October 7 2015. In the U.S. a chemical is considered harmless until proved harmful. In Europe, it is the other way round. Which system kills more of us?

TOXIC CHEMICALS—THESE THINGS WE PUT ON OUR FOOD, DRINK, BATHE IN—AND BREATHE

I WROTE ABOUT THEM A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO—AND GOT IT WRONG! BAD THOUGH I THOUGHT THEY WERE, THE REALITY WOULD APPEAR TO BE MUCH  WORSE. THINK A HOLOCAUST A YEAR (MORE OR LESS).

Add in incalculable health problems—and misery on a global scale.

Capitalism has brought us many benefits—but this is the unacceptable face of it.  

That is a serious level of self-inflicted death.

I really don’t know why more people are not more concerned about this stuff. To repeat myself: “The information is out there, if you are prepared to look.”

Most of us clearly are not—yet these things are doing us incalculable harm. In fact, they are killing us on an industrial scale.

We get all excited about terrorists—yet the threat they pose is infinitesimal compared to that posed by the plethora of toxic chemicals our free enterprise system likes to utilize—without doing any serious research into whether they are harmful or not.

Read on and form your own view.

We’re Surrounded by Way More Chemicals Than We Thought, and These Doctors Say We’re Screwed

Mother Jones · by Gabrielle Canon

A team of doctors, researchers, and clinicians from across the globe have teamed up to send a loud message to policymakers: More must be done to protect people from the toxic chemicals that endanger health—and soon.

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), a group representing OB-GYNs from 125 countries, released a report detailing the detrimental health effects caused by even small exposure to common chemicals like the ones found in pesticides, plastics, and air pollution. The health problems are even greater for babies exposed in the womb, who face increased risks of cancer, reduced cognitive function, and even miscarriage or stillbirth.

“We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals,” said lead author Gian Carlo Di Renzo in a statement, “and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern.” 

The organization cited concerns about the sharp increase over the past four decades in chemical manufacturing, which continues to grow by more than 3 percent every year.

Some 30,000 pounds of chemicals were manufactured or imported for every person in the United States in 2012 alone—a whopping 9.5 trillion pounds in total.

Annually, the FIGO authors write, chemical manufacturing leads to 7 million deaths and billions in health care costs.

These numbers, they argue, are likely underestimated, and the problem is getting worse—especially in poor communities that often have higher levels of toxic exposure and in developing countries that bear the brunt of the global industrial emissions.

Dr. Tracey Woodruff, an associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco, says while there are ways individuals can limit their exposure—including building better health practices overall and eating a pesticide-free, healthy diet—more needs to be done to protect everyone. “You can do some things to enhance your resiliency to disease or decrease chemical exposures,” she says, “but there are a lot of things that are not in your control.”

That’s why FIGO released the opinion in advance of its world congress, where more than 7,000 health professionals will meet to discuss women’s health issues, to encourage doctors to play a bigger role in supporting policies that curb exposure. The organization is calling on health professionals and legislators to support policies that prevent exposure and offering recommendations that could help mitigate health risks, including increasing access to healthy food and incorporating environmental health into health care.

“The good news,” Woodruff says, “is we can deal with it, we have dealt with it before, and it will be a positive health and economic benefit to do that.”

Mother Jones · by Gabrielle Canon

---

October 6 2015. Work at something daily for long enough—and skill sort of creeps up on you, and into every fiber of your being. Is that a good thing? Well, I guess it depends what you do. If you are a serial killer…who blogs? I’ll let you work it out.

THERE IS MORE TO LEARNING TO WRITE THAN WRITING

BUT, APART FROM CONDITIONING YOUR MIND (A SEPARATE BLOG) ACTUALLY WRITING IS MOST OF IT—AND, IN MY OPINION, IT IS BEST DONE EVERY DAY (7 days a week).

IT WORKS FOR ME!

Seth Godin is pretty much the eponymous blogger to the point where I’m surprised we don’t yet call it ‘sething’—and we still may.

He has an ability to be brief, yet insightful, which I admire. And he is on the money as far as the following blog of his is concerned.

Blogging every day is no minor commitment—but I regard my decision to do that as one of my wiser ones.

