The 365 Commitment

Guy Reams

The 365 Commitment Podcast focuses on helping people make and keep life changing commitments.

  1. -13 h

    Day 325 - All Loops Require Supervision

    This seems like an obvious thing to say, but I was struck by this thought when I woke up this morning and discovered that one of the systems that I had built exhausted all of its funding. When I went to check on why, I learned that the AI system that was performing the operation was stuck in a loop and had exhausted all of the credits allocated to it. The loop was silly; it was a small error that tripped everything up, and the system had been looping through this same error for over 48 hours. The only reason it caught my attention is because the credit allocation was exhausted, and I got an alert in my email indicating the problem. Which made me realize something critical. I will use my sprinkler system as an example. I put in this wireless sprinkler system, which allows me to control everything from my home automation system. It was a great improvement over my old timer system that was always breaking and difficult to understand. However, a few weeks ago, a real estate agent knocked on my door to inform me that there was a large puddle of water collecting in my side yard. They were asking me if I could fix it because they were showing a neighboring property and wanted to clean up the fence line. I hadn't noticed this issue because the trouble spot is only visible from the corner of my house. You would have to physically walk over there to see it. Upon investigation, I realized that I could have known this issue was happening. My system had been generating a few alerts that my water usage was higher than usual. These were logged entries that I had ignored because the sprinkler system has many notifications that I have just trained myself to ignore after a while. So a leak was occurring; the system detected it, and despite me getting alerts to this fact, the automated system kept turning on every morning at 2 AM. The leak kept saturating the fence line until eventually a giant puddle had started to develop unbeknownst to me. It took a knock at my door for me to be alerted by the rather obvious problem on the east side of my fence line. In this case, the automated loop was completely unsupervised. Just like my unfortunate AI loop, the system kept performing the function, despite the fact that it was wasting resources. It had no sensor or methodology for knowing it was continuously pursuing an automated loop that was no longer serving its purpose. My epiphany is that we often create processes, both in our lives and in our businesses, that we want to run on autopilot. We want it to just happen. Now that I have the marketing team finally working and in place, I want them to just do their job and let me move onto other things. Now that I have this AI doing this annoying thing for me, I want it to just run so that I never have to deal with it again. You see, we create systems and processes in a vain hope that it absolves us of responsibility. It does not. What it does is reduce the amount of mental energy and time we have to allocate to the process, but it does not clear us from the requirement to perform some level of supervision. We often consider supervision as a reactionary requirement. I fixed the sprinklers after the real estate agent sunk her $500 heels into a foot of mud. I fixed my AI loop after I discovered that my rogue agent had spent all the token budget on a worthless process for 48 hours. Supervision is and can never be considered a reactionary requirement. The concept is essentially designed to be proactive. The more automated things become, the more necessary supervision becomes. The real implication is in our daily lives. I have routines that I follow. They are mostly on autopilot. When I wake up, I follow this routine, and it really does not deviate much. If I am not careful, if there is something unhealthy in this routine, several months will go by before I discover the negative impact that routine has had on my health. Routine habit is great when it is beneficial to you, but you must monitor these repetitive behaviors. Often they are repeating an action that is also causing you harm. For example, my morning routine is mostly good for me. It helps me stay hydrated, in a good mindset, improves my physical stamina, and several other benefits. However, one day I noticed that my knee was starting to hurt. I realized that where I was sitting each morning, I had this habit of tucking my leg underneath my other leg when I sat to write. The knee pain was being caused by this repetitive motion, and I only noticed this mindless behavior after I started experiencing discomfort. So, maybe the real takeaway here isn't about ditching automation or trying to micromanage every little thing. It's more about finding that sweet spot where we let things run smoothly, but also keep an eye on the bigger picture. It’s like having a good co-pilot; you trust them to fly the plane, but you’re still there, checking the instruments and making sure you’re headed in the right direction. It’s about building in those little check-ins, those moments where we pause and ask, "Is this still working for me? Is this still serving its purpose?" Because even the best systems, whether they're digital or just our daily routines, can sometimes go a little off course without us even realizing it. It’s not about being paranoid, just present enough to steer things back on track when they need a gentle nudge.

