The untapped power of the human mind

[R.M.Alger 0]

Failure begets failure, and subsequently success begets success; why do athletes sometimes get ‘in the zone’ or ‘on fire’, and other times not? Most of the time this can’t be traced back to a physical reason; case and point, a person’s subconscious and conscious states can drastically affect their physical performance.

I disagree with the idea that failure begets failure, and subsequently success begets success. Based on my experience as a snowboard instructor and a training director, and many similiar experiences, I know that failure is the effect not the cause. I specifically teach and train to failure so that I can identify weaknesses and make the apropriate changes. In fact some of my own personal failures ( some have been fairly significant and life changing), have led to some of the more important successes in my life and had it not been for those failures future success would not have been possible.

I agree. It was the failure of training 6 times a week for 3 hours per session with very little returns that allowed me to make changes that has lead me to the success I have now. It was the failure of not making the JV basketball team as a freshman that lead me to try out for the freshman team and make it as the last player chosen by the coach. By the end of that season I was the sixth man, by the following year I was starting on the JV basketball team. Failure can always come, it is what you do when it does that counts, you either choose to rise up or lie down, I cannot fathom the latter.

The words failure and success where meant to be used in a very limited way, specifically in how it affects athletes in stressful situations. If you look at professional sporting events, trends of behavior tend to follow through an entire game, or even an entire season (this is especially true with games like golf, though there are many exceptions.)

I agree with you both, though, in that I don’t consider failure necessarily bad and instant success universally good.

Anyway, the topic was about how mental conditions affect physical performance, I never intended to apply it beyond that.

- Ryan

One additional thing did occur to me while reading your posts. It seems that people who are more relaxed or confident are able to succeed more in physical trials.

I guarantee you, if I told a person that he stands to win a million dollars if he makes a basketball shot, its going to carry a lot more weight.

A parallel of this is balancing: most people have no trouble balancing on a two-foot-wide board when it is on the ground, raise it fifteen feet, and it suddenly becomes an ordeal, even though it is physically of little difference. When a person has more to lose (or win) it changes the mental equation.

This can also be applied to social situations; people that are more nervous, or conscience of themselves, typically don’t “perform” as well in social situation (this is why alcohol can be a ‘social lubricant’; small amount of it can relax people and lessen unnecessary inhibitions.)

[RickWilmes 0]

The words failure and success where meant to be used in a very limited way, specifically in how it affects athletes in stressful situations. If you look at professional sporting events, trends of behavior tend to follow through an entire game, or even an entire season (this is especially true with games like golf, though there are many exceptions.)

I agree with you both, though, in that I don’t consider failure necessarily bad and instant success universally good.

Anyway, the topic was about how mental conditions affect physical performance, I never intended to apply it beyond that.

- Ryan

OK, so I think we can agree that failure doesn't beget failure and success doesn't beget success. This was just one of several statements that I identified as being contradictory. I understand that the topic is about how 'mental conditions' affect 'physical performance.' Those 'mental conditions' can be directly affected by physical conditions, examples are lack of sleep, poor nutrition, even a change in altitude(most of my clients live at 300 ft. elevation and drive 2hrs. to take a lesson at 6000 ft.). They don't realize it but this has a direct effect on their mental condition.

I also disagree with this conclusion.

If we where able to control our bodies more consciously, the way we can control our breathing if we want to, this would drastically improve our physical abilities, and maybe even our mental ones.

When teaching snowboard movements, I want my clients to be conscious of their movements. However, through practice, I want those movements to become natural so that little thought is required. Do you consciously think about the movements required when brushing your teeth? How about when you walk? What are the fundamental movements that the joints in our body can perform(there are only two)? Being conscious of these movements can make our movements more efficient. Just like certain breathing techniques can improve our ability to deliver oxygen to our lungs. However, these techniques don't necessarily improve our physical abilities. They will help an individual reach his full potential. The same principles can be applied when tapping 'the untapped power of the human mind'.

[R.M.Alger 0]

The words failure and success where meant to be used in a very limited way, specifically in how it affects athletes in stressful situations. If you look at professional sporting events, trends of behavior tend to follow through an entire game, or even an entire season (this is especially true with games like golf, though there are many exceptions.)

I agree with you both, though, in that I don’t consider failure necessarily bad and instant success universally good.

Anyway, the topic was about how mental conditions affect physical performance, I never intended to apply it beyond that.