The man is right—yet again—and he positively excels at self –promotion (a necessary task, these days, even if you are an introverted writer).

Look below for a perfect example of Seth Godin’s branding.

SUSDAT

Abbey Ryan has painted a new painting every day for 8 years.

Isaac Asimov published 400 books, by typing every day.

This is post #6000 on this blog.

Writer's block is a myth, a recent invention, a cultural malady.

More important than the output, though, is the act itself. The act of doing it every day. When you commit to a practice, you will certainly have days when you don't feel like it, when you believe it's not your best work, when the muse deserts you. But, when you keep your commitment, the muse returns. When you keep your commitment, the work happens.

It doesn't matter if anyone reads it, buys it, sponsors it or shares it. It matters that you show up.

Show up, sit down and type. (Or paint).

Posted by Seth Godin on September 30, 2015

---

October 4 2015. Statistically, we are due another recession. Based upon what we haven’t done about financial reform, we are also due another recession. But, hell, you are an optimist—so ignore me! In truth, I have no crystal ball—but I called the Great Recession in 2004 for 2008. I was right within months. It will give me some pleasure to be proved wrong (and a different kind of feeling to be proved right).

MOST ECONOMISTS HAVE BEEN DECIDEDLY UPBEAT ABOUT THE U.S ECONOMY THIS YEAR

I JUST CAN’T AGREE. MY CONTENTION IS THAT THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL IS STRUCTURALLY FLAWED—AND THIS SITUATION IS LEADING THE U.S INTO DIFFICULT TIMES.

Let me add than any economy, whose workers are not better off, in real terms, after over 40 years—when costs are rising—is flawed by definition. What has been going on in the U.S.—just that situation—is outrageous.

A recession in 2016 is now a decided possibility.

The above chart shows U.S. manufacturing jobs added by year. The figure for 2015 fails to impress.

It is one of a long list of worrying indicators.

I am reluctant to name a date, but I think we may well be heading into a quite unnecessary recession in 2016.

Why unnecessary? Because there is a great deal that we could have learned from the Great Recession, but haven’t (or have deliberately chosen to ignore). Fundamentally, the Fed has propped up the financial sector—as normal, and to the exclusion of all else, and steered towards business as usual.

What exactly is that—and did it ever exist?

We truly, madly, and deeply need a financial sector—but arguably not one that is operating the way the current one is.

Changing it selectively should not be an impossible task—yet it is not even being attempted, except on the margins.

That just won’t cut it.

Structural problems should not be confused with the business cycle.

Structural problems are like hidden cracks which don’t show up unless you either look closely or the house (or bridge or whatever) collapses (frequently without warning).

The business cycle tends to occur because too many people pile in at the same time and then pull out in a similar manner. The stock market is one example. The housing market is another. Scale up to the economy as a whole, and you have got the picture.

Humans are not lemmings, but we have a disconcerting tendency to behave like lemmings where the economy is concerned. We also have a tendency to think very short-term.

We are ignorant, needy, and greedy.

In a way, that is understandable because life is short—but short is a relative term. It truly doesn’t mean “stupidly short”—as in shortsighted.

I would say more—but I’m trying to keep this a relatively short blog.

But, let me stress “relatively.”

---

October 5 2015. I call myself a writer—but I guess the title I am most proud of is: Storyteller. Love of story—and Elephant Bill. Memories of my much loved grandmother, Helen Evelyn Vida Haslam—who married John Lentaigne (an Anglo-Irishman of French origin). My affection for Europe has deep roots. The Haslams were from Lancashire (Great-grandfather was a textile magnate from Bolton). I have pretty much returned to my roots—and am thrilled! Destiny? Now, there is a complex thought for you.

ON THE INTERNET, ‘CONTENT’ IS SUPPOSED TO BE KING. IN THAT CONTEXT, SHAKESPEARE WROTE ‘CONTENT.’

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS TRULY RICH AND WONDERFUL—BUT SOMETIMES IT GETS HIJACKED BY PEOPLE OF LITTLE TASTE.