    Day 325 - All Loops Require Supervision
  2. -1 j

    Day 324 - Guilt Requires Action

    It has long been discussed by psychologists, theologians, and other circles that holding onto feelings of guilt is bad for your health. Carrying a heavy burden of shame around for things that you did wrong can have serious consequences in your life. The recommendation is to always seek restitution or to make apologies where possible. There is a reason why many major religions have included some form of confession along with a process around repentance. Confession, or admittance to wrongdoing, can go a long way toward absolving or relieving a person of guilty feelings. I recently stumbled upon a fascinating video from Aeon, titled "The Conscience Files," which delves into the intriguing phenomenon of visitors to Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park who, after pilfering souvenirs, mail them back with letters of apology. This documentary, found here, isn't a scientific study, but rather a compelling cultural observation. It highlights a recurring pattern: individuals attempting to rectify a moral transgression through confession, restitution, and a desire to make amends. It's a powerful testament to the human need to "drop the rocks" of guilt and seek a form of personal absolution. In many cultures, superstition will develop around this concept of harboring guilt for wrongdoing. Stories of hauntings, vengeful spirits, or just bad luck will circulate until they become folklore and then mythology. Perhaps some of them are true, but one thing is absolutely certain: Humans do carry guilt around with them, and that guilt can often impact their lives in direct and indirect ways. Eventually, people will seek a remedy for this, and that often is associated with an action. In this case, people returned the stolen item with a note of apology. I remember hiking in the desert years ago, and while traversing an island of rocks trying to get a better view of the sunset, I stumbled across a book lodged in a crevice. The book was highly worn, and mice had chewed up many of the pages. This was a library book and had been checked out but clearly never returned. I brought the book home with me, and for years I would notice it sitting on the shelf in the garage where I keep my backpacking supplies. For some reason, I started feeling guilty about holding onto this book. So one day, because the thoughts about this book kept taking up headspace, I decided to mail the book to the library that originally had it in their circulation over 30 years ago. I left a little note about where the book was found. It was several hundred miles away, and clearly the book would never be reintroduced into their collection. However, I thought whatever librarian would receive the package would have a little laugh at my note. I never got a response. Anyway, the mental energy regarding the book went away after that. I have never thought about it again until I watched this video. The fact that I would feel guilty about this probably says a lot about me as a person, but one thing that did teach me was this: If you are feeling guilty about something, the best thing you can do is take action on it immediately. Fix the problem, seek restitution, apologize to whomever you offended. Harboring guilt is never good for the soul, this much I do know. Sometimes restitution is impossible, so instead, find another outlet to seek forgiveness either from the person or from someone else. I suppose this is the key advantage of having faith in a divine being: at least you have someone to apologize to when all other sources fail. I have one recurring cringe moment that comes up all the time. My freshman year of high school was a tumultuous time for me, as it is for many. I was going through a lot, because of my circumstances but also because I was just an awkward nerd without a single ounce of cool. One day in Geometry class, this girl did something or said something to me that I did not like. I lashed out at her and called her a dork. That was a popular word during the 80s; it was something you could say that was mean but not get in trouble for using. Anyway, the girl looked devastated. She turned her head, and I could tell that she was crying. I never saw her again after that day. I do not know what happened to her or where she went. However, this is an unresolved guilt thing for me. Even though I have forgiven myself and asked for forgiveness a thousand times, this moment always comes back to me. It was the first time that I had ever said something harsh to another soul (other than my little sister, of course), and I have never forgotten it. I have no idea who this girl was; I do not know her name. She will never read this, but just in case she does, believe me when I say that I am sorry! So, whether it's a small regret or something that really weighs on you, maybe the trick is to just acknowledge it, do what you can to set things right, and then, if you can, find a way to let it go. It's not about forgetting or pretending it didn't happen, but more about not letting it define your path forward. After all, the journey's a lot more open and interesting when you're not lugging around a bunch of unnecessary baggage.

