and they wanted to set up a golf course in Calcutta. Besides the fact that the English shouldn't have been there in the first place, the golf course was not a particularly good idea. The biggest challenge was that the area was populated with monkeys.

The monkeys apparently were interested in golf too, and their way of joining the game was to go onto the course and take the balls that the golfers were hitting and toss them around in all directions. Of course the golfers didn't like this at all, so they tried to control the monkeys. First they built high fences around the fairway; they went to a lot of trouble to do this. Now, monkeys climb -- so, they would climb over the fences and onto the course... That solution just didn't work at all.

The next thing they tried was to lure them away from the course. I don't know how they tried to lure them -- maybe waving bananas or something -- but for every monkey that would go for the bananas, all their relatives would come into the golf course to join the fun. In desperation, they started trapping them and relocating them, but that didn't work, either. The monkeys just had too many relatives who liked to play with golf balls! Finally, they established a novel rule for this particular golf course: The golfers in Calcutta had to play the ball wherever the monkey dropped it. Those golfers were onto something!

We all want life to be a certain way. We want the conditions to be just so, and life doesn't always cooperate. Maybe it does for awhile, which makes us want to hold on tight to how things are, but then things change. So sometimes it's like the monkeys are dropping the balls where we don't want them, and what can we do?

Often we react by blaming -- ourselves, or others or the situation. We might become aggressive. Or perhaps we feel victimized and resign. Or sometimes we soothe ourselves with extra food or drink. But clearly, none of these reactions are helpful.

If we are to find any peace, if we are to find freedom, what we need to do is learn to pause and say, "Okay. This is where the monkeys dropped the ball. I'll play it from here, as well as I'm able." So, how do we do that?

What if you pause right now, and take a moment to be quiet. Can you think of a place in your life where things are not cooperating with how you would like them to be? Whatever unfortunate place the monkeys have dropped a ball in your life, bring your focus to that. It could be something that happens in a relationship with another person, where you get reactive. What would it mean to "play the ball" here? If you could tap into your deepest wisdom, your true compassion, how would you like to respond to these circumstances?

One of the great teachings in spiritual life is this: It doesn't matter what is happening. What matters is how we respond. How we respond is what determines our happiness and peace of mind.

So how might you respond with presence, when you find the monkeys have dropped the ball in a difficult spot?

Enjoy this talk on: Surrender to the Monkeys

Adapted from my book Radical Acceptance (2003)

For more information visit: www.tarabrach.com

For more by Tara Brach, click here.

Research - “Mind the Trap”: Mindfulness Practice Reduces Cognitive Rigidity

This study of the benefits of mindfulness practice in reducing cognitive rigidity came out a while ago, back in May, but I am not sure how much coverage it received. This study attempts to examine our tendency toward cognitive‘‘blinding’’ to novel solutions, which they define as a form of cognitive rigidity. They define cognitive rigidity as "a resistance to change in beliefs, attitudes or personal habits, or the tendency to develop and perseverate in the use of mental or behavioral sets."

The study proposes that mindfulness practice reduces this rigidity. This topic is highly relevant to the series of posts I have been working on of late - Global Workspace Theory and the Future Evolution of Consciousness. Increasing cognitive flexibility allows for greater access to normally unconscious brain networks, which then makes possible new expansions in consciousness.

“Mind the Trap”: Mindfulness Practice Reduces Cognitive Rigidity

Jonathan Greenberg^*, Keren Reiner, Nachshon Meiran

Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Abstract

Two experiments examined the relation between mindfulness practice and cognitive rigidity by using a variation of the Einstellung water jar task. Participants were required to use three hypothetical jars to obtain a specific amount of water. Initial problems were solvable by the same complex formula, but in later problems (“critical” or “trap” problems) solving was possible by an additional much simpler formula. A rigidity score was compiled through perseverance of the complex formula. In Experiment 1, experienced mindfulness meditators received significantly lower rigidity scores than non-meditators who had registered for their first meditation retreat. Similar results were obtained in randomized controlled Experiment 2 comparing non-meditators who underwent an eight meeting mindfulness program with a waiting list group. The authors conclude that mindfulness meditation reduces cognitive rigidity via the tendency to be “blinded” by experience. Results are discussed in light of the benefits of mindfulness practice regarding a reduced tendency to overlook novel and adaptive ways of responding due to past experience, both in and out of the clinical setting.