Stories have astonishing power, appeal, and durability—to the point where you would have to wonder. After all, the real world is so remarkable in itself—on just about every level—that you might think that reality alone would be enough. Consider the endless wonders of nature, and the fascinating developments in technology, just by themselves. Surely, these should be adequately fulfilling.

Clearly they are not—because we fill our lives with stories at every conceivable opportunity. Some, of course, are true—or as true as we humans can manage (which is decidedly not the same thing) but many—probably most—are not.

Somehow, we crave fiction. It is so often more satisfying than real life, it is free of the friction that characterizes reality—and it is certainly neater. It also distracts, entertains, educates, gives hope, and satisfies deeply.

In fact, when you think about it, it is hard not to ponder the notion that we might be vastly more content if we lived largely escapist lives—and the reality is that many of us do.

As I think about this, I find it hard not to be struck by how vulnerable this human need for  the impossible expectations raised by fiction makes us to manipulation. We seem to need to be lied to. We pay lip service to rational thought and the truth—but we certainly aren’t rational, and we virtually run towards myth, and away from reality, if given a choice.

Still, that’s a heavier subject than I want to deal with today—and the truth is that despite my concerns about the abuses to which stories can be—and are—put, they anchor my life. I love reading them, crafting them, writing them, and—to an extent—living them.

My much loved grandmother, Vida Lentaigne, gave me my initial love of story. She started reading to me at a very early age—and after working through all the classical children’s stories (everything from Rudyard Kipling to Winnie the Pooh) gravitated to a series of books written by Elephant Bill—an extraordinary, but real life character, who had made a significant contribution towards the war effort by harnessing elephants for construction and other purposes in Burma during WW II.

The Elephant Bill books carried a special significance for my grandmother. She had spent virtually her entire short married life there until her husband, my grandfather, John Lentaigne, had succumbed to cholera in the early Twenties. He had been a barrister with the British administration which ran Burma at the time—and my mother had actually been born there.

Not only was I inspired to have a love of elephants—which I rode on many times when a child (a story for another day)—but I was hugely impressed by the Elephant Bill books.

Still, I hadn’t thought about them for years until I learned, just a couple of days ago, that a hugely entertaining biography has recently been written about him. By all accounts, he really was a remarkable man. Good to know he hasn’t been forgotten.

I think of my grandmother—and miss her—every day.

---

October 3 2015. Mars apart. the Earth is all we’ve got to live on—yet we seem hell bent on making it uninhabitable. Destroy it? No, the Earth will survive—and the cockroaches will laugh! They’re a humorous bunch you know.

CREEPY IS PUTTING IT MILDLY! WE REALLY ARE “POISONING PIGEONS IN THE PARK”—AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHINNG ELSE, FOR GOOD MEASURE.

P.S. EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDES US

One of the byproducts of reading extensively—and cultivating a writer’s eye (cultivating your powers of observation with a view to potentially writing about what you see) is that you start noticing patterns. It is why I am strongly biased towards ongoing research of a subject— as opposed to merely carrying out the minimum for a book. 

In truth, I don’t need to research nearly as much as I do if I solely wanted to write commercial books as fast as possible—but I have made ongoing research part of my life in the belief that it will give me insight into the sectors that both interest and concern me. It also satisfies my innate intellectual curiosity—which has, I confess, a voracious appetite—and helps me write—so I like to think—with greater authority.

I want to know everything (an impossible task) but use only a fraction.

Somehow, people seem to sense if you are really comfortable with your subject—even if you include substantially less than you know (because less is more).

Where health is concerned, I don’t pretend to be any kind of an expert, but, as you age, you become increasingly aware that you need to know something about the subject—whether you like it or not—because, without reasonable health, it is hard to do anything else (although many people whose health is less than ideal cope wonderfully).

I was singularly ill-educated about health when growing up (my mother hated doctors, for instance) and I tended to associate exercise with compulsory sports at boarding school (so regarded it is best avoided) but I have always loved walking, and never took up cigarette smoking, so I guess didn’t do myself quite as much damage as I might have.

But, I shudder when I look back at my neglect of such a fundamental facet of life as my health—and here am I thinking of myself as a reasonably intelligent human being! I blush!