    Day 324 - Guilt Requires Action
  3. -2 j

    Day 323 - The Great Flattening

    There are many voices right now crying about how AI is destroying the written word. Replacing humans is a mistake for many reasons, all of which are predicting doomsday scenarios. This may or may not be true, but the evidence that I see is contrary to these predictions. What is actually happening is a significant magnification of expression, almost to an exponential scale. That seems to be the largest identifiable trend. We were already climbing rapidly in unstructured content, and now that is nearly off the charts. Are the doomsday scenarios of all creativity and human ingenuity going to disappear because of this? There is no clear evidence of that happening. The prediction that AI would train on AI-written works and thus create this horrible spiraling content nullification has yet to be demonstrated as any real threat, as this seems to be mitigated by being more careful with curation of training content. Time will tell, I suppose. However, there is evidence of one thing that is absolutely happening. I think we can call it the great flattening. AI, used properly, will not change a person's ideas that much. If people use it carelessly, then it will inject concepts and ideas that are highly common, predictable, and repeatable. Most people that use AI on a regular basis have learned to prompt around that phenomenon, but there is one thing that is difficult to avoid: flattening. A recent study in Nature Human Behaviour (DOI: 10.1038/s41562-026-02549-7) suggests that the widespread use of AI writing assistants, particularly since the advent of tools like ChatGPT, is leading to a concerning "voice flattening" in personal identity. This research, which analyzed over 880,000 texts, found that while AI-assisted rewriting maintains the original meaning, it significantly reduces linguistic diversity. The implication is profound: if our words become generic, our thinking may follow suit, and the unique traits we project through our writing may be biased by AI's influence, blurring the very essence of our personal identity. That is the real present danger in my opinion. Your words, although technically correct and your ideas unique and creative, your voice becomes lost. This is hard to grapple with because heavy AI use makes you realize that your grammar, sentence structure, and the way you represent topics may not be as good as they could be. So your temptation is to lean on AI heavily, but be wary, because as you do so you are indeed removing the soul from the work. I have been building a writing application for the last year. Slowly, bit by bit, I have been working on how to create a system that improves the speed and efficacy of expression. The one thing I have been careful about is replacing the act of writing itself. Mostly because I believe strongly in the therapeutic effects of writing, but now I am even more convinced that my voice, my personality, my expression, the way I relate experience is valuable in and of itself. So as you start to use AI more in your life, you may want to consider the impact it has on who you are and how you express yourself. As with all things, if you are prescriptive and deliberate, you will find these tools powerful but constrained. If you go about this mindlessly and with no consideration of the impact, you may indeed find yourself sounding like a robot and one that has no soul. Humans are really good detectors of this, even better than a machine is. The famous Turing test has been beaten by many of the modern AI models. They are able to successfully "fool" people into thinking they are human. That is all well and good until we all start sounding like the same human, and that is not an attractive proposition. So my recommendation? Use AI, but be deliberate and be sure to maintain your voice. We love you because of your uniqueness; please keep that intact above all else.

