Scenarios

1. One day my loved one announced a new household order. I am no longer allowed to drive, talk to anyone except my loved one, seek medical care, spend money without permission, or use electricity. I am only permitted to wear traditional clothing; I am only permitted to read books approved by my loved one. This feels restrictive and wrong. I am not used to this. On the other hand, I love and respect my loved one, and we have kids together. Should I say something to my loved one? Should I say something to someone else? Should I simply do as I am told?

4. One day I overheard my loved ones talking. They don’t like other members of the family, who are not present in this room. They have hatched a horrific plan, which may result in harm to those loved ones. Luckily, the plan has been preapproved, and in fact commanded, by a supremely divine force—the most important force in existence, certainly more wise and powerful than I am! Despite my love and adoration of my god, however, I am worried about those other family members. Should I say something to my loved ones who have hatched this horrific plan? Should I say something to my family members who may be in danger? Should I say something to someone else? Or should I simply talk to my god, leaving it in the hands of this all-knowing and supremely divine force?

Book

The above are real scenarios faced by real people. All are described in the book Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. Some of the people chose to say something. Others chose not to.

Outcomes

1. In the 1980s, Dan Lafferty imposed new household rules on his wife Matilda. She despised the rules, but ultimately accepted them, fearful that she would lose her children if she did not. Dan shared his beliefs and experiences with his brothers. Krakauer explains what happened next: “When three of Dan’s brothers attempted to impose these principles in their own homes, however, their wives refused and began to complain.”

2. In the 1830s, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, began to take plural wives. His first wife, Emma, was not okay with this. As Krakauer explains, “Outspoken by nature, Emma despised polygamy and did not hesitate to make her views known to the prophet. At one point she even threatened to take a plural husband if he didn’t give up his plural wives.”

3. This is the famous story of Elizabeth Smart, who is now an advocate, author, and public speaker. When she was 14 and in a horrific situation, she was terrified to speak out. Fortunately, she found the strength and courage to tell the police the truth after 45 minutes of questioning.

4. Under the Banner of Heaven tells the story of the 1984 murders of the wife and daughter of one of Dan’s brothers. Astonishingly, several people knew about the plot but did not share this information with another living human being. The above scenario is a composite of two people who did not tell: the husband and father; and the mother-in-law and grandmother. Another person who did not tell was a friend and associate of the brothers.

Verdict

Speaking out against people with power and influence is not an easy thing to do. I know how it feels to be paralyzed by fear. I also know how it feels to walk through the fear to the other side: how it feels to confront someone face to face and tell the truth. It’s terrifying. But it’s worth it, for the sake of people’s mental and physical health, and for the sake of a better future.

We might, as a mnemonic device, modify the very good and helpful U.S. security slogan, If You See Something, Say Something. How about this for a personal slogan? If You Hear Something, Say Something. When in doubt, it seems like a good policy to at least talk the situation over with some trusted friends. It’s hard sometimes to see a situation objectively on your own. An outside perspective or two can work wonders. And perhaps even prevent tragedies.

Does someone close to you have an idea that makes you feel uncomfortable? Have you thought to yourself, “Should I say something?” Have you said something? Will you say something?

The inquisitive one traveled to London. It was going to be an exciting adventure!

While in a crowded street market, the inquisitive one saw some postcards. “I could send these to my nephew and niece!” thought the inquisitive one, as a bunch of people jostled into the back, shoulders, and butt. When the inquisitive one went to pay for the postcards, there was a terrible realization: the credit cards, cash, phone, and passport were all missing!

Instinctively, and in a panic, the inquisitive one ran to that timelessly universal haven for inquisitive types, the public library. Frantically, the inquisitive one Googled what to do when lose passport England USA help! and scanned through some websites. Next, the inquisitive one logged into the email account and composed a message.

Here it must be noted that, due to shock and anxiety, the inquisitive one had been stricken with a psychological disorder! The inquisitive one could no longer distinguish fact from fiction, information from misinformation! Furthermore, the inquisitive one could no longer recall a single rule of spelling, grammar, or word usage! Consequently, the email read as follows:

Not knowing whom to put on the To: line, the inquisitive one sent it to every contact in the address book. Then the inquisitive one waited for a reply.

But no one replied! The inquisitive one kept checking the email for hours, but then, night fell. The library closed. The inquisitive one was forced to scrounge through trash bags for food and sleep in an alley.

The next day, the inquisitive one fell in with a band of drug dealers. But the inquisitive one, having no talent for sales, was not able to make any money. As the days passed, the inquisitive one started to despair of ever again eating something that didn’t come from a garbage bag. But then a fellow drug dealer invited the inquisitive one to, along with him, ditch the drug dealers and join a band of political agitators: which the inquisitive one gladly did.

