That Sensitive Life

the art and science of human sensitivity

By

Reading Behavorial Science, Another Caveat

Self testing…

Anyone who wants to quantify whether or not they are highly sensitive person, i.e. have sensory processing sensitivity, can go to Dr. Elaine Aron’s website www.hsperson.com and take the “Are You Highly Sensitive?” self test. Believe me, Cathy and I each easily exceeded the criterion of 14 true responses. In addition, for research purposes, the Arons have also developed a standard 27-item HSP scale, as well as a 6-item and 12-item scale, for evaluating sensory processing sensitivity. The individual questions are worded slightly differently although, in my opinion, the thrust of each questions is unchanged. Also, the responses are made on a scale of 1 to 7, rather than simply true or false, allowing further quantification of the responses. Despite these refinements, however, all of these tests are questionnaires and remain subject to all of the problems inherent in self-reporting instruments.

… equals self-reporting

Self-reporting is associated with a host of uncontrollable issues which affect one’s responses and skew results. These range from mood, “I’m having a bad hair day…” to outcome bias, or, “I know I’m highly sensitive, and I want to prove it.” Furthermore, self-reporting even comes with its own, scientifically recognized bias. This is Social Desirability Bias… the tendency of respondents to answer in a manner that will be seen in a favorable light by others.

Over the years, I have amazed myself with my own responses to personality inventory questions. No matter how truthfully I answer in the moment, certain aspects of my type or temperament seem to shift back and forth as the years pass. In fact, at some deeper level, I wonder to this day if I, or any of us, know ourselves well enough to tell the “truth” for each and every question we might be asked, or for that matter, the same “truth” each time a question is repeated. No matter how sincere we are or hard we try, truth may be a thing of the moment, colored by past experience and the passage of time, rather than a fixed entity.

“Know thyself,” the Greek aphorism, has always held a deep fascination for me… to the end that I question whether, even in the best of all possible scenarios, we can ever truly know ourselves. It seems to me that at any given moment I am the amalgam of a wide spectrum of mood, emotion, and behavior… at times surprising even myself… and here I am, so to speak, in front of this questionnaire trying to express who I am as though it were all I am.

Baumeister, Vohs, and Funder have published one of the best summaries in the scientific literature addressing issues of self-reporting as opposed to the observation and measurement of actual behavior (http://rap.ucr.edu/baumeisteretal2007.pdf). Written in an accessible style and without inflammatory rhetoric, the authors lay out the problem researchers face when studying social and psychological behavior.

This is not a perfect world, so…

In scientific research, at any point in time we are stuck with the tools we have. When they are applied fairly, when the results are appropriately evaluated, and when the results can be reproduced or replicated, our body of knowledge of the world, and our place in it, has most likely been enlarged or clarified. Were it not so, the advances in knowledge made in even one lifetime would not be possible. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not that scientific research has pitfalls that is problematic, it is that the media, and those of us who read and listen to it, accept too much at face value and proceed to parrot this received information without sufficient appreciation for the probability it will be modified, or even refuted, over time.

These two blogs, I hope, have provided a foundation for the skepticism necessary for reading science. Now, I hope, we can begin to enjoy some of the insight science has brought to light about the world of the highly sensitive person.

—Sherman Souther

By

Scientific Research: Reader Beware

I remain awed by of the scope of science, and I have a favorite illustration. Take a look at the chart, “The scale of the universe mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-1) The flow of logic and mathematics into physics and chemistry and on to cellular and functional biology before ending in psychology and sociology fascinates me…all of this continually augmented by the ever growing mass of information about the natural world and the human condition… and all produced by research. Most often, the results of this research are presented at scientific meetings and published in scientific journals. Both of these activities are presumably peer-reviewed, and the information is eventually translated into the media experience which now envelops us.