Citation: Greenberg J, Reiner K, Meiran N (2012) “Mind the Trap”: Mindfulness Practice Reduces Cognitive Rigidity. PLoS ONE 7(5): e36206. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036206

Here is the introduction to the paper, which sets up the issue they are examining and the history of the science related to it - including their working definition of mindfulness.

Introduction

Experience may blind us from recognizing obvious solutions to problems. Research shows that physicians and health care professionals are likely to overlook the correct diagnosis in cases which do not match their experience [1]. Similar findings have been reported concerning difficulties in reframing clinical situations as experienced by healthcare professionals [2,3], and difficulties of managers and decision makers in replacing existing procedures with new, improved and simpler ones [4]. This ‘‘blinding’’ to novel solutions may be considered a form of cognitive rigidity, which has commonly been defined as a resistance to change in beliefs, attitudes or personal habits [5], or the tendency to develop and perseverate in the use of mental or behavioral sets [6].

Such cognitive rigidity may play a key role in psychopathlogy (for reviews see [6,7], see also [8]). It has been closely linked to the inability of suicidal individuals to consider alternatives that may be accessible to another person [9,10], as well as to rumination, a major risk factor of depression [11]. Similar forms of cognitive rigidity were also indicated in obsessions [12,13], alcohol dependence
[14], eating disorders [15], and Attention Deficit Disorder [16–20]. In this paper, we propose that mindfulness meditation may provide a means of decreasing the aforementioned type of cognitive rigidity.

Mindfulness is a term which has developed from early eastern traditions and has been commonly defined as "paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and nonjudgmentally’’ [21]. Although some have directly linked mindfulness to a practice of meditation (e.g. [22–24]), others (e.g. [25–27]) have referred to it as rather independent from meditation practice. Mindfulness has additionally been described as a theoretical construct, a psychological process [28], and a trait (see [29,30] for a recent discussion of discrepancies between various definitions of mindfulness). Nevertheless, mindfulness has been commonly claimed to involve regulation of the focus of attention towards the current experience, a willingness to come in contact with and be receptive to experience rather than avoid it or cope by means of repression, and to involve adopting a ‘‘beginners mind’’ and seeing things in a ‘‘fresh’’ way [31]. These last attributes of mindfulness in particular seem to potentially immune one from being blinded by experience.

Mindfulness has received a great deal of empirical attention over the last three decades, and various psychotherapeutic techniques based on mindfulness have been developed (e.g. [22,32,33]). Mindfulness based interventions have been shown to alleviate symptoms of a variety of clinical conditions such as suicidal ideation and manic symptoms [34], relapse reduction in recurrent major depression (see [35–37] for recent reviews), rumination ([38,39] see [40] for differential effects of mindfulness on adaptive and maladaptive rumination), addictions and substance use disorders [41,42], eating disorders (see [43] for a review), generalized anxiety [44], obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) [32], and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [45]. Interestingly, many of the disorders which benefit from mindfulness mediation are also characterized by some form of rigidity, suggesting that the efficacy of mindfulness may perhaps be mediated by reduced rigidity.

In addition to studying mindfulness as a form of therapeutic intervention, there has been a growing body of research over the last years examining various cognitive abilities related to mindfulness, most of which focusing on various measures of attention and memory (see [46] for a review). Only few studies have directly addressed the relation between mindfulness and cognitive flexibility or rigidity. Although some studies did not find differences between meditators and non-meditators in rigidity related tasks (e.g [47,48]), others have found that meditators exhibit decreased Stroop interference [49,50](in a Zen meditation sample). The Stroop task requires participants to name the ink color in which color words are written. The interference reflects automaticity with regards to the fact that participants cannot avoid reading the words. This inability to flexibly adapt to novel and non-habitual task requirements may be taken as evidence for inflexibility. Along the same line, other studies found that meditators exhibit superior visual perspective switching on a multiple perspective images task [51], exhibit superior verbal fluency [52,53], and perform better than controls on a category production task [54] and the Hayling task, requiring participants to complete sentences with unrelated and nonsensical words [53]. Mindfulness meditators have also been shown to exhibit reduced rumination compared to controls [38–40], which may also be related to reduced rigidity as reflected in the adoption of repetitive thought patterns concerning distressing symptoms, their causes and implications [55].