    Day 323 - The Great Flattening
  4. -3 j

    Day 322 - Change Your Bubble

    I was sitting around a conference table of people that I had just recently met. We were engaging in a business project. Those people were in business together, married, or friends for a long time. They were very much all locked into the same bubble. You could tell by how the conversations started, "Did you see that article about..." or "Wow, I cannot believe that so and so said that, what is this world coming to?" What was interesting is that I did not know what they were talking about. We were clearly not in the same bubble. What people probably need to understand is that all social media platforms and advertising systems are built entirely around audience preferences. You are absolutely sending signals out that you are interested in a particular topic. This is not advertisers pinpointing you, although that does happen, it is more your propensity for interest based on what you have been engaging in. You will hear all the social media influencers call this "the algorithm," which is a funny way to refer to a complex weave of thousands of applications all working toward the same objective: matching your intent with what their advertisers want to sell. One exercise that I would like to challenge you to is to deliberately change what signals you are feeding to these challenges. Several years ago I got so sick of political fundraising phone calls that I decided to dive into and figure out how they were finding me. It was not hard; I realized how exposed I was to these advertisers. I decided to register with a different party, donate to new campaigns, and start deliberately watching new news sources. It was painful. My previous bubble trained me to think one way, and this new bubble I was entering felt completely foreign. Now I have the unfortunate reality of being nearly equal with my feet in both bubbles. Did the fundraising calls stop? Nope, they doubled. Now I get both Democrat and Republican fundraising calls. Great. So I do not recommend this experiment, although I did learn a lot about how different the messaging is in both worlds. I recommend doing something really obscure. Here is my latest one. I really hate baseball. It is almost like watching paint dry. However, I decided to become an overnight Padres fan. They are trying to pursue a wildcard spot right now, and they just changed ownership, so this could be interesting. I am watching videos on social platforms and responding to comments; I am searching for Padres stuff. I am listening to a podcast, watching a few videos, I am clicking "not interested" in basketball posts, and clicking "like" on baseball posts. I am getting out of the politics bubble and going headfirst into the baseball bubble. I just started last week, and I am documenting my experience. For 30 days, I am going to become a totally immersed Padres fan. Right up until they get blown out of the playoffs, and then my baseball-watching days will probably be over. I am so serious, I bought an MLB subscription today so I can watch and listen to games. Luckily, I have AI that can teach me what the rules are; it has been a while. I am going to answer this question: what will my feeds look like if I become an entirely different person (at least from the perception of the advertisers)? Will the world change? Will my perception of the world change? Will I forget about Iran, Trump, the Budget Deficit, the Deterioration of Race Relations, and every other favorite topic in the political world? My working thesis is that we are heavily influenced by whatever bubble we find ourselves in, so I am going to deliberately change mine and see what happens.

    Day 322 - Change Your Bubble
  5. -4 j

    Day 321 - No Drilling Through Bulkheads

    We are all going to be software developers in the next fifteen years. I know that is hard to believe, but I think that is where we are headed. Not because everyone will suddenly learn Python or spend their days building applications, but because more and more of our work will involve humans directing and guiding systems to produce the results we want. In that sense, we will all be doing systems development, whether we call it that or not. As that happens, I think we are going to have to relearn some very old principles. One of the most important is something I have started calling the Watertight Ship Principle. A large ship is one vessel, but inside that vessel are compartments separated by bulkheads. Those walls exist for a reason. If water gets into one compartment, you want it contained there rather than spreading throughout the entire ship. Each compartment has a purpose, and the integrity of the ship depends on respecting those boundaries. I have learned this lesson in places far removed from software. Take laundry. I hate laundry, but over the years I have developed a system that makes it tolerable. Dirty clothes get deposited into five different baskets, and each basket has a purpose. One of those baskets is dedicated entirely to socks. Its whole job is to manage socks. Socks go in there, they get washed together, and I have a place to keep track of them throughout the process. This dramatically reduces the mysterious disappearance of socks that seems to plague every household. The system only works, however, if I respect the boundary. I cannot let workout shorts into the sock basket because it happens to be convenient, and I cannot throw a shirt in there because I am standing nearby. The moment I start making exceptions, the system begins to break down. Socks start migrating and eventually socks disappear. The compartment is no longer watertight. The same thing is true with corporate finances. I have a card dedicated to business expenses, and the rule has to be absolute: personal expenses do not go on that card. It cannot be "most of the time," or "unless I am in a hurry," or "this purchase is small and I will remember to fix it later." The moment I start making exceptions, I create work downstream. Now someone has to categorize the transaction, reconcile it, explain it, correct it, and remember what happened months later. A clean system becomes messy because I drilled a tiny hole through the bulkhead. This is becoming even more important in the age of AI because AI makes shortcuts incredibly attractive. You are building something, automating a process, or creating a new system and suddenly realize you can save twenty minutes by connecting two things directly. You can bypass a step, let one system reach into another, or make a little exception that seems harmless at the time. AI will happily help you do it, and because it can build so quickly, you may not even feel the cost at first. The problem is that systems have memories, even when we do not. The shortcut remains, the exception becomes precedent, and the temporary connection slowly turns into permanent infrastructure. Eventually you have no idea why anything works the way it does. I received a very literal reminder of this the other day when we suddenly had ants in the house. I became curious about how they were getting inside and started tracing their path until I eventually found the entrance. I had created it. Months earlier, I had been working on some project and needed to run a cable. Rather than finding the proper route, I took the easy way out and drilled a hole. Eventually the project was abandoned and the cable disappeared, but the hole remained. Apparently the ants were more than happy to make use of the infrastructure I had left behind. Without realizing it, I had built them a tiny highway directly into my bathroom. That struck me as a pretty good lesson about systems. Every time we punch a hole through a boundary because it makes today's task easier, we create a path. Something else may eventually discover that path. Data begins flowing through it, dependencies develop around it, and people start relying on it. Long after we have forgotten why we created it, the hole can still be there. The modern warrior is going to live inside increasingly complicated systems. AI will allow us to build those systems faster than anyone in history could have imagined, which means discipline becomes more important, not less. A tight ship runs like a tight ship because the engine room stays clean, the compartments have purposes, and the boundaries are respected. Water, debris, clutter, and convenience are not allowed to slowly compromise the vessel. Whether you are building software, managing finances, organizing laundry, running a company, or simply trying to keep ants out of your bathroom, the principle is the same. Build your compartments, respect their purpose, and no matter how tempting the shortcut appears, remember the rule: No drilling through bulkheads.