- Ryan

OK, so I think we can agree that failure doesn't beget failure and success doesn't beget success. This was just one of several statements that I identified as being contradictory. I understand that the topic is about how 'mental conditions' affect 'physical performance.' Those 'mental conditions' can be directly affected by physical conditions, examples are lack of sleep, poor nutrition, even a change in altitude(most of my clients live at 300 ft. elevation and drive 2hrs. to take a lesson at 6000 ft.). They don't realize it but this has a direct effect on their mental condition.

I mention at the bottom of the original post that ‘how the body affects the mind’ and ‘chemicals and the brain’ were subjects that I wanted to bring up in a later post.

I also disagree with this conclusion.

If we where able to control our bodies more consciously, the way we can control our breathing if we want to, this would drastically improve our physical abilities, and maybe even our mental ones.

When teaching snowboard movements, I want my clients to be conscious of their movements. However, through practice, I want those movements to become natural so that little thought is required. Do you consciously think about the movements required when brushing your teeth? How about when you walk? What are the fundamental movements that the joints in our body can perform(there are only two)? Being conscious of these movements can make our movements more efficient. Just like certain breathing techniques can improve our ability to deliver oxygen to our lungs. However, these techniques don't necessarily improve our physical abilities. They will help an individual reach his full potential. The same principles can be applied when tapping 'the untapped power of the human mind'.

If I may; you seem too be arguing ageists something I am not arguing for. I never implied that we should consciously control all movement instead of automating physical skills.

It was merely my contention that understanding the relationship between the mind and the body, and being in more control of this relationship, would likely cause improvements to both. In many ways, understanding the mind has already improved physical abilities (and mental ones); athletes that can better work themselves through frustration and failure are typically more successful, they do this through a mental discipline that had to be discovered (even if it wasn’t done so consciously.)

The mind does have incredible powers over the body, how far this goes and what it could be used for is open to an interesting debate.

....This was just one of several statements that I identified as being contradictory.

By all means point them out; mistakes in logic shouldn’t be tolerated; really, I’m completely sincere, being corrected is far better then being wrong.

-Ryan

[R.M.Alger 0]

There is a Zen monastery in the Catskills of New York (absolutely gorgeous place, on Beecher Lake in the middle of land once owned by Harriet Beecher Stowe's family) that I used to visit on occasion for a weekend. I remember one of the students (or whatever you'd call them, she wasn't yet a monk) who lived there telling me that she once asked the abbott what went through his mind during meditation, and he replied that he usually spent the time planning his day. The meditation sessions at the monastery were, once I got over my self-consciousness (no pun intended), very peaceful and relaxing, but again I never got anything more out of them.

I'd say there can be value in meditation if your purpose is not mystical.

*On Zen: I studied it a number of years before finding Objectivism. It's suggestive that what attracted me to Zen were its principles that, interpreted as I interpreted them, were closest to Objectivist ideas, primarily the notion of seeing existence for what it really is and not what one wishes or imagines it to be. That means something quite different in Zen than in Objectivism, but in retrospect I realize that I was, without realizing it, interpreting it the right way. Of course, there's a LOT of Zen that belongs in the dump heap, especially as it's practiced vs. how it's explained to the "layman." For example, the chanting done before the meditation was full of stupidity (and I thought so even then).

If you follow the above link, you'll see a picture of the very room I meditated in. There are more pictures on their web site. They even run the former Beecher house there as a sort of bed and breakfast. Maybe it sounds like I'm advertising the place a bit, but, religion aside, it really is incredibly beautiful there.

The abbott that the Wikipedia article mentions, Eido Tai Shimano, peronally created a beautiful work of Japanese calligraphy for me on one of my visits, which I still have. Interestingly, it says "You are the light," which, again interpreted properly, is in my opinion a fine sentiment.

It is not hard to see why the benefits of this type of meditation work. A person who is stressed in traffic can “center themselves” and become calmer, which actually has profound physiological effects. Stress, anxiety, fear, and sadness are sometimes naturally and even healthy, though they are often excessive; people can get nervous to the point of hyperventilation, for instance.

I think consciously controlling oneself, putting things in perspective, and just willfully relaxing yourself or looking inward can be healthy. I have often heard that sessions of meditation make people feel ‘refreshed’ and ‘energized.’ Of course, I think a good exercise routine could do this too.

On a side note, I have always liked Japanese architecture; in manages to combine minimalism with very comforting colors and textures. And the temple looks like a beautiful place.

- Ryan

[RickWilmes 0]

If I may; you seem too be arguing ageists something I am not arguing for. I never implied that we should consciously control all movement instead of automating physical skills.