It also makes me wonder about education. Was I really better off learning Latin and Greek instead of the basics of looking after one’s health? Frankly, I doubt it—but that’s a whole other blog (and I think Latin did help me where writing is concerned).

Be that as it may, over time I have come to the following conclusions as far as health is concerned.

• Exercise is vital. If you don’t use it, you lose it.
• We need to walk a great deal more than we do—so should design our living conditions accordingly (particularly our urban environments).
• A good public transport system is essential for people’s physical health—as well as just helping people get around. What you gain from not having a public transport system, you lose many times over in healthcare costs. And no, I can’t prove that. It is merely an opinion (which I would like to be able to prove).
• The dominance of the car is a disaster. We certainly need cars, or something like them, but probably not on an individual basis. Self-driving cars may resolve this issue. Appreciate that the things not only inhibit exercise, but they fill the air with the kind of micro-particles that do serious damage. The damn things are dangerous.
• We need to re-think commuting to work.
• Working in an office all day without exercise is nuts. Employers should incorporate both exercise facilities, and the necessary exercise time, into the working week. We should almost certainly re-think “the working week.”
• The quality of the environment is a great deal more important than we care to admit—and has, I believe, a phenomenal impact on our health. As matters stand, we pollute the air we breathe, the soil we grow out crops in, and the water we drink and bathe in—to excess. We are also doing massive damage to the oceans. And then there is the issue of climate change. It would make a bishop weep!
• We pay far too little attention to the quality of our food—and far too much to the quantity, and appearance, of the ingredients. Overall, the food chain—if not quite broken—is deeply suspect from a health point of view. Monoculture and current industrial farming methods—particularly in the U.S—are a disaster. The nutritional content of many foods is in decline. Food processing, with its heavy dependence on making the end result addictive though the addition of fats, salt, sugar, and cheap fillers constitutes a major health hazard. We compound this by giving food animals antibiotics which promotes antibiotic resistance in humans. This is crazy!
• Fast food, by and large is a disaster.
• We over-medicate to a degree that is criminal.
• The fact that most doctors know almost nothing about diet is a major indictment of the medical profession—and their heavy reliance on medicate is another.
• A great deal of what we are told though advertising, in the media, and by politicians and other “thought leaders” just isn’t true. In short we are being lied to and manipulated to an alarming extent.

My overall conclusion is that we are probably doing ourselves a great deal of quite unnecessary damage—and would benefit from a fundamental lifestyle change.

I find it quite amazing that over 70 percent of young Americans, for instance, are unfit for military service—largely for health reasons! This is, indeed a National Security issue.

Something like half of the adult population suffers from chronic condition and is on medication. Virtually all seniors are on multiple medications

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find that Americans, on average, live sicker and die two years sooner than Europeans. What does surprise me is the lack of concern about the situation.

That said, it is a fascinating world—which, with all its faults—I will be sorry to leave.  

No, I’m not planning an imminent departure. Like everyone, I am secretly planning to live for ever (on something like the Mediterranean diet).

It will take that long to write all the books I have planned.

Chemical exposure linked to rising diabetes, obesity risk

September 28, 2015

Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society - diabetes and obesity, according to the executive summary of an upcoming Scientific Statement issued today by the Endocrine Society.

The statement's release comes as Society experts are addressing a global meeting, the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), in Geneva, Switzerland, on the importance of using scientific approaches to limit health risks of EDC exposure.

The statement builds upon the Society's groundbreaking 2009 report, which examined the state of scientific evidence on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and the risks posed to human health. In the ensuing years, additional research has found that exposure is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and obesity. Mounting evidence also indicates EDC exposure is connected to infertility, hormone-related cancers, neurological issues and other disorders.

EDCs contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking or otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, EDCs can alter the way cells develop and grow.

Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more. An economic analysis published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in March estimated that EDC exposure likely costs the European Union €157 billion ($209 billion) a year in actual health care expenses and lost earning potential.

"The evidence is more definitive than ever before - EDCs disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health," said Andrea C. Gore, Professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and chair of the task force that developed the statement. "Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in human, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals."