    Day 321 - No Drilling Through Bulkheads
  6. -5 j

    Day 320 - Beware, Modern Traveler

    Be wary, modern traveler. One of the oldest habits of the human mind is also one of the easiest to miss. When confronted with ambiguity, complexity, or something we cannot fully explain, we give it a name. The name helps because it takes something shapeless and puts a boundary around it. It gives us something we can talk about, warn others about, blame, and sometimes even treat. The danger comes later, when we forget that the name was originally just a model. For centuries, people reported waking in the night unable to move. Some felt pressure on their chest. Others sensed someone standing in the room. Some saw a figure approaching the bed or believed that something was physically holding them down. Different cultures developed different explanations for these experiences, and in parts of medieval Europe one of those explanations was the incubus, a demon believed to visit people while they slept. Today we have a different name: sleep paralysis. Our modern understanding is unquestionably better. We know that REM sleep involves temporary muscle paralysis and that consciousness can sometimes return before that paralysis has completely released. We understand something about the neurological machinery involved. Yet there is still something important to notice. The people who spoke of the incubus were not necessarily inventing the experience. They were describing something human beings continue to experience today. What changed most dramatically was the explanation. That should make us humble. There seems to be a recurring pattern in the way humans deal with the unknown. We observe something we cannot explain, recognize a pattern, give it a label, build an explanatory story around it, and eventually accept that story so thoroughly that the label begins to feel like reality itself. The ancient person might say, “An incubus attacked him.” Another generation might say, “It must have been God’s will.” The modern person has a different vocabulary. “She’s bipolar.” “He’s autistic.” “That’s trauma.” “It’s systemic.” “The algorithm did it.” “That’s misinformation.” “The science says.” These statements are certainly not equivalent. Some describe phenomena supported by enormous bodies of evidence, and modern science can tell us far more about human behavior and physiology than our ancestors could have imagined. But that is not really the point. The point is that the human mind can use all of these labels in the same psychological way, as a means of turning uncertainty into apparent understanding. We hear the word and experience the relief of recognition. “Oh, that’s what it is.” But sometimes what we really mean is, “Oh, that’s what we call it.” Those are not the same thing. Once a label becomes widely accepted, another problem appears. We begin interpreting new observations through it. A person has dramatic mood changes, so every future emotional reaction is interpreted through a diagnosis. A child behaves differently from other children, so every unusual habit becomes evidence of a category already assigned. A company unexpectedly becomes popular, and we say, “the algorithm.” A political event surprises us, and we reach for whichever ideological explanation our group already prefers. Eventually the category begins absorbing everything around it. The label that was created to describe the observations starts being offered as the cause of the observations. Why does he behave that way? Because he has X. How do we know he has X? Because he behaves that way. We have gone in a circle. Philosophers call part of this process reification. We create an abstraction or category and gradually begin treating it as though it were a concrete thing. The map starts replacing the territory. I think this reveals something uncomfortable about us: human beings have always manufactured certainty faster than they manufacture understanding. Our ancestors populated the unknown with spirits, gods, humors, curses, and demons. We populate it with diagnoses, models, statistics, ideologies, systems, algorithms, and technical terminology. That does not make modern categories worthless. Science has given us something profoundly different from mythology: a method for testing our explanations against reality. We can measure things, make predictions, run experiments, reject hypotheses, and change our minds. That is an extraordinary achievement. But science is still practiced by human beings, and human beings remain susceptible to the same ancient temptation. We like certainty, particularly explanations that make further questioning feel unnecessary. Sometimes “the science says” means there is overwhelming evidence supporting a conclusion. Other times it is used to mean that the proper authorities have named the thing and further curiosity is no longer welcome. The latter is not science. It is our ancient desire for certainty wearing modern clothing. None of this is an argument against labels. We need them. Medicine, science, and ordinary communication would be nearly impossible without categories. The lesson is simply to treat the label as a tool rather than a verdict. When someone gives something a name, ask what that name actually tells you. Does it describe a pattern, or explain the mechanism? Does it make predictions? Can it be tested? What evidence would prove it wrong? Most importantly, what do we still not understand? There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t know.” Those may be three of the most productive words in human history, because they leave the door open to curiosity. So be wary, modern traveler. Use names, categories, diagnoses, models, and science, but do not surrender your curiosity to any of them. A word can represent reality without fully explaining it. Our ancestors populated the gaps in their understanding with demons. We should be careful about what we populate ours with.

