When too much arousal is never enough
June 1, 2008
The primary aim of my Speed Thinking Workshops is to help people to think faster and better. This involves providing participants with new tools, stimulus material and challenges. In psychology speak (NB I have studied the area both formally and informally but am not a psychologist–my PhD was in Organizational Creativity) this might be referred to as increasing the level of arousal.
But can you give people too much arousal? Well according to Hebb (1955) the answer is yes. He postulates that there is an optimal arousal level which is at the mid range which is neither too high not too low–in either case this is unpleasant and aversive (I have borrowed from a lecture by Ken Haskin of Swinburne University, 21/5/97 for parts of this blog). If this is the case than the notion of Speed Thinking with its high arousal methodology would seem to be in trouble.
However, over time this concept that there is an ideal arousal state does not seem to fit what actually happens. Many people consistently see high arousal e.g. rock climbing; surfing big waves etc and find this activity incredibly enjoyable. It is also the case that any one event can (e.g. taking off in a plane) can be both scary and exciting from moment to moment. I have also found in my Speed Thinking Workshops that participants can be highly aroused and bounce between feeling uncomfortable at first and inspired at the end. We need (it seems to me) a better explanation of how people feel and what they do than Hebb’s optimal, equilibrium approach.
Enter British Psychologist, Michael Aptor and his Reversal Theory (I thank my colleague Graham Winter for this insight). Without explaining his entire theory Aptor suggests that we can have different experiential states that can vary from minute to minute, hour to hour and that we can move between these different states as we go through life. This means that we differ from each other but over time, from ourselves. These states also operate in pairs of opposites so that in effect we can change from one to another (i.e. reverse) even though we are experiencing the same thing. Hence, on a roller coaster we can experience danger and exhilaration in the same ride (see www.reversaltheory.org).
To make it more concrete for people interested in Speed Thinking, Aptor postulates that we can have a two hump model of equilibrium–meaning that we can experience high arousal as both pleasurable and unpleasant depending if we are in a Telic or Paratelic state.
The Telic state is one in which the goals are imposed, essential, it is a serious state, a sense of achievement (e.g. filling in a tax form).
The Paratelic state is a playful and one in which the activity is engaged for its own sake (e.g. go to the movies).
The implication is that The Speed Thinking process works best when it is one that is exploratory, open, safe, fun, where people can make mistakes and not to concerned with pressuring people to perform. A wonderful lesson to us all because it is in this environment that real learning takes place.
Comments
Got something to say?
