‘PERSONAL GROWTH: Part 3’
CAERS SUBSTACK ARTICLE #47
In this article, the last on personal growth, I thought I would explore what specific changes might qualify as growth. It is probably reasonable to conclude that for humans any change in speech or behaviour must be preceded by a change in thinking first. If that is true, how can we change our thinking in a way that promotes a more sophisticated presence in the world?
Binary thinking, the belief that issues have just two sides to them, or problems have only two solutions, has its origin in the fight-or-flight response of the primitive, more reflexive, parts of our brain. Engaging our full brain and thinking more along a spectrum might be evidence of personal growth.
Equally, many of our most immediate feelings and emotions arise in the more ancient parts of our brain, and often they occur before there is much time to process them at a higher level. Learning to delay speech or actions until we have had time to do so might qualify as personal growth as well.
With age we may appreciate the incredible complexity of the world around us to a greater degree, and that can be scary and even humbling. But if we allow ourselves to grow, we learn to let go of our need to believe that we understand more than we really do. We acknowledge how easy it is to get fooled, even by our own senses, because everything we experience is always filtered and interpreted through the imperfect lenses we have at any given time. Growth often implies that we lose some of our naïveté and accept the need for the healthy skepticism that is open to trying on new and potentially clearer lenses.
Sometimes it is our processing of information that changes; we learn to think more analytically. For example, we learn to identify the logical fallacies that can mislead us. As we let go of our tendency to binary thinking, we no longer get fooled by the fallacy of the false dilemma because we know that most problems have more than just two solutions. When we disagree with someone, we focus on the strength of their argument, not on whether we like them or not (ad hominem fallacy), or we evaluate their argument rather than completely trusting what they say just because they are experts (yielding to authority fallacy). We try to become fairer in our thinking by avoiding rash generalizations, and we learn the difference between coincidence and correlation. We also come to realize that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.
As we grow, we recognize the difference between supporting someone and enabling them. We may want our friend with an addiction to illicit drugs to know that we are there for them, but providing them with those drugs may not be wise. Helping people is admirable, but constantly rescuing them from their bad choices so that they can avoid responsibility for them, might not help them grow. We may acknowledge and understand the difficulty a colleague is having with controlling a particular behaviour, but that does not mean that we condone it. All of these can be very difficult to do, but they reflect a mature desire to truly help the other to grow rather than simply appeasing our own need to be perceived as a ‘good guy’.
And this desire to be liked might be one of the most challenging aspects of personal growth. How do we maintain our sensitivity and compassion so as not to be perceived as a heartless psychopath, yet at the same time avoid being so sensitive that we are overwhelmed by the pain and suffering in the world, or allow our moral integrity to be compromised? Because, whether we like to admit it or not, the world can be a distressing place at times. Many of us have likely experienced some level of grief during the pandemic. What are the best ways to cope when things aren’t as they used to be, or don’t turn out as we would like?
There are some approaches that work better than others, and that will be the focus of my next article.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator