My Pen Mates,
I once watched a Discovery feature on brain function and it had a segment on the Navy Seals and their mental discipline under the most dire mental and physical challenges. The trainers had a simple formula for molding these soldiers and the way they processed information: goal setting, repetition, self talk, and controlling fear. Straightforward, self- explanatory, and yes, simple. It's about envisioning an end result, convincing oneself about its singularity, and physically working hard to accomplish it with mental strength. Of course, the products speak for themselves so it's hard to argue about outcomes.
I don't believe any of the trainees necessarily knew their lungs' oxygen capacity while submerged, or the brain's threshold for pain endurance, or what light exposure durations can cause one to be physically disoriented, etc. What they go through is a physical programming to stay focused on a set goal, and engage all their training experiences in achieving it. In other words, they are conditioned to see the big picture and a path to reaching the target despite all obstacles, and oftentimes because of them.
This can be a daunting template for the civilian functioning out of barracks who has only self, family, friends, and teachers to cause such discipline to form. I am not saying that having those influences is not enough, just that the presence of rigor such as found in military training affords the important push to perfect the mold. Imagine a teen-ager who wants to grow up to be an engineer. Even with a proclivity towards the physical sciences, he will, in the course of pursuing his dream, find multiple media diversions that can actually be detrimental to his goal. He'll very likely be playing a lot of video games which has a lot of dexterity, judgement and calculation and "science" rolled into it by its developers. Whether spending countless hours playing these (as opposed to learning how the program is written or how the developers and editors imagine how the plays unfold), affects his goal outcome does fall under the "personal choice" clause of life; but it must be noticeable to others apart from me, that there is just an over-abundance of distractions nowadays that I truly believe that what's in jeopardy are the youths' ability to grow up to be anybody at all!
As it is, I already see a troubling trend in the number of undecideds and the undeclared late-teenage and early adult learners. Not to mention the endless major shifts and multiple-major smarts who do not know what to make of themselves but know that they are smart enough to be anybody. Again, to some, this is part of the gleaning process, a necessary attenuation to determine true personal interests. But what if such uncertainty holds back progress? That knowing too much deters risk-taking and blunts innovation through constant asking without seeking solutions?
No one can un-ring the bell of progress; we are where we are as a society because our predecessors worked hard to bring about all the technology we have access to __ literally at our fingertips. Those innovators had the singularity of purpose and the discipline to realize their visions. I submit that it was possible because they lacked the distractions that permeates our existence nowadays. There was no such thing as a multi-media experience not even a generation ago! Television was for entertaining and you learned by reading and attending lectures and sharing data in symposiums. Information sharing involved formal discussions and presentations where goals are formed and mental keenness was developed with the correct queries, not constant questions. This simple format reduced the information noise which distract the innovator from the goal. It took the physics out of riding the bike, and allowed the rider to reach his goal without needless considerations.
Then maybe perhaps the generational gap is far too wide for me to jump; that my questioning the new world order signifies that it has left me behind like my father was left behind by my generation. The new purity of purpose and goal-setting paradigm could just as likely lead to beneficial results beyond my imaginings as it can lead to the squalor of my fears. Who's to question that the current batch of innovators won't bring us to the next stage working in this information Babylon?
And then perhaps the Navy Seal formula will become obsolete too....
Mon

