Quotius #9 Circular Vs Reciprocal

Each week I intend to dispatch my pent-up creativity by creating a new version of something I call a “quotius”. (Learn about the genesis of it here.)

Circular Thinking: Works on fear – Makes you gutless
Reciprocal Thinking: Works on guts – Makes you fearless

This quotius is not actually a quote like most of the others I do here. That’s because it’s not a quote from somebody else. This time it’s my own idea which I made up in an attempt to vividly illustrate the striking differences between two distinct types of thinking: circular and reciprocal.

If you’ve seen more than one of my Quotius videos you may have noticed that I have little regard for the circular type of thinking pattern. I personally believe that thinking that has a pattern like this has been the sole cause of the stuckiness that many people experience in their own lives.

I don’t like it in myself and I don’t like it in others.

That’s why in each one of these little productions I end up destroying the circular band that represents circular thinking. This often happens in a rather extreme way. It’s intentionally violent and final. Like a deadly virus I don’t want it ever coming back.

Circular thinking causes you to make decisions that are hard to reach. They are long coming (if they get made at all) and they are usually the result of over-analyzing things. They are what I refer to as head-based decision making. All you do is go around and around and around burning up time and energy to finally reaching a flimsy compromised path.

If you tend toward this type of thinking it’s probably because it seems like the safe thing to do. But it’s not. It’s just time-wasting. Real opportunities aren’t often found in the safe area of life. They are found in the deep end of the pool and it takes some guts to swim out there to claim them for yourself.

Reciprocal thinking, on the other hand, is thinking that works in partnership with the two sets of independent brain systems found in all humans. The head brain and the gut brain.

You’re no doubt aware of the head brain and what it does.  But for some the knowing about the gut brain is still be a bit of a mystery. So let me give you a brief rundown of what I think was one of the top biological discoveries of the last fifty years.

The gut brain, known technically as the “enteric nervous system”, was a discovery that was first made public in North America in an article in the New York Times in 1996. The subject of the article was an announcement by cell biologist Dr. Michael Gershon. His area of interest had been the digestive system and that is how he literally tripped over the evidence of this (abdominal) brain.

He conducted tests and found some startling facts such as:
• The gut brain can, and does, act alone without instructions from topside
• The area of the gut brain is rich in “feel good” chemicals
• The gut brain is very sensitive to touch employing the same neurons found in the head

The brain in the gut was not entirely unknown however. A British doctor by the name of Langley had written about it about 100 years prior to Dr. Gershon’s work, but it had been overshadowed by the discovery of neuro-transmitters (chemicals said to help transmit nerve signals between each neuron).

Now that we know we have two distinct brains in the body why not use both of them in concert when considering critical choices? You can have the thought considerations from the head brain while being made more aware of invaluable signals about good or bad from the gut brain. Base your finial decision on that.

It is said that two brains are better than one. But what’s even better is when both reside in the same body and can agree on the same direction to go in.

More power to you.

David's signature in look-like handwriting

 

 

Music Credit:Creative Commons License The Annual New England Xylophone Symposium by DoKashiteru is licensed under a Attribution Noncommercial (3.0)

Quotius #8

Each week I intend to dispatch my pent-up creativity by creating a new version of something I call a “quotius”. (Learn about the genesis of it here.)

“When the going gets tough… the tough get going.”
This time I have blatantly broken the law (yet again) about proper palindrome-making. I did it this time because, well for one thing it’s my playground, and because I wanted to seriously underscore the huge differences that naturally arise between a circular system of thinking and a reciprocal system of thinking.

The first being the domain of the stuck and the latter being the domain of the actively creative. You know, those who may not have all the answers but are brave enough to power ahead anyway.

In the first half of the video you can’t help but notice how the missing information, which appears upside down on the inside of the circular band, really makes the whole message unreadable. You’d have to stand on your head to get the rest of it.

This not only creates confusion in the reader but it also frustrates her to no end. Why would anyone knowingly want to think this way?

Because it’s easy that’s why. Lead-ass easy.

Of course, there is only one solution the reader’s dilemma and we see it plainly when the second the strip is constructed with that magical half-twist in it before it’s joined together and becomes a qualified Quotius.

That ability to overcome difficulties, no matter how many there are, delineates between the tough and the not tough enough. It’s not always those with sheer strength that win in this battle. It’s those with the ability to adapt and to thereafter endure.

Could you use a half twist in your thinking? Try this on for size.

More power to you.

David's signature in look-like handwriting


PS: Have you noticed that a lot of personal development methods no longer pack the punch they once did? Could be the times. I went ahead and invented this simple little brain tweak that makes a huge difference in leveraging your efforts for creating a better version of yourself. Want more? Check out my FREE webinar here.

Creative Commons License The Annual New England Xylophone Symposium by DoKashiteru is licensed under a Attribution (3.0).