Importantly, none of the aforementioned tasks tap the tendency to be ‘‘blinded’’ by experience, and overlook simple, obvious novel solutions to a given problem, which is what we studied in this work. To this end, we adopted the water jar paradigm developed by Luchins [56]. We had chosen this task over other measures of rigidity since it directly captures the notion of missing obvious adaptive solutions that lie right ‘‘under the nose’’ due to being caught up in learned and repetitive thought patterns. Furthermore, this particular form of rigidity seems most relevant to mindfulness meditation, which is said to involve relating to the present situation with decreased reliance on former knowledge and experience [57]. The water jar paradigm was designed to measure the Einstulling effect, a term used to describe rigid thought patterns formed through experience which prevents identifying more adaptive approaches and solutions. In this task, participants are required to use three hypothetical jars to obtain a specific amount of water. Initial problems are solvable by the same complex formula, but in later ‘‘critical’’ problems a much simpler formula is also appropriate. In these trials, experience is said to comprise a ‘‘trap’’ which may result in overlooking the simple formula. A rigidity score is compiled, reflecting the degree of perseverative use of the complex formula. Since mindfulness is said to be characterized by focusing on the present moment with a ‘‘beginners’ mind’’, we hypothesize that mindfulness experience would result in lower rigidity scores. This hypothesis was examined in two studies. Experiment 1 compared a sample of experienced mindfulness meditators with a comparison group of people who had taken an active interest in mindfulness and had registered to a mindfulness retreat, yet at the time of assessment did not have any formal meditation experience. We chose this group in an attempt to match meditators inclinations and personality characteristics. In Experiment 2, we compared two, randomly assigned groups of non-meditators: a group who underwent eight sessions of structured mindfulness training and a waiting list group, before and after mindfulness training of the mindfulness group.

Santa Fe Institute - Research examines how group cooperation might have evolved

This article from the Santa Fe Institute looks at new research from The American Naturalist on how group cooperation might have evolved. Take home: flexible behaviors in group members increases group cooperation.

Citation:

Akçay, E. and Van Cleve, J. (2012, Feb). Behavioral Responses in Structured Populations Pave the Way to Group Optimality. The American Naturalist, Vol. 179, No. 2: pp. 257-269

Research examines how group cooperation might have evolved

March 21, 2012

The American Naturalist

Biologists have long observed that groups of animals can coordinate their actions so tightly that each animal does what is best for the group rather than what is best for itself -- even when group members are unrelated. But explaining how such genetically selfless behavior could have evolved has long been just beyond the reach of scientists seeking to employ standard evolutionary theory.

In new theoretical research, Erol Akçay (Princeton) and SFI Omidyar Fellow Jeremy Van Cleve demonstrate the crucial role flexible behaviors might play in the evolution of high levels of cooperation. Such behaviors can include simple negotiations involved in food sharing and the social norms that prevent an individual’s cowardly retreat when a group must defend itself against hostile outsiders. Their work appears in the February issue of The American Naturalist.

By incorporating flexible behaviors into standard biological theory that describes how cooperation evolves based solely on genetic kinship, the researchers suggest that high levels of cooperation can evolve even in groups not composed of close relatives.

Specifically, they find that cooperation can evolve to group-optimal levels when individuals match each other’s actions closely, regardless of the relatedness between individuals.

But kinship does matter. They also find that whether a psychology that enables such behavior-matching evolves or not depends on the relatedness of between-group members.

“Relatedness and behavioral responses can interact synergistically and promote much higher levels of cooperation together than each of them can sustain by themselves,” explains Akçay.

Jeremy says an exciting characteristic of their approach is that it can be used to study the evolution of psychological mechanisms that generate specific behaviors. They demonstrate this by studying how prosocial preferences -- i.e., intrinsic motivations to help others -- can evolve to maximize group benefit.

Although popular in economic theories, prosocial preferences have received little attention by biologists. How easily prosocial preferences evolve depends on the kind of activity in which animals might cooperate.

“When animals hunt cooperatively, they can capture much larger prey than when alone, which is good for all, and this can make high levels of cooperation easier to evolve,” says Jeremy.

For activities where adding additional cooperators makes less of a difference, such as emitting alarms calls when predators are nearby, high levels of cooperation are harder to evolve.

• Read the study in The American Naturalist (February 2012)
• Watch Jeremy Van Cleve describe his research interests in an SFI video (3 minutes)
• Read the article in the SFI Update (March-April 2012)