The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed to EDCs. Animal studies found that exposure to even tiny amounts of EDCs during the prenatal period can trigger obesity later in life. Similarly, animal studies found that some EDCs directly target beta and alpha cells in the pancreas, fat cells, and liver cells. This can lead to insulin resistance and an overabundance of the hormone insulin in the body - risk factors for Type 2 diabetes.

Epidemiological studies of EDC exposure in humans also point to an association with obesity and diabetes, although the research design did not allow scientists to determine causality. The research offers insights into factors driving the rising rates of obesity and diabetes. About 35 percent of American adults are obese, and more than 29 million Americans have diabetes, according to the Society's Endocrine Facts and Figures report.

The Scientific Statement also examines evidence linking EDCs to reproductive health problems, hormone-related cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer, prostate conditions, thyroid disorders and neurodevelopmental issues. Although many of these conditions were linked to EDCs by earlier research, the number of corroborating studies continues to mount.

"It is clear we need to take action to minimize further exposure," Gore said. "With more chemicals being introduced into the marketplace all the time, better safety testing is needed to identify new EDCs and ensure they are kept out of household goods."

In the statement, the Society calls for:

• Additional research to more directly infer cause-and-effect relationships between EDC exposure and health conditions.
• Regulation to ensure that chemicals are tested for endocrine activity, including at low doses, prior to being permitted for use.
• Calling upon "green chemists" and other industrial partners to create products that test for and eliminate potential EDCs.
• Education for the public and policymakers on ways to keep EDCs out of food, water and the air, as well as ways to protect unborn children from exposure.

The statement also addresses the need to recognize EDCs as an international problem. Society members are currently meeting in Geneva for the fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4). Attending members, including Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Liège in Belgium, emphasize key principles of endocrinology that are confirmed by recent research need to be taken into account when developing policies for identifying and regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

"Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals during early development can have long-lasting, even permanent consequences," said Bourguignon. "The science is clear and it's time for policymakers to take this wealth of evidence into account as they develop legislation."

Explore further: Current chemical testing missing low-dosage effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals

More information: "Executive Summary to EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals," was published online in Endocrine Reviews, a journal of the Endocrine Society, at press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/er.2015-1093

Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism

Provided by: The Endocrine Society

2227 shares

---

 

October 2 2015. Creativity—extraordinarily well described—by Jamie Varon. Necessary words, well said.

SADLY, THE GAP BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO LIVE STRUCTURED CONVENTIONAL LIVES, AND HOW CREATIVES LIVE, IS DEEP AND WIDE—UNBRIDGEABLY WIDE

BOTH A TRAGEDY AND A FACT

THE CONVENTIONAL LARGELY DISAPPROVE—YET CRAVE THE WORK THAT CREATIVES PRODUCE WITH SOME DESPERATION.

Just imagine life without poetry, music, books, painting, the theater, dancing, movies—and sculpture—and it wouldn’t be much of a life (and creativity covers a great deal more)

Riddle me that!

We are the warriors of the human spirit, the entertainers, the risk-takers, and the adventurers—and we keep this planet interesting.

There is no higher calling!

The world is fortunate, indeed, that we exist—as are we.

There is nothing to equal the joy that comes from creativity—especially if writing is involved (not that I am remotely biased…).

But, it is a fact that we pay a high price.

Is it worth it?

It is beyond my ability to explain how worthwhile it is—and I say that as someone who has experienced more adversity and sheer unpleasantness than I care to admit, or that many might find credible—as a consequence of becoming a writer.

And I write this as a New York Times Best Selling Author, who has achieved more success than most of my fellow scribes.

I have put up with endless self-doubt, rejection, poverty, starvation, humiliation, deception, industrial-scale lying, personal discomfort, the disdain of my peers, the loss of friends, opposition from my nearest and dearest—and incessant creative failure, as I try to write as well as I know I could (if only I could try just that little bit harder).

Yet, I can’t imagine a more wonderful, joyous, exhilarating calling. Writing is indeed my passion,my pleasure, and my purpose. It makes sense of the senseless. It gives meaning to life.

If that is sacrifice, bring it on!

 

11 Things Highly Creative People Sacrifice For Their Art

By: Jamie Varon

writer of all the feelings

To be a creative can often feel like a choice that is both insane and thrilling in equal measure. There are thousands of jobs that are far more certain and stable than an artist’s work, yet true creatives know that there really is not a choice to be made.

