Currently viewing the category: "religion"

Spirituality and Health

By On · Add Comment · In anxiety, belief, depression, drug abuse, faith, health, heart disease, meditation, religion, spirituality, suicide, universe, violence

Today I would like to discuss an oft-overlooked aspect of health: Our connection to something bigger than ourselves.  Yes, I am a spiritualist–I believe in God.  Maybe not in the way of some organized religions, but I am convinced that the universe is a part of a grand order, of which we are bound in our physiology, and thus our health.

I’m not going to necessarily discuss the universal order as it pertains to physiology and health here.  Instead I am going to touch on a few points on spirituality and health, as well as encourage you to watch the beautiful video above to witness the magnificence of the universe from our earthly perspective, and hope you realize it is all much bigger than even this.

Health is directly related to our connections to a greater source.  Whether real or psychological is irrelevant to our discussions here–all I wish to point out is the improvement to physical health when spirituality is believed/practiced/observed.

If we can put aside for one minute our politics, our illusions, our human drives, and our emotional oscillations to just witness the beauty of the all, if only for just this one needle-point view of the grandness offered by the accompanying video, then I am certain we can all catch a glimpse of what we truly are.  THIS is the source of health, and it’s a confirmation that we can all have optimal health if we are in touch with the source.  That’s my belief anyway.

A Bigger, Badder Sociopath

By On · Add Comment · In children, crime, delayed gratification, discipline, executive function, finance, health, morality, neuroscientists, religion, self-control, sociopath, Tools of the Mind, working memory

According to a recent Scientific American article titled, How to Build a Better Learner, neuroscientists believe that the cognitive functions of good learning depend heavily on what psychologists call ‘executive function‘.  Executive function encompasses cognitive attributes such as attention, working memory (what you can hold in your mind with regard to recently learned material), and gratification delay.  They believe that these abilities can predict whether a child will, succeed academically in the future.

One of those attributes in particular–the ability to delay gratification–scientists believe is the foundation of better learning.  And more importantly, they believe it is a teachable skill.  One program, called Tools of the Mind, tried in some low-income school districts where children typically have poorer  academic outcomes, trains children to resist temptations and distractions, as well as to develop working memory and flexible thinking.

The techniques seem so powerful that some educators and economists are now contemplating public policy measures to ‘improve self-control’ as a way to “enhance the physical and financial health of the population and reduce the rate of crime.”  These are the remarks of authors of a recent study which appeared in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

I find this an interesting concept, albeit a potentially misguided one.  Although I agree that children, and therefore people, fare better in life when they are able to practice discipline and delay immediate gratification, and I also agree that these are the foundations for successful academic learning, I do take exception to the idea of making ‘self-control’ a public policy, in the form of a required class or instruction for children, because I know that it will also have a backlash.  Self-control can be taught, but I think it’s better to lead by example (in the family), than pushing it through a curriculum.  Anything forced on children will have a significant amount of resentment accompanying it.

I just do not believe a program like this will succeed in its goals of enhancing health and finances, or in reducing crime, simply because children that have trouble controlling their impulses will never be forced into practicing self-control.  Yes, many children will respond favorably to the program, but I beleive these same children would do well anyway, no matter what their programs.  Okay, perhaps a handful that wouldn’t otherwise get to learn about self-control and delayed gratification might benefit, but an equal amount will actually do worse as a result of the forced behavior.  Many will seek immediate gratification even more, as a rebellion toward authority.  Listen, some children can’t conform to classroom rules right now for the same reasons, and so they are labelled as having a disorder, and they are drugged.

This type of program will actually create poorer physical and financial health and likely increase crime (if not in number, than in severity).  It’s a fallacy to believe that every child will respond to any program, let alone a  majority.  More likely, there will be gradations of responses–some good, some poor, and everything else in between.  But again, I contend, when something becomes mandated, the rebellious members of society will revolt and actually go against the grain.  That’s life.

What also bothers me is that it seems very similar to what religions do right now, as far as teaching morality in their schools and churches.  Our current public policy, however, has been to veer away from the moralistic teachings of religious institutions, so why package it as something new, with just a different name, under the guise of a psycho-therapeutic and neuroscientific approach to child development?  It’s gratification delay!  It’s what the church and moral majority have been preaching for forever!  Why is it okay now?

It was always okay.  Political ideologues got hold of something they wanted to do away with, and are now realizing it was actually serving a purpose all along–amazing when those discoveries are made, when science and religion coincide.  Nevertheless, you mark my words, if it does become public policy, this type of program will create a bigger, badder sociopath to counter the hordes of children being ‘taught’ self-discipline.

Flawed Paradigm or Religious Propoganda?