Most of this work is well done. We would not have progress, as we know it, without it. But simply because scientific papers are reviewed, published, and popularized does not necessarily make their research reproducible. It does not necessarily make them well evaluated. It does not necessarily, in fact, make them without bias, accurate, or even honest. All of this work is done by people. As people, we have limits. For example, until we develop new tools for exploration, we are limited by the ones we have. As people, we are susceptible to error of all types. The list is long. Also, as people, we also have individual needs, and some of us have less integrity than others. Hence the need for skepticism and doubt. Let’s dig a bit deeper…

Results and Reproducibility

Many authors use “reproducible” and “replicable” synonymously. Not all, however, and here is both some of the delight and some of the frustration I have with language. Chris Drummond is an expert in machine learning at the National Research Council of Canada. He argues that replicating studies does not advance knowledge in the same way reproducing them does, nor are they good science. (http://www.site.uottawa.ca/ICML09WS/papers/w2.pdf)

Drummond’s thoughts on what is good science and what is knowledge are provocative and instructive. And even if his distinctions prove little more than semantic rhetoric, our observations, ideas, and results need substantiation in some form if we are to act with confidence.

All too often, the results of published research cannot be achieved by duplicating the original experiments, leaving us in doubt about the validity of the initial work. In 2005 John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford, published one of the most cited articles in current scientific literature. The title… “Why Most Published Research Finding Are False.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/) In 2012, “Psychological Science,” the journal for the Association for Psychological Science, devoted an entire section of the November issue to a crises of confidence (http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/528.full.pdf+html) on replicability in psychological research. And if you think things have recently improved, a massive, collaborative study attempting to reproduce results published in three different, respected psychology journals resulted in only 35 of 97 successful replications. (http://etiennelebel.com/documents/osc(2015,science).pdf) I can’t resist quoting from the end of the summary portion of the article: “…there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.”

Research and Peer Review

Peer review has proven a poor filter. A 2013 article in The Economist titled “Trouble at the Lab” (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble) chronicles the many problems with peer review. These range from the embarrassing consequences of clever stings by a Harvard biologist and another by an editor of the British Medical Journal on through failure by reviewers to conduce their own analysis of the data presented or adequately assess the experimental purpose or design. Moreover, the performance of reviewers declines with experience (http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(10)01266-7/abstract). Would that reviewers aged as well as wine.

Research Fraud

There also are multiple references regarding egregious fraud as well as other dodgy practices in the articles cited. To me, this is the saddest. I do, however, understand the motivation. When I most frequented the research laboratory in the decade between 1965 and 1975, I viewed the authorship or co-authorship of published papers as “academic gold.” Those investigators with an extensive bibliography got jobs, grant money, promotions, and awards. Unsurprisingly, this has not changed. (http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/528.full.pdf+html)

Intense competition dominates academia. Without integrity, the lure of easy and rapid advancement of one’s career is powerful.

So, How Should We Look at Scientific Research?

Most of us, including me, do not gain information or insight by reading scientific papers. We read or hear the sanitized and popularized received information available from the media, often in multiple formats. This translation further enhances the possibility of error, lack of due diligence, or dishonesty. Maintaining some degree of skepticism or doubt concerning what we are told is important. The philosopher, George Santayama, has given us another, more organic, view of this quality. “Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness.” (www.philosophicalsociety.com/archives/skepticism.htm)

We all benefit from the insights new revelations give us, yet we need to maintain some reserve regarding them until they are confirmed.

—Sherman Souther

By

Science, Knowledge + Human Sensitivity

So here we are, “The Art and Science of Human Sensitivity.”  Let’s begin to examine the “Science.”

Science… but first a digression on knowledge

Now, it’s already complicated. To write about “Science” we’ have to write about knowledge. Wikipedia describes Science as “…a systematic enterprise that build and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe,” and goes on to say Science “…most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself.”  And here I’m sorry. I generally don’t like reading about subjects which are immediately introduced with one or another dry definition of the term under consideration, yet I have to start somewhere, and I need a frame.

Knowledge, knowledge, knowledge and what do we know about that?

Knowledge, to me, is a tricky thing, ranging from the relative certainty of answering the who, what, when, where, why and how of something to the relative uncertainty of whether we can know anything at all. The formal study of knowledge falls into the realm of philosophy known as epistemology and presumably is based on issues of belief, truth, and justification. Now instead of trying to define all of these words, I looked up their synonyms on thesarus.com. Knowledge has 46 synonyms, belief 49, truth 46, and justification 47. In my opinion, it’s no small wonder we have difficulty wrapping knowledge into one neat bundle of language.