The artist must art.

Therefore, the artist must find a way to live in the uncertain, wild space between what success looks like to others and what success feels like to themselves. Choosing a creative career is not something for the weak-willed, the comfort-chasers, the ones who need to know how their life will splay out ahead of them for years and years to come. Those are noble endeavors — to value comfort and security — but a creative sacrifices almost all convention in the name of art.

I doubt any of us regret it. We know that life is impermanent and we never know when our last day will be. We’d rather create the work that inspires us most and let it kill us.

---

1. Highly creative people sacrifice a comfortable life for a big, messy, weird, interesting life

Most creatives learn quickly that comfort and inspiration do not live harmoniously. You can have one, but not the other.

Inspiration comes from action, from experimentation, from the chaos, the fire, the big wins and the big fails. In order to art and art well, you must live and live well. And, to live well is to constantly be pushing yourself out of what’s comfortable and into what’s unknown. This is the source of inspiration: whatever lay on the outer edges of comfort.

2. They sacrifice certainty for a big question mark about the future

Creatives have mastered the art of the unknown. Most of them wear this as a badge of honor, because they have learned the hard way that the best laid plans are the easiest sources of disappointment.

Nothing about a creative life exists on a straight line. It’s like a squiggly line that often goes backward and then propels forward then stays in one place for an unnervingly long amount of time. There is no plan. The future is a shrug of the shoulders. The words “I don’t know” are the artist’s anthem. To not know is to be open to knowing, to be led, and the creative thrives there.

3. They sacrifice a stable life for the freedom to say yes at any moment

While creatives might have a yearning to build a life and put down roots, they know that there’s always a chance that their lives could be uprooted at any moment. Because an artist does not follow a set path, they have to be consistently open to saying YES quickly and without reservation.

They have to be willing to uproot their lives in order to follow the inspiration or the opportunity whenever it comes up. Freedom is the artist’s currency.

4. They sacrifice approval from others for approval of themselves

Most art is created alone in a dark room. It’s thankless work.

It’s like doing spec work constantly with the hope that, one day, it will pay off. If creatives needed approval from others to begin, they would never start (and some brilliant creatives never do start, sadly). Instead, artists know that it’s a necessity to approve of themselves, to believe in their work and, as equally important, to believe in the process.

Creatives know that chasing approval will always prolong the work from ever leaving their minds, so they simply learn to give themselves the permission they may desire from others.

5. They sacrifice being accepted and understood by the world for being a visionary who may or may not be ever understood

Creatives know that any visionary work will not always be immediately understood or accepted. They accept that they may not ever be accepted or understood — yet make their art any way. They don’t look outside of themselves for the answers, for permission. They simply create whether anyone appreciates it or not.

6. They sacrifice all the “shoulds” for what their heart leads them to create

Creatives know that they can easily “should” their way into a miserable, uninspired life. They know that the world is built on “shoulds” — what this person should or shouldn’t do, how others should or shouldn’t live.

Artists know that conventions and traditions hardly inspire creative work, that the only way to listen to what their heart yearns to make is to shut out the “shoulds” of the world and find their own way. This is an arduous process, to empty out themselves from all the beliefs of who they should be and, instead, to allow themselves to simply be who they are now and create what they need to create now.

7. They sacrifice constant happiness for the emotional spectrum of self-growth

Artists know that pursuing self-growth means letting go of the desire to be in a constant state of happiness.

To grow is to shed old versions of self, which is to also say to grow is to be able to create new versions of art. The only way the art grows and evolves is when the artist grows and evolves. Every creative soon realizes that self-growth is a state of being and that means to be in almost constant flux. The process of evolvement has no room for holding tight to only one emotion — say, happiness — and needs to endure the entire spectrum of emotions to truly evolve. To face who they are as angry, sad, grief-stricken, resentful, bored is to allow themselves to evolve.

8. They sacrifice superficial relationships and work for vulnerable relationships and work

While creating uninspired art is something all creatives have likely had to do in their past — bills are hard — highly creative people feel even more strongly about making art from a vulnerable, real place.