By On · Add Comment · In bodywork, diet, errors, exercise, health, health paradigm, healthy lifestyle habits, high blood pressure, mandatory, medical mistakes, proactive, religion, revolution, sleep, truth

I get most of my health news off the news wires like Reuters or Associated Press. For anyone not familiar with these news outlets, they provide stories for use by newspapers, radio and television programs and other media outlets. It comes over as a “just-the-facts” piece that other writers can use to create a story, which essentially leaves the writer to choose how the story is told without losing its essential meaning and information.

So, as you can probably tell, I have a blast getting these facts-only stories and sending them back out with what I consider a more realistic twist. I know that nobody reading this believes for a second that the information we get over traditional outlets is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’s not about being a born skeptic as much as it’s about having way too many experiences of being told one thing but seeing another that makes us question what we are told.

Take for example the latest news being reported in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine, which says that people who take a proactive approach to their health may, in fact, be better informed, but by no means are they necessarily more healthy. Now, when I see opening words of this sort, along with the headline, “Involved” patients not always healthier, I get an immediate chuckle. I chuckle because I know that either, one: they are providing faulty information; or two: they are defining terms a little differently than I would. I know this because I read the health news every day. I know that studies pour out every week showing that a proactive approach of incorporating healthy lifestyle habits is, without a doubt, the number one beneficial thing people can do to ensure better health and a longer life. But, then, stories like this one come out and, well…they make me chuckle.

So, according to this study, 189 people with high blood pressure were observed: Those people who wanted a greater say in their health care tended to have higher blood pressure and cholesterol than the people who let their doctors have most of the control. Oy vey. And the conclusion of the research team was that, “merely being involved in health care decisions does not necessarily make patients healthier.”

Well no ship, Sherlock.

Here are the flaws with these conclusions: First, being proactive goes way beyond “being informed.” Could you imagine if we extrapolated that idea–that is, considering simply being informed the same as being proactive–to voting (I’m informed but I don’t vote), to our work life (I went to college but I prefer not to work), or to our finances (I know I should save, pay my taxes, and my bills…but I don’t). We can all appreciate that proactivity is taking action–in the realm of health it’s exercise, adopting a healthy diet, regular bodywork, getting enough sleep, and so on, and so forth.

The second flaw of this study is that they used high blood pressure–hardly a measure of health, and more accurately a measure of potential disease–as the health parameter. People who have high blood pressure are already on the verge of illness. Please. Aren’t they already doing something wrong or neglecting to do some things right? And these are the folks we should use as our reference point that “simply being informed doesn’t lead people to be healthier”? How amusing. I really could go on for hours about the absurdity of this notion.

Studies like this are an unfortunate relic of the old health paradigm that I am so proactively trying to get you to abandon. That paradigm says, health is a chance occurrence and is fleeting. In other words, illness is inevitable (I’ve got no argument there) and only through medical intervention can you hope to stand a chance of survival (this, however, is false). Obviously, that message is not presented so blatantly, but you’ll find it if you simply read between the lines.

And this is exactly how powerful institutions attempt to control you. Just ask any major religion outside of the Church of Medical Science and they’ll tell you: It all starts with brainwashing. You need us. We’ve saved hundreds of millions of lives, and we save millions more every year; we’re here to save you. This has been propagandized for years; nothing new there. But the next step is to tell you that you can’t make it without said religion. Don’t meddle when it comes to your health; we know what we’re doing; we know your health and your body better than you do, and we’re here to save you. That’s where we are now. The third step is mandating conformity. Mandatory treatments, mandatory inoculations, mandatory obedience. We’re just starting to get a glimpse of this practice now. Hang on, we should be seeing much more of this in the future.

Then the break occurs; the unfoldment of upheaval. It has happened in every major revolt in history, including the American Revolution. And now, we are in the midst of a health paradigm revolution. Damn, I feel like Thomas Paine!

Here’s the bottom line: people who take a proactive approach to their health and well-being stand an exceptionally high chance of having better health, period. Proactivity means, “acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty.” Acting. Not just being informed. Big difference.

Although this study comes to one very true conclusion, that “studies have found that patients generally tend to do better when they agree with their doctors on how to manage their health problems.” This, however, is not the same thing as people taking a proactive approach to their health. For sure, it helps when doctor and patient are on the same page; however, I highly doubt that anyone sets out to deliberately challenge one’s doctor when one’s health is on the line. But in an era of medical mistakes, profiteering, and just plain incompetency, where 98,000 people a year die as a result of medical errors (not accidents, not natural acts, but mistakes)…then yeah, people will question. And that, in my opinion, is highly proactive.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.