The article explains how we can go on offense to go after and get better well-being and health so we can experience progress toward a more fulfilling life. This offense to complements our traditional and ubiquitous defensive approach to health. Traditional methods generally wait until something is wrong, then work to correct that problem.
The article explains this using theoretical supporting reasons from the Risk Homeostasis Theory(RHT) and Feature Positive Effect(FPE). RHT outlines that eliminating risks just shifts the type of risk and it is not enough to create a better life. In addition, according to FPE, a better life is more likely caused by something that is present, such as achievements, more so than the absence of something bad, such as risks or problems.
This paper is exciting for us because it introduces the neologism, “paneugenesis”(neologism is a word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use) . The Paneuegenesis process is actions, by individuals, groups or organizations that create the best outcomes for all parties, with a byproduct of pervasive reciprocal positive benefits. In other words it is about creating better relationships with people, organizations, and the environment. Paneugenesis is the process of generating comprehensive improvements by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits.
To operationalize or to provide a guide about how to apply paneugenesis for health promotion, the article provides a Logic Model using Paneugenesis as its guide. As noted in many of my posts, the paneugenesis process can be applied to most settings to generate comprehensive benefits by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits. The model and video explaining the model are below.
Below is a video to explain how the Paneugenesis Model can be applied to health promotion.
We see the future not as something out of our control, but as something we can shape for the better through concerted and collective effort. – Barack Obama
Without getting political, this post is about how a perspective may support a world view. In other words, what we chose as our focus, determines what we see. This point is illustrated in these “scholarly” comic strips from Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman’s “Zits” and Bill Keane’s “Family Circus”.
This point was also driven home during our faculty convocation on this past Friday. Our Chancellor, Cecil Staton, provided fantastic opening remarks about the future we are working to create and the possibilities.
With a colleague, we attended our convocation. While we both work in health education and promotion, my perspective or main focus is on enabling thriving and his main focus is on prevention. Both of us agreed it was a fantastic, motivating and educational event.
In watching the event, I was impressed with how well Dr. Staton was speaking without referring to notes. He was smooth with transitions and was able to recite facts displayed on the slides without looking at the slides. I then noticed that in the back of the room there were monitors that had a running script. I thought, wow, that is great and that demonstrates to me how a teleprompter is an effective aid or precursor to providing a powerful presentations.
My colleague also noticed the teleprompter in the back. His reaction however was to then compare the words on the screen with what he was saying to see if they matched. To me this was revealing for several reasons:
My colleagues approach, comparing what was on screen to what was being said, was much more difficult and took more work.
If there was a discrepancy it would be noted as a problem. In reality the discrepancy may have been an improvement. For instance, the Chancellor may have adjusted to use more descriptive words than what was on the script similar to what President Clinton did when he went off script and delivered a more effective presentation.
Also, if there was no discrepancy, the presumption would be that it was a good presentation. However, his method of reviewing the presentation, comparing the words on the screen with what was being said, interfered with his a ability to hear the presentation which would compromise that conclusion.
These methods demonstrate a different desired outcome, a not bad or more good outcome because of the different perspective.
My focus was on what were the causes of his success while my colleague was interested in discovering what may be wrong. These unique starting points have potentially marked influences on how we approach our jobs, relationships, and life, an issue I will briefly explore in this post.
In relation to current events, as discussed by Thomas Friedman’s columns, my reading suggests he has an idealized outcome perspective that shapes his world view. In his August 16th, 2017 column, “Charlottesville, ISIS and Us“, he explains:
…I am a pluralism supremacist…How could I not be? I look around me and see our Air Force chief, who is of Eastern European Jewish descent, reporting to a woman Air Force secretary, who was among the early women graduates of the Air Force Academy and whose senior aide is an African-American woman lieutenant colonel. The base commander here in Qatar, overseeing the whole air war, is of Armenian descent, and his top deputy is of Lebanese descent…
In other words, he is looking for and found reasons why things were working so well
In his August 20, 2017 column, “Be Strategic, Not Impulsive, on North Korea” he suggests a strategy that would in the end benefit North Korea, the US and the rest of the world. His perspective does not lead to a strategy that would just penalize North Korea. In his column he explains:
…How? The best place to start is by putting on the table a clear, formal peace proposal so the world — especially South Korea and China — see that America is not the problem…What should the American proposal say?…we would establish full diplomatic relations; end the economic embargo and sanctions; and provide economic assistance, investment and a peace treaty to replace the 64-year-old armistice agreement (if they denuclearize)…It’s called the art of the deal…
…Such a proposal would give the initiative to us, rather than us waiting for China to rescue us with pressure…Indeed, it would give the Trump administration the moral high ground with everyone…
To me this perspective provides a way to generate comprehensive improvements by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits – especially us. We benefit not just from the results, we also benefit by knowing we are helping to cause the solution and are not part of the problem.