They know that at the heart of artistic genius is vulnerability, a brave person who is willing to be rejected, who is willing to share their soul with a world who may not be very kind to it. While creatives know that superficial work and relationships are oftentimes easier to maintain — and success is often easier to come by for the superficial — they know that art is a choice and a privilege and they always want to create from the deepest parts of themselves.

9. They sacrifice their pride for empathy and compassion

The best kind of art comes from a place of empathy and compassion, from an inherent curiosity around the human experience.

Highly creative people understand that their curiosity around humanity is what brings them to the page, the instrument, the canvas, the laptop, the camera, the drawing board.

Empathy does not exist with pride. It takes a certain degree of humility to have an empathic view of the world and artists understand that at the core of their work is a desire to move people with their art. This means they have a high level of respect for whoever will come into contact with their work.

Creatives know that their tender heart, their empathy, their compassion is at the heart of their brilliance and they will eschew pride and arrogance in order to step deeper into that brilliance.

10. They sacrifice the perception of success for their own definition of success

From the outside, a creative’s life may not look very successful if success is defined by cultural expectations.

An artist learns quickly that they must define success for themselves otherwise they will drown underneath other people’s expectations. In their conviction of self, they are free to create and build their life however they desire. Not having to “measure up” or prove anything to others is one of the most important things a creative must learn for themselves — because they could spend their entire artistic life trying to prove themselves and always come up short.

11. They sacrifice the life people told them they should have for a life they love, a life that is inspiring and fucking thrilling

Because that’s the whole point. To create is a privilege, one that artists know not to take for granted. To deny a conventional life is a risk, but not as great a risk as to deny their heart.

---

PS: If you’re currently stuck or blocked with your creativity, my new audio course with Paul Jarvis called Unlost is launching next Sunday.

We’re not going to preach the “right way” of doing anything (because there isn’t one) — but we will show you how to get out of your own way and start making a body of creative work you can stand behind.

---

October 1 2015. Why wait for the after-life when you can have it now? It’s a particularly good idea, if there isn’t one.

THOUGH I CRITICIZE THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL REMORSELESSLY—AND NOT ENOUGH IN MY OPINION—I HAVE GREAT AFFECTION FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS.

ACCORDINGLY, WHEN I READ HEADLINES LIKE THIS:

“Why Americans can’t write”

 I flinch! I’m distressed. This isn’t right.

I also have a vested interest. I am a writer. Writing is my passion, my pleasure, and my purpose. I believe it is an extraordinarily powerful discipline—for a whole host of reasons—starting with the fact that writing may well be the greatest cognitive aid going.

It is rocket fuel for the brain—though lasts longer, and is (mostly) pollution free. It is Viagra for the drooping intellect—but its effects endure.

It promotes insight and clear thinking. You can’t write if you don’t observe. You can’t understand human nature if you don’t empathize. You can’t write clearly if you can’t think clearly.

Write for years, and you cannot but improve your cognitive skills (unless you are trading solely on technique—which is a whole other subject).

And yes, of course writing can be used to advance bad causes—but just about every resource can—and will be—misused. We humans are a decidedly flawed species. But, we are also capable of true works of genius.

Learning to write is as difficult and time-consuming as it is, because thinking clearly—as most of us know—does not come naturally. The development of ‘clarity of mind’—such a simple phrase—is not an easy process.

Even if we are genetically gifted, the ability to think clearly requires fostering though education, reading, travel, confusion, failure, inter-personal relationships (I’m repeating myself), endless adventures and experiences and—above all—time.

Time is the only currency of value.

In all too many cases, it doesn’t come at all. It could—but our culture has scant idea of how to develop it. Our educational systems stress conformity, not creativity. In fact, despite much protest to the contrary, society in general is deeply suspicious of the original thinker.

Most of us wing it on bluff, prejudice, precedent, and by dodging the difficult (or being distracted from it). We adopt a persona—banker, accountant, nurse,grave-digger, prison-warden—and, protected by our chosen carapace, construct a comfort zone to match.

But, dealing with the difficult is what we are here to do.

I say that, not because I have had a direct message from god@heaven.com (he also has Gmail, of course) on this particular subject—but as a theory based upon observation.