A practice example…

I’m fascinated by the way knowledge plays out in our daily lives. For example, I’m sure I can go to Ralph’s, a large supermarket nearby, to buy a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and get home… the best known part… the navigating and ambulating. I want a pint of Chocolate Therapy, but if they’re out, I’m reasonably certain I can get another flavor, say Chocolate Fudge Brownie… the somewhat less sure part. However, when I get there, not only may they not have either of these, or none at all, not one pint… the unknowable part. This unknowable thing actually happened to Cathy recently, despite never occurring before on any of our hundreds of visits and thus statistically unlikely. If there is none, I’m still faced with a variant of “Know Thyself,” which by chance also happens to be the motto of my college alma mater, and at this moment, I’m not a bit sure of whether I’ll get home ice cream-less or not… kind of a knowing thyself or not, that is the question sort of thing… the least understood part. And, parenthetically, I did much better over the years with the education I received at Hamilton College than I did with the motto… hence the late discovery of myself as a highly sensitive person.

Knowledge, to me… and how it affects my view of science

I see two ways of looking at knowledge, especially as science pursues it. In the first, knowledge already exists as a thing outside us, available for our discovery, as in flakes of gold panned from a stream or the proverbial pearl pried from the oyster. This view implies a pure and abstract aspect to knowledge waiting there to be found and translated into worldly terms. In the second, we create knowledge by the application of our experience and the tools which we have at our disposal, as in the design and execution of the tests and experiments which we then carry out and evaluate. Thus knowledge is a man-made structure of some kind, not without some similarity to real estate, where maintenance, updating, and occasionally razing to create something like the “highest and best use” are necessary to maintain value.

I favor the second view.

Science… and knowledge… need to be considered carefully

When I was growing up in a small town in Vermont, there was a popular adage along the lines we all should look at things with a healthy dose of skepticism. Skepticism, like epistemology, is a realm of philosophy, and in the sense that skepticism questions the possibility of absolutely certain knowledge, I am most likely a skeptic. Dr. Barry Stroud, Professor of Philosophy at UC Berkeley has said on philosophybites.com “…maintaining skepticism means that a scientist will never be absolutely certain when they are correct and when they are not. It is thus an irony of proper scientific method that one must doubt even when correct, in the hopes that this practice will lead to greater convergence on the truth in general.”

In my next blog post, I plan to expand on why this concept possesses such great importance when reading about the science of things.

—Sherman Souther

By

How Am I Who I Am

As I’ve said, I am, by definition, a highly sensitive individual. This alone raises so many questions about the nature of being, I’m almost overwhelmed. Yet this is exactly the path I want to explore.

First, the definition of the highly sensitive person didn’t exist until about twenty years ago. There is another way to say this, which reflects on the nature of being. Until about twenty years ago, the manifestations of being highly sensitive had not yet been recognized as a personality trait. I was something, or possessed something, that didn’t seem to exist.

Lacking Bridges

During all those years of namelessness, so to speak, many activities, which most of my peers appeared to enjoy, left me uncomfortable. Participating brought little pleasure. Not participating didn’t appear an option. One way or another, I saw myself as peripheral, marginalized, or outside… inept, odd, or nearly a failure. That wasn’t pleasurable either. And during those years, there was no name, no insight, no understanding on which to build a strategy for managing my behavior and the feelings which came with it.

Glimmer #1

My first glimmer of insight came three or four years after Elaine Aron published “The Highly Sensitive Person.” Alas, her work was unknown to me at that time, and even if it were, I can’t be sure I would have benefited.

A small digression… to me, language is odd and complicated. It represents a tool the speaker, or writer, uses to deliver a message, and it requires a receiver who hears, interprets, and incorporates the message… all as it was intended. Much communicated to me seems, at best, noise… reasonable but with little pith. On occasion, I feel directly addressed and positioned to respond as intended. Something transcendent occurs.

Transcendent was that first glimmer. A friend at Naropa recommended I look at David Keirsey’s battery metaphor in his book, “Please Understand Me II; Temperament, Character, Intelligence.” Keirsey was a respected American psychologist and best known for his development of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter as an alternative to the Meyers-Briggs Type Inventory. Check out kiersey.com and his Wikipedia entry for more detail.

