[TT 011] Gender pain, starved biomes, judging non-judgment, curvy queens
Happy Thursday,
Happy Thursday,
Some weeks are up and others are less so. This week has been both - non-linear recoveries are trying. Thankfully, my labs suggest a clear picture and path forward plus an eye exam confirmed I have no structural or long term damage. I will bounce back, more aware and capable than before.
I have a number of writing pieces in my queue that I work on when the fog lifts. Until then, let’s jump into this week’s Thriving Thursday.
On the gender bias of pain
😫 ⚤ In a recent article publish in the Journal of Pain, researchers found that participants discounted the self-assessed pain of females as compared to males.
The author hypothesized that “the stereotype is to think women are more expressive than men, perhaps ‘overly’ expressive” whereas “the flip side of this stereotype is that men are perceived to be stoic, so when a man makes an intense pain facial expression”.
The article contains two different studies that had pretty clever experimental criteria. First, the “pain videos” had individuals with actual injuries that self-rated their pain level. Second, researchers used a micro-expression AI to watch the facial pain expressions of the pained individuals and created an objectively normalized pain level.
Finally, they had participants (Study 1 done live in Boulder!) rate the pain from watching the videos and compared it to the self-rated and AI-rated pain levels. Pretty nifty way to prove the point.
This is yet another example of how deeply our gender biases are ingrained. Interestingly, there was no statistical difference from participant gender - both women and men underrated female expression of pain. Not exactly sure what to do with that beyond acknowledging the bias and questioning my reality frequently. From the authors:
Critically, our results demonstrate that these gender biases are not necessarily accurate. Women are not necessarily more expressive than men, and thus their pain expression should not be discounted.
Also, I think I would enjoy playing with the micro-expression AI. So creepy cool to know that exists.
On the microbiome of starving children
🍼 💉 I’ve been on a biome kick for obvious reasons, and my news feed knows my interests eerily well.
There are ~30 million starving children in the world, and the intuitive solution seems simple: feed them. Surprisingly, feeding malnourished children isn’t enough to bring them back to health. These children don’t fully recover even when they’re fully fed. The answer lies in the biome.
I know understand that an unhealthy microbiome (starvation is one cause among many) means that nutrient absorption in the intestines goes haywire. So even though the kids are getting good food, their body’s can’t fully digest and process the nutrients.
This was recently shown in a randomized trial with 123 malnourished toddlers in Bangladesh. One group got the a special formulation for promoting gut health, while the other group got the current standard ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). Even though the special formulation had fewer calories than the RUSF, the toddlers gained more weight and had a number of clinical improvements pointing to greater health.
Incidentally, another path to malfunctioning microbiomes is the Standard American Diet (SAD) of processed foods and sugars. I wonder what percent of American population has biome deficiencies. More importantly, if their “normal” is what I’ve experienced recently, I wonder what is possible when these souls are released from their intestinal shackles.
On how to judge non-judgment
🧑🏻⚖️ 💪🏽 I recently listened to the Impartiality podcast episode from Joe Hudson’s VIEW framework.
At first it sounded like non-attachment, a concept I’ve sat with in Buddhist-inspired contexts, but I appreciate the slightly different angle that Joe offers. In my study, the Buddhist version of non-attachment speaks to releasing attachment as a first order practice, and the second order effects are lack of judgment and greater acceptance of what is.
In Joe’s framing, impartiality in relations shows up as fully trusting the other to know what is best for them. If one tries to give unsolicited advice or jumps directly to solution mode, however loving and helpful one may hope to be, they are actually projecting a sense of “I know better” which subtly implies a distrust of, and lack of worth for, the person they are chatting to. This can lead to the receiver feeling an undertone of shame, which shuts off connection and creates a negative spiral on the relational dynamic.
In an odd turn of events, the only reason I would offer unsolicited advice is if I need to feel important or useful, which in turn reflects my own negative narratives around value and worth. So when I have attachments, judgments, or am partial (all slightly different angles on a related concept), I am highlighting my own insecurities as well as my inability to feel discomfort by being present with the difficult experience of a loved one. I may be trying to help, but I’m putting myself down, my other down, and poisoning the well of connection with buckets of shame all at the same time. D'oh!
So to be impartial in a relationship, on some dimensions, is to fully trust that my counterpart knows themselves better than anyone and that I don’t have the answers for them. Where reflections are welcomed, they are well received and can be potent. Otherwise, the most connective way is being with any discomfort fully, approaching with genuine curiosity without attachment to specific outcomes, and feeling all the feels.
In my experience, and Brene Brown writes about this as well, the absence of judgment creates space for shame to dissolve and new awareness to arise. It’s a monumentally empowering feeling to shed stories that no longer serve.
I appreciate that Joe’s version of impartiality starts with connection as a first order practice, and has trust, non-attachment, and non-judgment come out as derivative qualities that promote the first order practice. Not sure if he would agree with that framing, though I found it a complimentary elaboration on some of my other readings of Buddhist philosophy.
On the Queen of (architecture) Curves
🌇 📐 I don’t know much about the world of architecture (yet) but I love to stop and marvel at the majesty of brilliant space creation.
I am mesmerized by the work of Zaha Hadid and it’s fascinating to see her notable works arranged in chronological order. My favorite of her quotes:
There are 360 degrees, so why stick to one?
Why indeed?
If you want to see lots of stunning pictures of curvy buildings, check out Hadid's firm's Instagram.
---
Until next week,
~Henry
PS Thank you to everyone who has been sending me resources, thoughts, and ideas recently. I deeply appreciate your notes and will get back to you once my capacity approaches normalcy.