Session 1
1.1 Why this training?
According to data from the central agency for statistics (CBS), 13% of people experience burnout complaints, 1 million people are depressed, and 1 million people get an anxiety disorder in their lifetime. Every reason to be preventive, to prevent you from facing these things or to prevent you from relapsing into them. Our brain, the language we use and the reality we create, play an important role. The first session will revolve around that. We look at how you perceive and give meaning to the reality and what kind of behaviour you have developed with that. We take the time to investigate your patterns and thoughts. To make clear where you want to be, it is good to know where you are right now.
1.2 Our brain
The future changes with every choice that you make today
To get a better understanding of ourselves, it is good to ask ourselves about our brain. How does our brain work? Why do we do what we do? To get insight into this, it is beneficial to understand how we process information.
Stimuli like sounds, images and scents enter us via our five senses: seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting and hearing. Thanks to these senses we gather information about the outside world. The stimuli that enter via these senses, are passed on to our brains by nerves. The real perception happens in the brain. Fortunately, not all stimuli enter our brains unfiltered. We filter the stimuli, so we only perceive the relevant ones, and ignore those that are less important. You will probably recognize that one person is better at filtering than another, therefore receives less non-relevant stimuli than another. This has to do with attention and focus. If you can keep your attention and focus on a given thing without getting distracted, you are good at filtering. The perceptions are processed, organised and interpreted in the brain. Only then are you giving meaning to the stimulus that entered. This process is necessary to be able to do something with it. To get a better understanding of ourselves, it is good to ask ourselves about our brain. How does our brain work? Why do we do what we do? To get insight into this, it is beneficial to understand how we process information.
1.2.1 Giving meaning in diagram
Stimulus: perceive → process → meaning → reaction (senses) (brain) (brain) (behaviour)
Example 1:
1. Stimulus: an apple.
2. Perceive: your eyes see an apple.
3. Process: the received information is sent to your brain, that compare the apple with all the data that is stored about apples. There will be a drawer with everything about apples somewhere in your memory. The information that your eyes just perceived, matches with the content of your drawer. Then you know: “I have seen an apple.” Or: “I see an apple”. That what your eyes see, matches with what data your brain has.
4. Meaning: maybe you give another meaning the apple. “That must be for me”, or: “I quite like apples”, or “That is a nice red apple”.
5. Reaction: the reaction naturally follows the meaning that you gave to seeing the apple. If you think the apple is yours, you might eat it. If you like apples, you might want to eat it and your mouth will start to water.
Example 2:
1. Stimulus: a crying child.
2. Perceive: your eyes see a crying child.
3. Process: your brain receives this information. You ask yourself the question: “Why is this child crying?”. You probably consider that crying is something emotional and that you can figure out how the crying can be explained, by looking at the situation/context.
4. Reaction: you respond based on the meaning you give to the situation and speak words of comfort.
1.2.2 Interpreting and giving meaning
Your memory plays an important role in interpreting and giving meaning to information. The information that is stored in your memory, you stored as a result of receiving stimuli. First, it is important that you give enough attention to the information, to be able to store is. Only then can the information be also be stored in your memory. Then, that selected information must be stored in the memory “in a logical manner and in a logical form and place”. Information about a kiwi will be stored near information about other fruits.
The brain passes on the information from the senses and edits, groups and delete information and fills in gaps. In addition, we tend to deform our observations even more as we get older. We colour our observation, for example by seeing or hearing what we expect to see or hear. These expectations are based on our experiences and knowledge. Consequently, the final image is inevitably deformed. Without us realising that the world as we perceive it, is not a truthful representation of the actual world.
In the example of the apple, you assume that what your eyes see is true: the apple that you see is a real apple. In the example of the crying child, it could very well be that you interpret the situation wrong. For instance, you think (giving meaning) that the child is in pain. But maybe the child is not in pain at all, but it is crying because it is hungry. Here you see that you can make a mistake in giving meaning which makes that you are misjudging the situation.
Example 3:
Look at the images with the two circles and try to answer the question.
1. The circle in A is bigger than in B
2. The circle in B is bigger than in A
3. The circles in A and B are equal
Many people will choose option 1. They state what they see. In other words: they trust the perception of their own eyes. But there will also be people who choose option 3. They see that circle A is bigger than B, but their ‘computer’ says: “Yes, my eyes do see that A is bigger, but that is an optical illusion. I know that both circles are the same size. A dark background makes objects look smaller”. In other words: our brain corrects the information that we see with our eyes.
Circle A
Circle B
Sometimes, even our computer is deceived. Look at the following images.
Example 4:
Bird or antelope
A. Young woman
B. Old woman
A. The top arrow is longer B. Both arrows are the same size
A. Duck B. Rabbit
1.3 Language
In our communication we mostly make use of language. Besides transferring messages, language provides us with more possibilities. It is through language that we can learn, think and remember. We know that the Battle of Nieuwpoort took place without us actually witnessing it. Language is the ability to describe a part of the reality. That is also where the limitations of language lie.
language = speaking writing understanding reading
Language can be subdivided in speaking, writing, understanding and reading. It is not the case that these parts exist independent from each other. They complement one another, they influence each other. We are not often aware of how exactly it all works. You can compare it to a television. Almost everyone can control a television, but few know how the thing works. The same goes for language.