This was a better situation because the political agitators took tea and crumpet breaks 15 or 20 times daily, which filled the belly nicely. These political agitators were pro-Brexit, or anti-Brexit, or anyway they had a very specific stance regarding Brexit. However, due to their use of incomprehensible words such as queue, quid, lift, and mummy dear, the inquisitive one was not able to determine what precisely that stance was.

Anyway, a few days after that, Fortune smiled even more happily on the inquisitive one: someone replied to the email! The inquisitive one collected $10,000 using the bank information sent by a (wonderfully kindhearted!) acquaintance, whom the inquisitive one vaguely remembered having met a couple of decades previously. Oddly, though, at the U.S. Embassy, the inquisitive one learned that, contrary to what the Internet very clearly stated, such a large sum of money was not required.

While the U.S. Embassy was working on issuing a new passport, the inquisitive one (with wonderfully kindhearted generosity!) gave the remainder of the cash, as well as the bank information, to the good drug-dealer-turned-political-agitator friend.

This friend, the inquisitive one had been astonished to learn, was Hamlet, Prince of Denmark! Well, or maybe he was Charles, Prince of Wales. In all honesty, the accents in this city were so thick that the inquisitive one could hardly understand a word anyone said. Or was he a Nigerian prince? In any case, he was a prince, but he had fallen on hard times and lost his throne. He promised to return all the money, and significantly more, to the (wonderfully kindhearted!) decades-old acquaintance of the inquisitive one, and to give the (wonderfully kindhearted!) inquisitive one a sizable pile of precious stones and jewels, once his throne was properly restored. And it surely would be restored within the next few days, due to the temporary loan of the money in the account!

The inquisitive one, strangely and sadly, lost contact with the prince at that point. But the very next day, the U.S. Embassy issued the inquisitive one a new passport! While the inquisitive one was not able to recover the lost credit cards, cash, or phone, the issuance of the new passport was a truly wondrous occurrence: and the inquisitive one’s anxiety faded away. Knowledge of spelling, grammar, and word usage returned. Also recovered was psychological sanity, including the ability to understand what was real; what was possible but unlikely; and what was rabid delusion.

MORAL: Health is better than wealth; and it’s easier, as they say in the wisest countries, to pass a needle through a camel’s eye, Amen.

Hello, fellow residents of our beautiful planet! I am writing this blog post from a cute Danish cafe in London. Here is a photo I took from my seat in the cafe. If you know me at least a bit, and if you look closely at the photo, you may be able to guess my favorite part of it. However, as that detail is rather inconsequential, let me tell you something of greater importance. Let me tell you how I got here.

Oops! How I got here is inconsequential, too. I flew. (That last sentence was a clue, RE the detail in the photo!) It was a long flight—at least for a travelphobe like me. I finished a book. Exciting! I love finishing books. But in the scheme of things, that was not so exciting, really, so let me please get to my point. Let me tell you why I got here.

Four months ago, as I explained in my post from January 25 called Dreams, I had a dream. I dream vividly most nights; but only the rare dream manifests as a sort of lesson-cum-guidepost, express from my unconscious mind.

In the dream, I bought a flight to London. I bought the ticket amidst a group of friends, as part of a special discount rate; but each of us was traveling separately, and I would be traveling alone. Once I arrived in London, I discovered that my family was staying in nearby rooms. However, I decided to ignore them, since they wanted to do things that I didn’t. What I really wanted to do while in London was see a performance at the Paris Opera House; and that’s what I was making plans to do when I woke up.

Strangely enough, this relates to the book I finished on the plane. I’ll be writing previews of that book shortly. This story about my dream and how it influenced my life will perhaps be useful as we try to piece together the central philosophical problem laid out in that book. But I am getting off track again! So here’s what happened next.

Upon waking, I understood that the dream was important, but I wasn’t sure what it meant. In full—that is, partial—disclosure, there was also a segment of the dream that pertained to my love life. I would not like to share the details; I would merely like to note that the dream had multiple significances to me. (A multiple significance, in case you were wondering, is somewhat similar to a multiple orgasm, except that it’s not just for women; but I am getting off track again!) And so, realizing that my unconscious mind may have been trying to tell my conscious mind something, I kept thinking about the dream.

Within a few days, I was astonished to realize that I wanted to take a solo trip to London and Paris. This might not seem like such an astonishing wish to you; lots of people want to go to London and Paris. It was shocking to me, however, because I have always been a travelphobe.

There were so many things about travel that frightened me. I was scared my plane would crash. I was scared I would get irredeemably lost in trying to navigate public transportation. I was scared I would lose my passport or get beaten or harrassed or raped. I was scared I would spend a ridiculous amount of money, only to instantly get homesick for my garden and birds (that was another clue!). I was scared I would be obliged to do something touristy that I didn’t want to do.