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Mark Twain
In general, people engage in action to cause an outcome. Few are interested in putting effort into actions that result in no change or lack of impact from actions taken. These are the findings from my scientific work and that of most.
People are not as excited to engage in healthy actions such as eating better with plant based meals to prevent POSSIBLE problems as they are to receive benefits from eating more plants. People are even less likely to engage in actions if there is doubt the actions they take will lead to a desired outcome.
Doubt is a powerful weapon that deniers of any cause or purpose use to cause indecision and inaction. Doubt dissuades, which means it persuades people NOT to take a particular course of action. Doubt is a weapon of choice because of its innate power to cause inaction despite the facts. Doubt is instilled through misdirection or taking attention away from facts just as magician misdirects a persons attention away so people thinks the trick is magic. This analogy is used in Naomi Oreskes’ excellent film, “Merchants of Doubt“. (Clip, Trailer and Full movie below) This link takes you to her famous Science article, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change that eventually led to her movie.
Some attribute inaction to the presence or absence of tangible outcomes. After all, if prevention works, NOTHING happens, no tangible result. The result is status quo, not better. There is also a status quo bias because of people’s risk averse nature to not lose what they already have.
While prevention is better than something bad happening, it is not actually better. Tangible and more rewarding outcomes are things such as gaining more competence, capabilities and skills. These tangible outcomes also make it less likely undesirable outcomes occur, or if they do having the ability to overcome, thus making prevention a secondary benefit – secondary beneficence.
The power of doubt enables those who use it to wield power over our actions. If one announces or publicizes the possibility that actions are likely to be ineffective, many are dissuaded from doing anything. Doubt is used by Climate Change deniers and many others (as shown in movie, “Merchants of Doubt”).
Doubt drove the playbook used by tobacco companies related to the harms caused by smoking. They did this by many ways, including getting doctors to support the habit and bringing DOUBT to scientific findings. Many other industries have now adapted these effective methods. Current efforts by the NFL use doubt to allay concerns about concussions and brain damage. These methods are effective because we want them be true, nobody wants to believe they are engaging in actions that cause damage. Of course many wonder, how can this work…
These concepts overlap with what has been discovered about how our mind plays tricks on us. Mental illusions were demonstrated by Kahneman and Tversky. (see more at: Mental Illusions Impact Our World ) People often over estimate the chances of low probable outcomes and underestimate probable outcomes. Kahneman & Tversky referred to the tricks our mind plays on us as mental heuristics or mental illusions.
Doubt becomes more powerful by engaging emotions. Emotions often overpower logic (see post: Emotions Drive Actions: Create a Strong Positive Picture). Jonathan Haidt and then the Heath brothers in their book “Decisive” used the analogy of our emotions, which originate in our amygdala, being an elephant and our logic, which originate in the neocortex, being the rider. This comparison suggests the limited control the rider or logic has over emotions or the elephant. If emotions are engaged, they overpower our logic. This was demonstrated in “Merchants of Doubt” when the doctor used a sad story about a baby to engage emotional support for not taking important action to end the use of in toxic flame retardants.
Stories, like that used by the doctor, evokes emotions and this can overpower logic, at least for the short term. I have students who come to me and tell me, despite the grade received, they are not C students. I suggest to them, the data suggests otherwise. With work, we discover they did not do what was needed to earn a higher grade. Data is logical, but emotions can overpower what is logical.
With regard to any issue, health of people and planet, doubt is very powerful because if the facts suggest our actions are causing problems, suggesting otherwise helps us we feel better. We want to believe “alternative facts”. If the “alternative facts” are true, we are better people so we want to believe.
People using doubt invoke our emotions to dissuade us from taking beneficial actions. If we investigate, we discover most times people are using doubt to delay any actions that may impinge on their short term benefit.