    Day 320 - Beware, Modern Traveler
  7. -6 j

    Day 319 - Autonomous is Constrained

    Tyler. That is the name of my autonomous agent. I named him Tyler, based on the alter ego in the movie Fight Club. Seemed somehow appropriate. Tyler started out simple enough. I wanted to experiment with using some of the new agent systems out there to build one that could handle tasks for me that I did not want to do. Research a topic while I was sleeping, outline my meeting notes in preparation for discussions in my schedule, read my email and automatically take care of things, pay my bills, alert me when I am missing something important. The list grew. I fell into the trap of believing some of the voices on the internet talking about how awesome an agent could be for you. However, as Tyler grew, the more I realized I was essentially training a two-year-old to do complex tasks. To get the results that I wanted, I had to build systems around Tyler to keep him in check. He would sometimes go out of bounds and other times not go out of bounds enough. After a while, Tyler started costing more than hiring a person to just be Tyler. I seriously started thinking about hiring someone, and their job title would be "Tyler." Fake like you are an autonomous bot, just so I could look like the cool kids who have an autonomous bot. I set out to really solve this problem, and what I ultimately concluded is that as much as the Holy Grail is a fully autonomous agent, the actual answer is a discrete, mostly deterministic series of smaller bots that each do one function well. I came up with a new working definition for autonomy: Autonomy is not freedom to do anything. Autonomy is freedom to decide how to achieve an outcome within a defined operating envelope. So I thought I wanted Tyler to do anything I wanted. That goal was complete folly. What I really want is for Tyler to have bounded autonomy. In fact, this would not be all Tyler. Just like the human brain, Tyler is now comprised of several subsystems that report to Tyler, rather than Tyler trying to be in control of them all. Instead of remembering to breathe all the time, my brain can be happy typing this blog without worrying that the body will die due to lack of attention. Same with Tyler. To put this another way, I would not hire a new entry-level employee and say, "Do exactly these 47 steps; make no mistakes." I also would not tell that same employee, "You have unlimited authority to do what you want; do not come back until you are done." The reality is that you would give the new employee a small scope, a boundary such as a budget, and guidelines over what they could change and could not change. You would then have them report in frequently with progress. The same, I am afraid, is true of Tyler. Ambiguous authority does not work. The only way an agent, or even an employee for that matter, can truly be autonomous and do a good job. In a phrase, you are not hiring an employee or building an agent as much as you are assigning responsibilities. When these social media people talk about their swarm of agents doing all their work for them, be highly suspicious. True, you can definitely build an army of agents. I could also hire a bunch of people. The agents might be cheaper, but the result would be the same: chaos. Everyone getting stuck because they do not know what to do. The responsibility, defined carefully, is what has to happen first. Build an agent to read your email. Go ahead. You will use it for about two to three days. Then you will stop. Why? Because your email is tied to all your responsibilities and an agent cannot handle those, because you have not defined them in any meaningful way. Hate to break it to you: the magic super-agentic AI harness will still leave you at the same place you started. To be successful, you need a clear mission with defined objectives and identified responsibilities. As for now, Tyler has been relegated to my cheerleader. He sends me an email every morning with happy thoughts, and in the evening, a closing thought. I gave him that one responsibility, and that has been going pretty well for the last few weeks. Joking aside, there is more to it than that, but the point is that you have to start out well defined, narrow in scope, with a clear understanding of the responsibilities being assumed.