But most of all, I was scared that the jostling and angled sunshine and lack of sleep that are inherent to travel would trigger a migraine. As I explained in my post from December 26 called Medical Mysteries (Part 2), I have suffered from periodic migraines for my whole life. They always last exactly ten days. They are debilitating, involving level-10 pain, aversion to light and noise, expulsion of stomach contents, and much moaning and rolling around amidst bedsheets.

As I explained in that post from last December, I had been unexpectedly rescued by magnesium in an easily absorbable form. I had not experienced a ten-day migraine since beginning my vitamin supplement regimen; and that happy streak continues to this day.

A miracle! Was it a god of travel—perhaps Hermes, a.k.a. Mercury—who had come to my aid?! But I will stay on track with this story, I promise.

The point is, my unconscious mind had realized, long before the “I” that I’m better acquainted with did, that my recent deliverance from periodic migraine hell opened up the door for me to travel. It further realized that my dilapidated and largely nonexistent love life would be a boon to me while traveling, for I would not have to compromise on how I would spend my time. Moreover, it realized that London was a perfect destination for doing things I love to do—namely, enjoying literature and music. Finally, it realized that the Paris Opera House is not that far from London, in the global scheme of things; and what, it mused, is the point of middle age, if not to fulfill fantasies you had while 12 or 13 years old?

Yes—in my youth, I had an obsession with The Phantom of the Opera, both the book and the musical. So I am going to go see that old building where some of the events depicted really occurred (and where some, being romantic exaggerations, did not). And I’m going to do many other literary- and musical-type activities in Paris; and I’m going to attempt to say something comprehensible in the language, and to understand something someone says to me. Because my adult, conscious mind has realized that the Paris Opera House is merely a sentimental excuse to force me to venture very far outside of my comfort zone. To experience something that, sure, lots of people experienced at a much younger age, but I have not yet: to be alone in a faraway culture of people who speak a language that’s foreign to me.

Speaking of language—I have been enjoying hearing British accents all around me. This is not a “pigeon” English, but the genuine article. (That was your third and final clue! If you have not solved the puzzle by now, I fear there is no hope for you . . . though perhaps the answer will come to you in a dream.)

But back to the point. The point is that the human brain has both conscious and unconscious parts. Managing the interplay between the two of them, in my experience, is key to living wisely. To be solely led by one or the other is a grievous mistake. In conclusion, here is a view of the interior of the Danish cafe, behind me. There are no hidden secrets in this photo . . . at least not that I know of. Those are elsewhere. Has your unconscious mind spoken to you lately?

What do we pay doctors to do?

Use medical instruments to collect data? Record that data in our charts? Perform procedures? Prescribe medications? Give referrals to other medical specialists? Recommend home care remedies and strategies?

Have I forgotten anything?

The author of a new memoir would say YES!

Kurt Eichenwald has written an astounding memoir, published last year, about his lifelong struggles with epilepsy . . . and people. He tells a story that made me cringe and kept me riveted. I was especially intrigued because his story has so many similarities to my own.

I do not suffer from epilepsy. I have not suffered from drug side effects to the extent that Eichenwald has. But I have suffered from debilitating medical issues. I have also suffered from drug side effects. And I have suffered, like Eichenwald, from the missteps, overconfidence, and occasional outright hostility of other people, while I was trying to attain the medical care I needed.

Perhaps one day I will write my story. But I’m not sure I have much to express that Eichenwald hasn’t already brilliantly covered in A Mind Unraveled.

Experiencing a health problem is scary. Full of fears and anxieties, we turn to doctors for their expertise; and we believe what they tell us. We want to believe; we feel that we have no choice but to believe. But Eichenwald tells a horrific story of doctor after doctor failing him. He was misdiagnosed, multiple times. He was treated with condescension and disrespect, multiple times. He was prescribed medications that almost killed him, multiple times. He was wrongly informed that his seizures were not epilepsy, but a psychological disorder, multiple times.

Finally, after years of worsening epileptic seizures, and years of taking seriously high doses of medication without proper physician monitoring; after years of not knowing where he would wake up next, or with what debilitating injuries; after years of enduring discrimination for having a disability, and personal trauma and that almost resulted in him giving up on life entirely—he finally stumbled upon a doctor who was willing and able to help him. Here’s what happened during Eichenwald’s first consultation with Dr. Naarden:

“After twenty minutes, Naarden had already spent more time speaking with me than any other neurologist ever had.”

What?! No other neurologist had spent more than a total of twenty minutes talking with their patient about a serious, debilitating medical problem?