Humans are endlessly capable of constructing the difficult from the simple so there has to be a reason for all this (or does there?). Or are we here solely for the entertainment of some higher species?

I’m damned if I know the what or the why. I guess the process is character-forming. And then, just when we are finally beginning to know how to deal with life—or so we delude ourselves—we die.

Perhaps ‘Life’ is a kind of boot camp for something else.

All I can say is that, in my case, I hope it involves writing. Heaven, as far as I am concerned, has come early—and it does.

 

Why Americans can’t write

By Natalie Wexler September 24

Natalie Wexler chairs the board of trustees for the Writing Revolution.

It’s no secret that many Americans are lousy writers. Just ask any college professor or employer, including those at prestigious institutions. With the advent of e-mail, writing ability has become more important than ever, and writing deficiencies have become increasingly apparent.

Surely one reason so many Americans lack writing skills is that, for decades, most U.S. schools haven’t taught them. In 2011, a nationwide test found that only 24 percent of students in eighth and 12th grades were proficient in writing, and just 3 percent were advanced.

If students get writing assignments at all, they’re usually of the “write about how you feel” variety. There’s value to that kind of exercise, but it doesn’t provide kids with the tools they need to write analytically.

The Common Core education standards, adopted by more than 40 states and the District, attempt to address this deficit. They require that students learn to write fluently about the meaning of what they’re learning — not just in English class, but also in history, science and maybe even math class.

That makes sense: When students put what they’ve read into their own words, they’re more likely to absorb and retain it. And learning to write clearly requires learning to think clearly.

But the authors of the Common Core focused just on the skills that students should have at each grade level, not on how to impart them. And few teachers have been trained to teach these writing skills, apparently because educators believe that students will just pick them up through reading. Obviously, most don’t.

The standards also assume students in middle and high school already know the rules of capitalization, punctuation and sentence construction. But that’s often not the case, especially in high-poverty environments.

Faced with high school seniors who can’t compose a simple sentence, teachers may throw up their hands when confronted with an English language arts standard saying their students should “use appropriate and varied transitions and syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and concepts.”

You have to learn to add before you can do calculus. Similarly, before students can write a coherent five-paragraph essay, they need to learn to write a decent sentence — no matter what grade they’re in.

That doesn’t mean teachers should drill students on grammar rules, an approach that research has shown doesn’t actually work. Instead, they can ask students to decide whether a group of words is a sentence or a fragment — not an easy distinction for many to grasp.

Once students understand the concept of a sentence, they can learn to use conjunctions such as “but” and “because.” Then they can create complex sentences — including those beginning with subordinating conjunctions such as “although” or “despite” — to introduce variety into their writing. Generally, students need to learn how people write as opposed to how they speak.

When students have a basic grasp of sentences, then — and only then — should they move on to planning and drafting paragraphs. Once they can write paragraphs, they can tackle essays.

The Common Core’s failure to acknowledge that many older students lack basic writing skills can have counterproductive results. For example, the Education Trust recently studied more than 1,200 middle school writing assignments to see whether they aligned with the Common Core and faulted them in part because they didn’t require students to write at length.

“In grades six to eight, we must see extended writing — multiple cohesive paragraphs that clearly reflect strong organization and style,” the report’s authors lamented.

But if middle and high school students are writing poorly constructed sentences, they’ll almost certainly end up writing poorly constructed essays. And while the Common Core demands that students engage in critical thinking, sentence-length assignments can fulfill that mandate as well as longer ones.

For example, a teacher can give students the beginning of a sentence based on a text and ask them to finish it using the conjunction “but,” requiring them to examine the text closely enough to find two contrasting ideas. That gives the teacher a manageable opportunity not only to correct writing mistakes, but also to uncover what students haven’t understood. A teacher confronted with an essay full of mechanical and conceptual errors may not know where to begin in correcting the essay.

It’s understandable that educators and policymakers feel a sense of urgency about getting students to write at length in the upper grades. But if we keep expecting students who can’t construct decent sentences to magically produce coherent essays, we’ll remain a nation of lousy writers forever.

Read more on this topic:

Natalie Wexler: If students can’t they write, how can they learn?

---