    Day 319 - Autonomous is Constrained
  8. 23 août

    Day 318 - Quiet the Inner Monologue

    Years ago, I remember reading about this team that had discovered that homing pigeons were starting to adopt our roadways as navigational guides to find their way back home. This was startling because homing pigeons have a natural instinct that guides them back home, but over time, and in the right circumstances, the pigeons had adapted to using the more reliable method of following human roadways. I found that fascinating for some reason, which is why a recent article from Neuroscience News caught my attention. A group of researchers figured out that if they could temporarily shut down the prefrontal cortex in a mouse, then the mouse would adopt a better path in a maze over the one that the mouse had learned. Meaning, by hindering the active part of the mouse's brain, the mouse was more likely to adopt a new and superior method of achieving the desired result. The group published their paper this year: Kai Lu, Kelvin T. Wong, Chengcheng J. Yang, Lin N. Zhou, Yike T. Shi, Maya L. Costello, and Robert C. Liu, "Neural competition between prefrontal and auditory cortex constrains novel sound strategy learning." This paper, although far from conclusive, does demonstrate that the prefrontal cortex can get in the way of adopting new and improved methods in favor of learned ones. This experiment used female mice and their strong instinct to recover mouse pups when they wander out of the nest. The mice will strongly favor going to the last location that they had found a mouse pup, despite the fact that audible clues, the sound of the pup, might be coming from another direction. They discovered that it takes four to eight days for the female mice to adapt to the auditory signal rather than relying on what their brain is telling them the most logical place is supposed to be. Effectively, the strong impulse is to follow the instinct of going to the last place that a pup was found. Eventually, the mice learn the new method, follow the audible signal, and find the lost mouse pup. What the scientists did was use a chemical compound to silence the receptors for the prefrontal cortex, which effectively caused the mice to be more receptive to alternatives. In the case of the mice that had this chemical silencing implemented, they are significantly faster at changing their path to follow the audible signal instead. Although we are talking basic lab mice here, the implication here is incredible. What if our active part of our brain is deceiving us into following an instinct that is just not correct? How long will we follow what we think is right before we finally accept that a new path is actually superior? The better path is often already available, but our default machinery keeps us running the familiar play. The discipline of change is partly about overriding the very system that feels like it is in charge. So perhaps all those New Age hippies that talk about using meditation as a method to quiet the active mind were right this whole time! Sometimes we do need to quiet this part of our mind in order to truly think outside of the box. This is not easy to do because we all have the bias to believe that our active brain is always correct, because our instinct for survival typically depends on it. However, we are usually NOT in a life-or-death situation, so learning to quiet this part of our mind and look at alternatives is definitely a worthy consideration. So, next time you're feeling stuck or like you're hitting a wall, maybe take a moment to just... chill. Let your mind wander a bit, or even just try to consciously dial down that inner monologue. You might be surprised at what fresh ideas or clearer paths emerge when you give your usual thought patterns a little break. It's not about shutting down completely, but more about creating some space for something new to click into place.

    Day 318 - Quiet the Inner Monologue

À propos

The 365 Commitment Podcast focuses on helping people make and keep life changing commitments.