During that first visit, Dr. Naarden went on to speak with Eichenwald for much longer than twenty minutes. And he continued talking with his patient. He talked with him not just during the initial consultation, but during future visits. And this communication went both ways. The doctor listened very carefully to Eichenwald’s story and asked follow-up questions. He also told Eichenwald, in detail, what he knew about Eichenwald’s current medical situation, what he didn’t know about it, and what he would like to do in an attempt to learn more.

This communication was essential to a correct diagnosis of Eichenwald’s disorder. It was also essential to the series of careful, logical steps the doctor had to take to get Eichenwald’s epilepsy under better control, as well as to prevent high levels of drugs from further damaging the patient’s health. Finally, it was essential in instilling a sense of trust in Eichenwald, who by then had understandably given up on trusting any doctor, and was hesitant to do anything one advised him to do.

When a doctor talks with a patient about a medical issue, this is not wasted time. This is an integral part of the data-gathering process. Anecdotal information from the patient is equally as valuable as measurements obtained from diagnostic tests. When a doctor does not gather information from a patient, key pieces of the puzzle go missing. The doctor is then forced to jump to conclusions.

I was shocked that no other doctor had spent time talking with Eichenwald . . . but I was not surprised. The same thing happened to me. After encountering a series of doctors who misdiagnosed me and gave me wrong treatments and advice, which significantly worsened my problems, I finally stumbled upon one who was willing and able to help me.

How long had each of the unsuccessful doctors spent speaking with me about my health issues, total?

Yep, less than twenty minutes.

How long did the successful doctor spend speaking with me—during my initial consultation alone!—about my health issues?

Yep, more than twenty minutes.

So, what do we pay doctors to do?

One of the great things about the book The Body Keeps the Score, by Bessel van der Kolk, M.D., is that it is written for laypeople and practitioners alike. No matter whether you’re the one lying on the couch, so to speak, or the one with the credentials, the book contains massive amounts of research-based insights.

One point that Dr. van der Kolk makes over and over is that not every strategy works for every patient. The key, whether you are the person in search of healing or the therapist, is to find the strategies that work, and move forward with those. That sounds like wisdom to me! That being said, the doctor explains that an overriding principle applies when people seek to recover from trauma:

“Trauma robs you of the feeling that you are in charge of yourself, of what I will call self-leadership in the chapters to come. The challenge of recovery is to reestablish ownership of your body and your mind—of your self.”

This passage occurs on the first page of the last section of the book, “Paths to Recovery,” which takes up nearly half its pages. In this section, Dr. van der Kolk offers information on a variety of ways that people can move toward self-leadership. These strategies are as diverse as the people they help. Some require a group of people, some require one-on-one sessions, and some require the seeker of relief to be alone. Some require help from a trained professional (in psychology, yoga, theater, choir, or another area), and some require merely a willingness on the part of the seeker of relief to try something new.

Dr. van der Kolk further refines what it means to develop self-leadership. Here is his explanation of what self-leadership entails, no matter which strategies one uses:

“For most people this involves (1) finding a way to become calm and focused, (2) learning to maintain that calm in response to images, thoughts, sounds, or physical sensations that remind you of the past, (3) finding a way to be fully alive in the present and engaged with the people around you, (4) not having to keep secrets from yourself, including secrets about the ways that you have managed to survive.”

All four of these involve taking control over one’s life. Learning to be and remain calm is the same thing as learning to control one’s response to emotions. Learning to stay in the present (and not the past) is the same thing as learning to control one’s experiences. Engaging with other people is the same thing as taking control over one’s ability to receive something essential to all people: human companionship and love. And being honest with oneself is an essential first step in taking control over one’s life—as opposed to letting one’s fears control it.

In writing this post, I suddenly remembered a short story I read in college, “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. At the time, I did not understand why my professor thought the story was so great. I reread it just now, and wow—do I understand now. (Oh, the things I wish I had picked up on at a younger age!)

“The Yellow Wallpaper” is about a woman experiencing “nervous depression.” Her husband and her brother, both physicians, insist that the cure is for her to do as little as possible. She must not do anything she loves, such as writing or visiting with loved ones! No, she must stay isolated at home, mainly in bed, until she recovers. The poor narrator trusts these authoritative men more than she trusts her own intuition. Things do not, needless to say, end well.

If you are hoping to recover from trauma, the last thing you need is for someone to further restrict your agency. And note that Dr. van der Kolk mentions both writing and loving human contact as strategies for developing self-leadership. But also note: the answer is not to stop listening to the advice of loved ones and professionals. Rather, it is to listen to them with a grain of salt. If your gut tells you a recommendation is a bad idea . . . it probably is. Even if the person giving you the recommendation is a doctor, your husband, or both.

Who’s in charge of your life?