1.3.1 Giving meaning
We use speaking, writing, understanding and reading in communicating, but it is clear that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Thanks to language, humans became what they are. With language, we can even invent a reality that does not exist. We have words for things that do not demonstrably exist.
Take a word like ‘art’. You have a piece of linen which is nailed to a stretcher and on it are some flowers that look like sunflowers, painted on with oil paint. In the bottom right is a name which, with some effort, can decipher as ‘Vincent’. We hang that canvas in a building that we call a museum. The entirety of linen, wood and oil paint we call art. Well, as long as the painting is not signed with ‘Uncle Jan’, because that would make it the result of a hobby.
It is not surprising that there is so much discussion about terms like art. Because ask yourself: what is art really? Art exists because we have language. Not as means of communication, but as derivative of the reality.
Thus, language is a beautiful means to describe the world around us. Language also has its limitations.
No matter how many words we use, language falls short to describe the reality in its entirety. Even if we were able to describe everything about the city Eindhoven for example, it would still not be the same as Eindhoven itself.
It is also in the daily use of language that we often think we are talking about the same, but a lot of times we have to conclude that it is not the same.
Let’s illustrate this using the following comic:
This comic is about something tangible: a dog. So, something you can verify. It becomes trickier when we are talking about abstract terms like freedom, love, friendship, peace. ‘Peace is not the same as the absence of war’, once wrote a famous writer. But he did not tell us what was.
The difficulty lies in the room for interpretation, so your interpretation of the meaning. And that is not necessarily the same as that of somebody else. The language can sometimes mock us and let us experience things that have nothing to do with the reality.
1.4 Reality and our thoughts about reality
There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. Europe was in the middle of that flat disc, and you should not come too close to the edge, otherwise you were at great risk of falling over the edge and fall into the great unknown. In any case, you would have been off the face of the earth. Skippers in that time did not sail to the west for that reason, because that was where the edge was.
The impression of the flat world belonged to the reality of mankind. The flat earth was widely accepted as fact. And if the earth is flat, you must be tired of life to sail to the west. People did not doubt this reality. It was written in the authoritative books of that time. The people pretended like what they invented in language, was true. In other words: the language had become reality.
That what we call reality, is often not the reality but a consequence of how we think about the reality. Now we know that the earth is not actually flat. But for the medieval man, it was an aspect of the daily reality. And in this time, we can think about how stupid medieval mankind used to be, but the modern man also reacts to a reality that does not exist.
1.5 Classical conditioning
To understand more about our behaviour, we will go back to the theory of classical conditioning. In classical conditioning the organism learns to reacts in reflex actions to a stimulus that naturally does not cause a reaction. The base of classical conditioning is the repeated simultaneous giving of a neutral, and an unconditional stimulus. The person undergoes this conditioning and therefore is passive. The stimulus is most important, and this precedes the reaction. One does not learn new behaviour; one only learns to react to new stimuli.
1.5.1 Examples classical conditioning
Pavlov
Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) is seen as the father of classical conditioning. Pavlov did research on the digestion of dogs.
When dogs smell of taste food, they automatically produce saliva. Pavlov noticed that the dogs he studied did not only produce saliva when they received food, but also when they heard the footsteps of the feeders. This is odd, because the production of saliva is an inborn reaction, but the hearing of footsteps is not. Pavlov decided to investigate this peculiar phenomenon. In these studies, he did not use feeders who walked towards the dogs, but he used a bell instead. When the dogs first heard the bell, they did not react. The bell is a neutral stimulus for a dog.
Later Pavlov lets the bell ring before he brings the food. As time goes by, he noticed that the dogs also produce saliva when the bell rings, even if it is not followed by food. The producing of saliva is a learnt reaction to the hearing of a bell. Is has become a conditioned reaction.
K-Mart
Classical conditioning also works in humans. In the American K-mart supermarkets a blue light turns on when there is an offer. Cost-conscious shoppers come to a table because they associate a nice bargain with the blue light. Research shows that people are more prone to buy the product in the blue light, even when the product in question is not even a real bargain.
Small Albert
Another experiment.
They showed small Albert (11 months of age) a white rat. This is a neutral stimulus for a child. After the white rat crossed, they presented heavy noises. Little Albert was shocked of this noise and started to cry. After this was repeated a couple of times, little Albert would cry from just seeing the rat.
1.5.2 Fizzling out
Two factors play a role here. One of them is “fizzling out”. Earlier conditioned reactions will fade and eventually disappear when the conditioned stimulus is no longer giving together with the conditioned stimulus. When Pavlov rang the bell a few times and the food never followed, the dog did not produce saliva anymore when hearing the bell.
1.5.3 Stimulus generalisation
Stimulus generalisation means that when a conditioned reaction is established, similar stimuli will trigger the same response.
Naturally the strength with which the response is triggered, depends on how much the new stimulus looks like the conditioned stimulus. Little Albert later also reacted startled to a white rabbit and even to someone with a white beard.
1.6 Operant conditioning
Operant behaviour is behaviour that appears spontaneously without it being provoked. This behaviour has a certain consequence, it influences the environment. The behaviour will be rewarded of punished and therefore this behaviour will appear more often of less often in the future.
Operant conditioning is a higher form of learning behaviour than classical conditioning, because in addition to reflexogenic reactions, it also studies random reactions.
1.6.1 Example operant conditioning
Frederic Skinner (1904-1990) developed the Skinner box. This is a cage where a test animal is automatically rewarded with food when it shows a certain behaviour. Skinner concluded that all behaviour is taught. When a pigeon is placed in the Skinner box, only a button and a feeding bowl were present in this box. The pigeon that goes hungry, will peck everywhere. The moment the pigeon pecks on the button, a maize grain falls into the bowl. That way the pigeon learns to peck the button when it is hungry. The pigeon has learnt something by making the actively exploring the surroundings and by immediately experiencing the consequences of its behaviour.
New behaviour is largely dependent on the consequences we experience. A student who is testing a new teacher by constantly talking during class will display this behaviour more often if he is not addressed.
A mother who is helping at a school party and is getting nice compliments from the school team for it, will more likely help again next year.
Behaviour that is rewarded has more chance to occur again. Behaviour that is ignored or punished will be repeated less often.
It gets even more interesting when you notice that nothing unpleasant happens. For instance, when you call in sick when you must give a presentation and that scares you. The absence of something unpleasant works just as reinforcing as receiving a reward. So, the consequences of certain behaviour helps to form our behaviour. Seeing upon which behaviour we are rewarded and punished for our behaviour gives us much insight. And awareness of avoidance behaviour can help us make more conscious new choices.
1.7 Relational frame theory
The relational frame theory is a theory that follows the understanding that we people connect various impressions (stimuli) to each other, without us experiencing it directly. We make all sorts of associations and make connections on our own. Sometimes these are logical (see example 1 on the next page), but sometimes we make connections that have nothing to do with each other, but we still connect (see example 2). You can view relational frames as clusters of factors that are connected in all sorts of ways. People learn by making connections, which means: a relational response. These connections can arise by learning directly, but also by derived (indirect) learning.
1.7.1 Examples relational frame theory
In this example, someone directly learns the relation between A and B, and B and C, C and A. From these direct relations, someone can make four derived relations on their own and without direct training. Direct and indirect learning go together in practice. Say you learn that Arjan (A) is taller than Bas (B) and is taller than Cees (C). Then you can infer on your own that Bas (B) must be smaller than Arjan (A), Cees (C) is smaller than Bas (B), and Cees (C) is also smaller than Arjan (A).
These kinds of cognitive connections can be very functional in the gaining of knowledge. But what if A are heart palpitations, B is a bus where you happen to be in, and C is the lecture hall where you have class in next? Before you know it, you are afraid you will get heart palpitations in the lecture hall. Here it is: the problem of derived learning in practice. And it does not end with these couple of connections. Before you know it, the heart palpitations are connected to the word panic attack. Which means our brain can blow a small, unpleasant event like heart palpitations on a bus, out of proportion to a complex network full of derived relations between factors. As a consequence, we can get afraid of things we have never experienced.
The blue cow
Our brain can make all kind of connections. It is trained in this. This can easily be illustrated with the following example. Imagine a blue cow with yellow legs. A little fantasy will get you a long way. That blue cow with yellow paws is sheepishly looking at you. Notice the details of what you are seeing in your mind: the eyes, ears and hooves. Take a whole minute to take in the cow. You now have an image of a blue cow with yellow legs. What would happen if I asked you to try and not think of the cow? Before you know it, the thought of the cow will only get worse.
If I now also ask you to think of IKEA, do you see the resemblance between the blue cow with yellow legs and the blue-yellow logo of IKEA? That connection is now in your head. So, it could easily be that the next time you come to IKEA, you think about the blue cow with yellow legs without choosing for it. A good example of how unreliable and uncontrollable our thoughts are.
Napoleon sweets
Another example. You probably know the yellow sweets of Napoleon. Imagine that you take such a sweet out of the wrapper and you place it on your tongue. You let the sweet roll in your mouth. You feel the hard outside layer against your teeth and you taste the sweet taste on your tongue. Then you such the sweet for a while and you notice how sour it is. Do you notice what is happening in your mouth right now?
Big chance that you produced saliva. That is remarkable, because you do not really have a sweet in your mouth. There is a part in our brain that is involved in the imagination: the neo-cortex. It sends signals to our old mammal brain: yummy. And to our reptile brain: produce saliva.
1.8 Conclusion
Classical and operant conditioning and the relational frame theory show us that there is no such thing as perceiving objectively. We ourselves colour our reality. Depending on our conditioning we have developed helping, sabotaging or avoidant behaviour. It is about time we learn to notice negative patterns and take our thoughts a bit less seriously.
