Reflection on experiential relativity, construct measurement, and cognitive defusion

I didn't know where to post this, really. But, since it is mostly about psychology and science, I thought I'd post it here in the Mind Science category. I don’t quite know how this relates to dharma, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about lately.

The other night my wife wasn’t feeling well. She said she felt warm, and asked me to feel her forehead. To me, she felt quite cool. These experiences triggered a reflection on the relativity of warm and cool as experiential qualities. When one’s body temperature is low, they experience feelings of warmth. Likewise, when one’s body temperature is quite high, they may feel quite cool, and might even shiver (i.e. get the chills).

A similar experience occurred for me last night as I got into the shower. My feet felt cold from standing on the cold bathroom floor. When I stepped into the shower, the water felt more hot on my feet than on the parts of my body that did not feel as cold prior to coming into contact with the warm shower water.

Based on these experiences alone, it would seem that hot and cold are not inherently objective realities to be measured. And yet, we use terms like heat as a verb to describe the process of bringing water to a boil, or bring an oven into the proper conditions to cook food.

It’s interesting to note, however, that what is measured as the construct of “temperature” is not really heat or cold. In attempt to measure heat objectively, someone had to relate the subjective experience of heat to something objectively measurable in the physical environment. At some point we settled on the expansion and contraction of certain materials, such as mercury, to reliably measure heat. But this isn’t a direct measurement of heat, and it can’t be. It’s only a reliable correlation at best, and only under certain conditions; and, we all know conditions can change.

This reminds me of the way psychological constructs are “measured.” The truth is, psychological constructs are hypothetical, and are unable to be measured directly, just like the experiences of hot or cold. So, assessment measures don’t measure actual constructs; they measure behaviors hypothesized or theorized to correlate with a construct. The presence or absence of a construct is often ascertained through answers provided by an individual when presented with questions or tasks, and how they answer determines the results. According to one of my professors, the relationship between construct and the behaviors we measure can be demonstrated through a Venn diagram (overlapping circles). One circle represents the construct, and the other the behaviors we measure. The area they share in between is probably much less than we would like to assume; i.e. there isn’t really THAT much overlap, and we're not always measuring what we think we are.

I realize this reflection is pretty disorganized, and I don’t really have a solid point. I guess it’s sort of an exercise in cognitive defusion, in that reflections of this sort can loosen some of the assumptions we have about life, the universe, and everything that are much less founded than we may have thought. I believe this can actually change the way we experience being human, or simply being. We know a lot less than we think we do, and we control a lot less than we think we can. That’s not to say that measuring expansion and contraction as temperature is bad or wrong, or that testing for intelligence is completely misguided. There’s practical use for these things. Examining the overall context merely helps us put these tools in their place, and to give them only as much credence as they are due.

"We know a lot less than we think we do, and we control a lot less than we think we can"

That gets one of Chris's famous "ding ding dings"

What pokes at me is how to talk about that fragment (We know a lot less than we think we do, and we control a lot less than we think we can), because it is very threatening and uncomfortable for many people to engage with. We tend to be very attached to the idea of knowing and controlling, and many many people have no wish whatsoever to consider the options.

Thoughts?

"What pokes at me is how to talk about that fragment (We
know a lot less than we think we do, and we control a lot less than we
think we can), because it is very threatening and uncomfortable for many
people to engage with. We tend to be very attached to the idea of
knowing and controlling, and many many people have no wish whatsoever to
consider the options. Thoughts?" -Ona

I find that those BIG ideas, which carry the potential to alter our understanding of our world, as well as our experience of it, have a tendency to evoke that uncomfortable fish out of water feeling. Because our response is a feeling of awkwardness or incongruity, many of us will habitually interpret the feeling as an indicator that the idea is false - or even worse, that it is bad.

For example, I'm currently taking a class called Helping Relationships, and it's about learning how to listen and respond to clients in the most empathic and appropriate way. We are taught to refrain from providing interpretations or advice, and instead, do our best to communicate back to the client their intended meaning, particularly with regard to their emotions. This isn't easy, and it takes a very long time to become proficient at this skill.

Some of my fellow students have shared that responding in this way feels artificial, and that their clients might think their not being "real." I also feel awkward when practicing this skill, because I'm a long way from mastering it. But I think that sometimes we resist something with the cognitive reason that it's not right, or authentic, or because it feels like manipulation of ourselves or others. And that's what I mean about the fish out of water feeling. Breaking out of a habitual pattern is uncomfortable, and we often just want to go back to what we know. (My fellow students, however, are up to the challenge of learning this new skill. This illustration just points out their initial reflections, not their enduring attitudes. I'm really happy to be learning alongside them.)

Another metaphor would be of a person who has been locked in a dark cave for as long as they can remember. One day, while the sun is shining brightly, if they were to walk out of the cave, into the light, it would be VERY uncomfortable - even painful. Without having some faith that one will adjust to the light with time, they would likely just run back into the cave.

So, the illusion of controlling more than we do is not something a lot of people would willingly dispel. It's too unsettling at first, and they allow no time for the feeling to subside. The same is true, however, for those who just think they have no influence over anything, and are thus not responsible for any of their actions. Trying to introduce some responsibility - to show them that intention matters - is likely to be met with resistance.

Long story made short: we don't like to be uncomfortable, so we convince ourselves of all kinds of things that allow us to remain comfortable, even when such things are demonstrably false.

Just a quick comment on the "helping relationships" skills.

As someone with so much experience over so many years with so many therapists I would say that most of us clients don't care if a therapist is "real" or not. And, we don't really care about their own personal agendas, experiences, lives -- all we want is to feel listened to, to feel that the entire 50 minutes is spent concentrating on the reasons we decided to take the plunge, be vulnerable, and show up on the couch that day (it's not an easy thing to do, believe me).

Thinking back, certainly the therapists that I think were least effective with me were the ones that either talked too much about themselves and/or didn't seem to really pay attention to what I was saying, thinking, feeling, going through. And, the one or two that I thought were really effective -- I have no recollection of anything about them personality, only that I really felt like they were really working on my problems.

(It's hard to believe, but I actually had some therapists who spent the entire time almost every session talking about themselves.)

I guess it sounds kind of superficial or mean in a way, but I think we all know that the therapist isn't there to make friends either.

One of the reasons that I think Jackson might make an effective therapist is that he seems to have a certain humility and is honest about his own motives and isn't afraid to really look at himself. The client/therapist relationship is so tricky and I think a therapist who is really good a looking at themselves like Jackson is would be more likely to do a good job and avoid some of the common pitfalls.

I do recall when I first went to a therapist being a bit uncomfortable and baffled. I was expecting someone to tell me what my thoughts meant and what I should do. It took a while for me to get used to the idea that I was going to figure that out myself.

Back to the basic topic:

One of the great things about awakening to the impermanent nature of our "selves" is that as this insight becomes lived, we can take on more and more of the "fish out of water" or lack of control feelings with freedom, awareness, and even humor. And, then, the insight can deepen, create more openness to what was once uncomfortable and on and on.

"How can[/b] you proceed on further from the top[/b] of a[/b] hundred-foot pole[/b]?" "