“Merchants of Doubt” outlines how doubt dissuaded people from taking action on tobacco issues, then flame retardants, and now climate change. The same tactics are also currently being used against those that promote the overwhelming science that documents the personal and planetary benefits of adopting a plant strong eating style over the current animal based eating style.
I encourage all to think about what is driving your actions. Is it logic or emotions? Do the reasons for doubt have a personal agenda? Who benefits from inaction or from action? What do you want to believe? What does science say – real science? Are you confused? If so, doubt is clouding your thoughts about what is best.
Emotions and logic are needed. Fortunately, we all can be emotionally and logically engaged in actions that help us move toward generating comprehensive benefits by creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits. This also causes results which fill us with emotional pride because we are part of the solution, not part of the problem, and this also prevents regret.
I look forward to hearing about your successes from which we all benefit.
We are more alike than we are different. Most of us agree, it would be good to restore order in conflicted areas, bankrupt criminals, and protect children. Right now, evidence demonstrates that our current drug policy does the exact opposite. It creates chaos, puts kids at risk, and makes criminals rich while it gives them power.
The most recent mental illusion I learned about relates to the effectiveness and appropriateness of our prohibition drug policy. I have been taught that we must prohibit drugs and keep them away because if we take them, we become chemically addicted. Evidence now demonstrates this is not the whole story and this incomplete belief has created a policy that is problematic. Rather than our current policy of prohibition, a better drug policy could make it possible to benefit everyone and everything. Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol and it helped establish the mafia, our current drug policy is doing more of the same – around the world.
In a powerful book, Chasing the Scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs, by Johann Hari, he provides a very persuasive explanation of current problems and what could be a better way. He explains problems caused by our current “war on drugs” and how we can do more good with a better drug policy. He convinced me legalization is the right policy for many reasons. He also provides evidence that creating more good is more effective than working to just eliminate bad – drug addiction and or use.
He also demonstrates how our current policy not only maintains the status quo but actually creates conditions to make it worse while it empowers criminals. The current policy accomplishes the opposite of paneugenesis or the creation of all good. Rather than creating interactions so everyone and everything benefits, current efforts are creating interactions so everyone and everything loses.
In one example, he says drugs should be legalized because they are potentially dangerous. At first I was confused, however he explains, the mafia does not card or check ID. Drug dealers also do not check for or make sure what they are providing is pure. In most cases, the drugs they sell are laced with fillers so they can sell more and these fillers are quite harmful.
Therefore, if drugs and regulations are in place, drugs will mostly be sold by regulated agencies and to people of age. Also when they are sold, communities will collect tax revenue that can be earmarked to treat problems that arise.
He also explains and documents how countries with other laws make it possible to for people to get drugs but also work to give them a better life through treatment and jobs. In this way, those that do have a problem with drugs are not criminalized, victimized, and ostracized which makes it difficult to rebuild their life, they are helped. He suggests drug users are not criminals, but broken people that need help. If drug users are helped, then they can still work while making efforts to correct their problem. This then eliminates their need commit a crime to get a fix. Evidence from multiple countries demonstrates this works. In Switzerland studies demonstrate this policy does not cost taxpayers, compared to using prohibition, it creates a positive return.
In a telling sentence, he explains, the opposite of addiction isn’t sobriety, but connection. We must create good and meaningful or better experiences and doing so will eliminate or make unnecessary the bad.
In other words, this is another example of the green grass theory. That is do all we can to grow more blades of grass to create a lush green lawn. Doing this will direct our efforts towards our goal, a lush green lawn, and also make it difficult for weeds to grow. Working to grow blades of grass gives them a better chance to grow and makes it difficult for weeds to flourish. In a similar way, creating a life with meaning, work and connections with people pushes out the need for drugs. Throughout the book, with extensive real-life experiments around the world, he shows it works. When people have a reason to live, the drug habit fades away.
I previously posted about Johann Hari and his tremendous TED talk in: Purpose & Connection are Vital. Below is a short interview he had with Bill Maher I thought you might find interesting.
Another huge problem resulting from the war on drugs is how it has been a way to incarcerate blacks and latino’s at higher rates. Many suggests it is actually legalized slavery. I am still learning more about this, however if you are interested, the Netflix documentary 13th explains this well (see trailer below). Please share your thoughts.