A few years ago, Dr. Herbert Benson came out with his book "The Breakout Principle" which describes and explains what this article is about. Basically, interrupting or changing context (go for a walk, solve unrelated puzzles, visit the gym, meditate) when you've reached a sticking point in a project will increase your effectiveness when you return to your task. Benson attributes this to bursts of nitric oxide in your brain, IIRC.
When we consider how much really occurs inside us without conscious thought, is this any surprise? Try walking up and down the stairs while consciously thinking about how you're doing it. Or how about language- your comprehension and speaking of your native tongue is largely unconscious as well.
Next time you're stuck in a coding problem, try it out. Go enjoy some absorbing activity for perhaps as little as 15 minutes, making sure to change conscious contexts, and then come back to your original task with a fresh viewpoint.
I remember a few years ago that there was a coffee soda on the supermarket shelves which got the taste factor right but maybe needed help in the marketing department.
It wasn't a cola blend at all but literally a coffee soda. And the part that nobody believes when I mention this is the branding: Ernest Borgnine coffee sode! It had a picture of Ernest Borgnine and a retro-style label.
Also reminds me of the Carlsberg beer cola that was served canned in Europe.
Studies using a cookie-cutter script are using flawed methodology and we know from the Mythbusters thread that it's impossible to prove a negative. Hypnotic induction is really a process involving a cycle of interaction with the client. Lots of nonverbal feedback is coming back to the hypnotist and they need to factor that into the induction if its to be successful.
Dr. John Grinder's book Whispering in the Wind addresses some of these methodological issues regarding NLP modelling, which gave us the Milton Model as a very successful way of transferring the behaviors of a successful hypnotist... This kind of information would be completely lost in a statistical study.
It reminds me of the arguments you find in martial arts circles... "This technique doesn't work"
Does the technique not work ever, or is it part of a larger interaction whose depth and detail are lost when observed in aggregate and whose nuances only become clear after seasoned practice and much failure along the way?
Even if you're not directly interested in NLP or hypnosis, I recomend Grinder's work simply as an example of precise language and rigorous critical thinking... Something even many scientists I have encountered seem to lack.
I'm still young, so perhaps I have a chance of developing those traits myself, though I have a long way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
A few years ago, Dr. Herbert Benson came out with his book "The Breakout Principle" which describes and explains what this article is about. Basically, interrupting or changing context (go for a walk, solve unrelated puzzles, visit the gym, meditate) when you've reached a sticking point in a project will increase your effectiveness when you return to your task. Benson attributes this to bursts of nitric oxide in your brain, IIRC.
When we consider how much really occurs inside us without conscious thought, is this any surprise? Try walking up and down the stairs while consciously thinking about how you're doing it. Or how about language- your comprehension and speaking of your native tongue is largely unconscious as well.
Next time you're stuck in a coding problem, try it out. Go enjoy some absorbing activity for perhaps as little as 15 minutes, making sure to change conscious contexts, and then come back to your original task with a fresh viewpoint.
I remember a few years ago that there was a coffee soda on the supermarket shelves which got the taste factor right but maybe needed help in the marketing department.
It wasn't a cola blend at all but literally a coffee soda. And the part that nobody believes when I mention this is the branding: Ernest Borgnine coffee sode! It had a picture of Ernest Borgnine and a retro-style label.
Also reminds me of the Carlsberg beer cola that was served canned in Europe.
Studies using a cookie-cutter script are using flawed methodology and we know from the Mythbusters thread that it's impossible to prove a negative. Hypnotic induction is really a process involving a cycle of interaction with the client. Lots of nonverbal feedback is coming back to the hypnotist and they need to factor that into the induction if its to be successful. Dr. John Grinder's book Whispering in the Wind addresses some of these methodological issues regarding NLP modelling, which gave us the Milton Model as a very successful way of transferring the behaviors of a successful hypnotist... This kind of information would be completely lost in a statistical study. It reminds me of the arguments you find in martial arts circles... "This technique doesn't work" Does the technique not work ever, or is it part of a larger interaction whose depth and detail are lost when observed in aggregate and whose nuances only become clear after seasoned practice and much failure along the way? Even if you're not directly interested in NLP or hypnosis, I recomend Grinder's work simply as an example of precise language and rigorous critical thinking... Something even many scientists I have encountered seem to lack. I'm still young, so perhaps I have a chance of developing those traits myself, though I have a long way to go.