So what is this battery metaphor? In his note on Extroversion or Introversion on pages 331 and 332 of his book, Kersey suggested that for many people… in fact probably the majority… expressive, outgoing, i.e. extroverted, behavior charges their “battery,” giving them a feeling of well being. Conversely, such people often feel drained and lonely without human contact. On the other hand, people who manifest reserved behavior, i.e. introverts, obtain energy and charge their “battery” from solitary activities. For them, “excessive” social activity is depleting, and they must retire or regroup to recharge. For me, Kersey revealed the answer to the largest mystery of my life… why did the low battery light or warning go off so often during family and social interactions, and interacting with others… at some point far less than for most… depleted me.

Another Glimmer

My second glimmer of insight came from my wife and partner in this endeavor. We met at Naropa. A teacher assigned a group project. Cathy’s description of the look on my face, I cannot capture here. “… Horrified,” she says, “at the least.” She befriended me. I got though it. We dated. She often spoke of things, encounters, or activities as overstimulating. I began to see my own reaction to events in the light of the amount of stimulation they generated. This, too, became transcendent. Overstimulation depleted my battery.

More Hope

The third glimmer came from my ongoing interest in the science of brain function. Remember, this journey began with a book on brain lateralization I never wrote. There is, almost certainly, a neurophysiological basis for the highly sensitive trait. Somehow I take comfort in the possibility nature plays a role in this trait, as opposed to some quirk of nurture.

So what have I learned thus far? I take comfort in the knowledge I am most likely wired this way, as opposed to just being odd. I prepare for overstimulation. If I cannot avoid it, or limit it, I attempt damage control.

Often simple awareness offers the most help. I pay attention to my battery. If it runs too low, I’m especially careful. Then, I make a time and place to recharge it as soon as possible. These strategies have brought me greater ease in my interaction with the world, especially with daily life. Believe me, this is a considerable reward.

—Sherman Souther

By

I, The Highly Sensitive: Entry to Insight

“Point of entry…” she, my Naropa teacher of the long poem, said.

“Overstimulated…” a different she said. This one, my friend at Naropa, then companion, partner…now my wife…the inspiration and force behind this endeavor.

This is how it all began, my first glimmer of insight into the central cause of most of the emotional and social discomfort I had, and continue to have, throughout my life.

Cervical disk disease brought an end to my life as a surgeon. I moved to Colorado with the intent to write a book on brain lateralization, the creative right brain vs. rational left brain conundrum which had long fascinated me. Instead, I discovered poetry.

“What would you do if you were me?” I asked the man who had introduced me to the joy of writing a poem.

“I’d go to Naropa and get an MFA,” he said.

And off I went… to write poems, to get an MFA, and to discover what it means to live “That Sensitive Life,” even though I didn’t call it that yet.

What is “That Sensitive Life” to me and to Cathy?

Point of entry: we are easily and rapidly overstimulated…bottles from the apartment building across the street crashing into the recycling truck, motorcycles accelerating from the stop sign on the corner…all kinds of noise. That and crowds, large and small… family get-togethers, cocktail parties, holiday celebrations, arena events, tourists wandering through the malls. Perfume, other odors… some only annoying… some bring out allergic symptoms. The unctuous waiter who visits the table too often…the list goes on and on.

Why am I so easily overstimulated? I am, by definition, a highly sensitive person. Elaine Aron, a PhD psychologist, coined this term more than 20 years ago, and with her husband has produced a considerable body of respected and peer-reviewed work on hypersensitivity. I suggest you visit her website http://hsperson.com

So is this a disease? Happily, no. Almost half of the population says they are more easily overstimulated than their peers. I do fall into the 15 to 20 percent of us who are very easily overstimulated… highly sensitive individuals. In other words, I have earned my label. Looking back, I see how this has often challenged me, leaving me perplexed and bewildered by my relationships both to the environment and with my fellow man. My lack of insight has almost certainly had other costs as well; costs I could have avoided had I better managed my exposure to stimulation.

Herein is the heart of what “That Sensitive Life” is to me.

As Cathy and I have gained greater knowledge, insight, and skills to manage our lives, we have found greater tranquility, serenity, and comfort. We want to share some of our experiences. We want to share some of the creative work that has brought us joy. We want to dig deeper into what is known about the psychology and neuroscience of hypersensitivity. We hope that those of you who share this highly sensitive trait will enjoy what we have to say. In the best of all possible worlds, those of you who do not bear the burden of hypersensitivity will better understand our concerns and some of the why behind why we behave as we do…. This is the path we have set for ourselves here at That Sensitive Life.

—Sherman Souther

  • Connect