It was merely my contention that understanding the relationship between the mind and the body, and being in more control of this relationship, would likely cause improvements to both. In many ways, understanding the mind has already improved physical abilities (and mental ones); athletes that can better work themselves through frustration and failure are typically more successful, they do this through a mental discipline that had to be discovered (even if it wasn’t done so consciously.)

The mind does have incredible powers over the body, how far this goes and what it could be used for is open to an interesting debate.

-Ryan

Fair enough, I think I now understand the essence of what you are saying and I am not in disagreement with that. I agree that the mind does have incredible powers over the body. Here is a personal example. In 1989, my roommate and I decided to run the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington D.C. Because of our schedules we hadn't done much training. One night about two weeks before the race, we were cramming for midterm exams. While we were studying, my roommate raised the issue that the race was two weeks away and that we should drop out because we hadn't been training. I asked him if he had ever crammed for a marathon(he was a member of the cross country team). He said, 'No'. I said, "Neither have I. Cramming starts tomorrow.' The next day we began running between 3 and 5 miles a day. My goal was to finish the marathon under 4 hours. I finished in 3hrs and 59 minutes. My roommate did it in 3 hrs. and 30 minutes. Granted both of us were in great shape and he was better conditioned for running than I was, the fact is our success was based on our mental attitude.

This is an interesting discussion and I will have more to say as my time schedule allows.

[TerryJ2 0]

I don't know if anyone is reading this thread any more, but I wanted to chime in.

"Wow!" was my first thought when I saw the drawing.

"Wow!" was my second thought when I read this:

At eight he sold his first drawing, of Salisbury Cathedral, which motivated him to communicate with others and gave him the ability to lead an independent life.

It is so hard for autistics to maintain an independent life. To answer the question at the beginning of this thread, yes, that sort of "talent" or ability does come with a price.

It's not the same as the eidetic or photographic memory that several people here have (had). It's way beyond that.

[Abaco 0]

My son, who has autism, can do some pretty surprising things. By the time he turned 4 we could ask him what our license plate numbers were. When checking into a hotel we'd look over at him and ask, "Hey Jack. What's mommy's license plate number?" You could see people's eyes get really big when he'd rattle it off. Sometimes he'll surprise me by calling out Grandma's (or some other person's) license plate number.

Our neighborhood is designed like a big loop, with many courts off of it, about 40 courts. By the time he was 3, as we'd drive the loop he could tell you the name of each court before you could see it. He had them memorized. He displayed some reading ability but I'm sure he just remembered the names for them as we had called them out earlier in trying to teach him to read. Perhaps he just remembered the sequence - I really don't know. I still only know where about 10 of them are, making me the dummy. By the time he was 2-1/2 he decided that his favorite composer was Mozart and he'd hum, perfectly, several of Mozart's works.

I joke that I want to teach him to count cards. If we can get him to mesh socially I'll be happy as a clam.

[Bob G 0]

Typically, when we are learning, what we do is almost immediately integrative; we learn the fact, mull it over, classify it, and integrate it into our knowledge of that subject. The fact that you've essentially paraphrased and modified that knowledge makes it hard to untangle the original information and spit it back verbatim. One might even say that the verbatim approach indicates a lack of true learning.

I agree that the verbatim approach isn't a good learning technique and that integration is vital to learning.

Yet there is also the need to keep a clear recall of what the source of your knowledge. Without the source or at least how you came to have the mental content you have, you will not know its validity or truthfulness. You can't double check your "knowledge". It is very difficult to keep it clear and straight. I suspect that as part of the process of learning one must acquire the habit of tagging the knowledge with the source.

[Arnold 0]

Typically, when we are learning, what we do is almost immediately integrative; we learn the fact, mull it over, classify it, and integrate it into our knowledge of that subject. The fact that you've essentially paraphrased and modified that knowledge makes it hard to untangle the original information and spit it back verbatim. One might even say that the verbatim approach indicates a lack of true learning.

I agree that the verbatim approach isn't a good learning technique and that integration is vital to learning.

Yet there is also the need to keep a clear recall of what the source of your knowledge. Without the source or at least how you came to have the mental content you have, you will not know its validity or truthfulness. You can't double check your "knowledge". It is very difficult to keep it clear and straight. I suspect that as part of the process of learning one must acquire the habit of tagging the knowledge with the source.

It would be nice to have a reference for all our knowledge, but few could manage that. My own method is verification at the time of integration. That way, I trust my knowledge. Doubtful matters are put into a holding pattern until such time as they can be slotted in with verification.