The Only Thing To Fear Is Our Memory.

Have you ever been scared? Scared to the point that your body’s sympathetic nervous system is releasing all the fight-or-flight hormones?

You feel your heart pounding in your chest.
Your senses are acutely aware of noises you may not otherwise pay attention to.
Then the moment passes.

According to an Israeli researcher, our experience of fear may not be very accurate because it relies solely on memories that we have from what could be seconds, even milliseconds ago.

This guy studied the concept of time-dilation, or the idea that during a time of intense fear, time appears to slow down to a snail’s pace because we are able to process things and make complex decisions in what would normally be considered “too short of a time period”.

How does the brain do this? Does our brain process time “more slowly?” Do our senses and thoughts speed up? Neither? Both?

After throwing people into a net 150 feet below, the scientist concluded that though subjects “thought that time was moving more slowly” during the experience, they could only feel that sensation “after the fact”.

And, that the entire experience of intense fear is based on short-term memory processes of milliseconds and seconds before. These memories could even be called unreliable. The bottom line is that the supposed “time dilation” only occurs because of the number of things we happen to remember during our period of intense fear. During a fearful time, we remember more details so we think the experience lasted longer than it did.

Coupling these interesting findings with our brains’ natural ability to “fill in the holes”, it would seem like the biggest thing we have to fear is possibly an unreliable memory of an experience we may or may not have filled in with details that never happened. Our brain does this with images, sounds, and details in the experiences we have.

That’s why this picture makes sense:

Also of interest:  Article I read that inspired me to write this

Ok, back to chemistry.

The Psychology Of Letting Go

According to traditional psychological paradigms, when we undergo a loss, we experience five distinct stages in order to cope with that loss.  (I passed my human behaviour class by memorizing DABDA or Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance).

The stages do occur in that order but the duration and severity of them can vary from person to person and situationally as well.

So, although I thank you, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross for your stages of dealing with death/loss, I think there’s something to be said for those of us not who cannot deal with loss but choose to avoid  it for as long as possible.

More succinctly: “what’s the deal with not being able to let go?”


In medicine, when we’re presented with a patient who may or may not survive a trauma in a way that will allow them to live a “normal” life, we offer them a chance to sign an Advance Directive form. By them signing the form, they can prohibit us from administering heroic measures in order to save their life.  We have to let them go because they get to make the choice of living the way they want to live, or dying so they don’t have to live a certain way.

When signing the form, there’s often times no going back.

What if we were to create our Advance Directive form for our relationships with others?  Could we write, “no heroic measures to recuscitate this relationsip” and “if the condition of this relationship leads to _____, ______, ______” then we’d have to figuratively pull the plug, no going back.  We can decide the extent of our treatment plan but if all fails or the conditions worsen, we have to let go.

The comparison to medicine is uncanny:

An Advance Directive needs to be signed by someone when they are in a state of mind that they can understand what they are signing and the decisions they are making.  If the person is unconscious or unable to comprehend what they need to decide, then someone else needs to make the decision (relative, spouse, medical professionals).

The bottom line is that this decision is made when a person is level-headed, clear-minded, and so on.  When have you been able to describe a person in the midst of relationship-chaos as any of those things?  To add to Kubler-Ross and her DABDA…one could say that there should be an additional stage that comes before all of those:  Idealization.

There’s that stage when you know you need to walk, but focus on the positive traits, despite how few they may be in our partner.  That makes it harder to let go.  But, if we were to write our Advance Directive while sitting with a cup of coffee one night, regardless of who we’re with, just based on our own needs and limits, and actually stick to it then we’d know to let go when the time came.

Also of interest: Psychology Today Article on Anger in Ex-Relationships

Something A Smart Guy Said Yesterday

There’s a guy and he’s someone I don’t particularly like so the fact that I’m devoting an entire blog post to something he said should tell you two things:

1)  When someone is smart, I can put aside my own issues and dislike for them and listen to what they have to say.  From this you can deduce that I am somewhat reasonable.

2) I pay attention to smart people.  I know I am not the smartest of the smart people.  There is always more to learn.

So, back to what this man said.  He said:

“when planning to achieve something, don’t think about what you need to do to accomplish it.  First think of what your competitors may be doing to achieve the same thing, to take your place, then do what you think it takes to do more.”


Hmm.  This also reminds me of something I read in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


Hmm.  A smart person who’s quote kind of reminds me of Sun Tzu, another way smart person.  Pattern.

The guy I don’t like was saying this about studying for your MCAT.  For those of you who do not know, the MCAT is the single, most soul-sucking thing one must go through in order to become a medical student.  I know other MCATters, I see the desperation in their eyes and the bald patches from where they’ve pulled out chunks of hair asking, “is it an SN1 or SN2 reaction???”

But, I think it applies to most things you could want to accomplish in life.  Like a job — what is the other guy they are interviewing doing to get your job?  If it’s morally reprehensible, don’t do it but if you can try and put yourself in someone else’s shoes, do it.  Admittedly, I have a problem with sacrificing some nights out.  When I take home a C+ on an exam that my peer took home an A in, I wonder, “where did she spend last Saturday night?”  Probably not at Sheffield’s shooting tequila with your neighbour and then going to McDonald’s.

Lesson learned!

What Is Love? (Baby, Don’t Hurt Me)

In a recent survey where I asked one friend for a subject to blog about, he suggested “love” and what it means to different people.  Well, I’ll admit I don’t know what it means to different people (though I have a fair idea from reading I’ve done) so please feel free to share your thoughts on this subject.

So what is love?  Love is an emotion we can measure by putting people into a machine and taking a functional MRI of their brain.  We can watch the areas light up and we can try and determine if they’re speaking from the emotional part of their brans or the language part.  We can see what makes those areas “light up”.

So that’s love in its quantitative form.

But what is love in its fluffy, unadulterated form?  Pillow talk in bed amongst lovers?  The bond shared between family members?

First of all let me state that I don’t believe in soul-mates.  I don’t believe in love at first sight (it’s called physical attraction) and I don’t believe in unconditional love (except you, dad).

What I do believe about love is that it is mutual fulfillment; a fulfillment that originates from first understanding the other person.  Once you understand who a person is, what matters to them, then you can determine whether or not you will find fulfillment in sharing experiences with said person.

Here is an example that is quite revealing:  babies scare me.  Not little babies that are already born and cute but carrying babies.  Pregnancy.  Childbirth.  What happens when you’re pregnant and then have to deliver the little monkeys.  So, I’ve compromised with myself that I will have babies au naturel as long as I can deliver them by C-section.  (Now, the fine print:  yes of course at the end of the day I will do whatever is best for the monkeys, but if given a choice, I would schedule a C-section when the time was right).  To some people that I have said this to, it is an abomination.  I am not being a woman.  (Uh, note: this response mostly comes from men, but I digress.)  So what does this mean?  It means my future babymaker partner will have to live with the fact that he will never be part of the miracle that is childbirth except for the part where he’s handed the baby (OR’s are sterile, sorry future hubs).

So back to what love is — love is just the comprehensive, more succinct term for, “I think we could get along.  I don’t mind compromising things with you, like what color car to buy, but if anything that is part of my structural identity (see this post) conflicts with something that is part of your structural identity, then we will have to redefine ourselves, which is unacceptable because one of us will not find fulfillment in the relationship”.

There’s a reason I believe your partner should be your best friend, and when I say best friend, I don’t mean the arbitrary title you give someone, I mean the person you know you can show the dark scary places of your life.  But, back on the unconditional comment, no love is unconditional.  All love has conditions but the conditions should be defined by the two people (or more) in the relationship, not across the board societal standards.

Thoughts?