In the most recent edition of The New Yorker, Atul Gawande has an absorbing article titled “Hellhole,” in which he reviews the effects of extreme isolation on the human mind. In particular, his article focuses on prisoners in America’s SuperMax facilities that spend upwards of 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. He also uses as examples, prisoners of war/hostages such as Terry Anderson and John McCain (who were isolated as a form of torture). American prisons purportedly use solitary confinement as a last ditch deterrent against the “worst of the worst”: that segment of the prison population which continues to commit crimes inside of the prison, gives the guards a hard time, or has successfully escaped previously. The problem is that the data shows that this approach simply doesn’t work. What’s more, it is as bad as any form of torture in that it irreversibly destroys the human brain:
Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, received rare permission to study a hundred randomly selected inmates at California’s Pelican Bay supermax, and noted a number of phenomena. First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind–to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,” he writes. “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair often result. . . . In extreme cases, prisoners may literally stop behaving,” becoming essentially catatonic.Second, almost ninety per cent of these prisoners had difficulties with “irrational anger,” compared with just three per cent of prisoners in the general population. Haney attributed this to the extreme restriction, the totality of control, and the extended absence of any opportunity for happiness or joy. Many prisoners in solitary become consumed with revenge fantasies.
…EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury. [Link]
<
p>I find that last sentence particularly important given our modern culture of incessant Twittering and Facebook updates. If you think the reaction of the brain to social deprivation is bad now, just wait until you see the next generation of prisoners who not only have their friends and family but also their Twitter circle stripped from them. The most disturbing observation that Gawande makes is that none of this is a revelation. On the scientific front, Harry Harlow and his cruel experiments proved in the 1950s what harm isolation causes in monkeys. On the legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court opined in 1890 that solitary was no way to re-habilitate a criminal mind:
Justice Samuel Miller noted… “serious objections” to solitary confinement:
A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others, still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. [Link]
<
p>The reason I was so completely absorbed by this article (and I really encourage you all to read the whole insightful and moving piece) is that I am personally very interested in the romance associated with self-chosen isolation. The sports I play, the vacations I take, and the career I chose all idealize a certain aspect associated with human isolation. It isn’t just me though. When you are raised in a Hindu or Buddhist culture or simply appreciate them, the idea of the ascetic sadhu who lives alone in the forest is held up as an (impossibly) high ideal. No parent actually wants you to live up to that ideal and go off into the woods alone (they’d much rather you be a doctor) but they do want you to believe that to do so would be noble and that in some subsequent lifetime you will muster the courage for it. Here is a passage I just lifted from a website called “Hindu Wisdom:”
By suppression of the passions and detachment from all that is exterior to him, the ascetic attains superior states of unshakeable stability which eventually end in mystical communion, in a state of Samadhi, with the essence of his soul. The state of Samadhi is the culmination of Yoga and beyond it lies release. It is a suspension of all intellectual processes that lead to instability. Samadhi, then, is a “state without apprehension”. The life of the soul is not destroyed but is reduced to its “unconscious and permanent” essence. Yoga is, properly speaking, union with the self. When thus “isolated”, mind is the same as purusa when it is freed from mental impressions “like a precious stone isolated from its veinstone.” [Link]
<
p>Note the stark contrast. The teachings quoted immediately above suggest that detachment from all of your surroundings and a suspension of intellectual processes will lead to greater stability and release. Harlow’s experiments and others cited further above suggest that such detachment and isolation leads instead to irrational anger and a host of other permanent psychological damage. Here is a passage from Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda:
“Sir, why don’t you grant me a samadhi?”“Dear one, I would be glad to convey the divine contact, but it is not my place to do so.” The saint looked at me with half-closed eyes. “Your master will bestow that experience shortly. Your body is not tuned just yet. As a small lamp cannot withstand excessive electrical voltage, so your nerves are unready for the cosmic current. If I gave you the infinite ecstasy right now, you would burn as if every cell were on fire.
“You are asking illumination from me,” the yogi continued musingly, “while I am wondering inconsiderable as I am, and with the little meditation I have done if I have succeeded in pleasing God, and what worth I may find in His eyes at the final reckoning.”
“Sir, have you not been singleheartedly seeking God for a long time?”
“I have not done much. Behari must have told you something of my life. For twenty years I occupied a secret grotto, meditating eighteen hours a day. Then I moved to a more inaccessible cave and remained there for twenty-five years, entering the yoga union for twenty hours daily. I did not need sleep, for I was ever with God. My body was more rested in the complete calmness of the superconsciousness than it could be by the partial peace of the ordinary subconscious state.
“The muscles relax during sleep, but the heart, lungs, and circulatory system are constantly at work; they get no rest. In superconsciousness, the internal organs remain in a state of suspended animation, electrified by the cosmic energy. By such means I have found it unnecessary to sleep for years. The time will come when you too will dispense with sleep.”
“My goodness, you have meditated for so long and yet are unsure of the Lord’s favor!” I gazed at him in astonishment. “Then what about us poor mortals?”
<
p>Atul Gawande uses his whole article detailing a mountain of evidence showing that extreme isolation affects the human brain in a manner similar to a traumatic head injury and leads to less control of ones thoughts and behavior. The Yogi above above uses this same “trauma” to try and attain samadhi, by its very definition “a state of complete control (samadhana) over the functions and distractions of consciousness.”
<
p>Whether studying a tribe of monkeys, a pride of lions, or a herd of elephants the observation is the same. Isolation from the group is a death sentence, not only because of predators, but because the animal itself begins to self-destruct:
Harlow noted, “One of six monkeys isolated for three months refused to eat after release and died five days later.” After several weeks in the company of other monkeys, most of them adjusted–but not those who had been isolated for longer periods. “Twelve months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially,” Harlow wrote. They became permanently withdrawn, and they lived as outcasts–regularly set upon, as if inviting abuse. [Link]
So then why is it that myself and many others still find the idea of lengthy and extreme isolation from the world (like the yogi in Autobiography of a Yogi) romantic? Every bit of data tells us that there lies the path to self-destruction of the mind. Perhaps that is what the Buddha realized in the woods when he returned to choose the Middle Way.
Reminds me of the Kevin Bacon movie Murder in the First where a prisoner is reduced to his basest primitive self after prolonged isolation:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113870/
Interesting the contrast between self-enforced isolation and deprivation to obtain introspection and clarity as opposed to it being used as a punishment or form of torture. Wonder what would happen if more prisoners used their time to meditate or self-analyze their actions in life – or if this could be taught to them instead of just brute force tools.
But the article addresses this very topic. Even those that were able to best adapt to the isolation (meditation being one form of adaption) were irreparably damaged. McCain represents the end of the spectrum who came out of their forced isolation in ok shape. As everyone knows though he has a bad temper and probably other mental scars. It would seem that one could infer from the research that meditation is not able to stop the effects of isolation. Meditation as a tool would probably provide only limited value.
Also, the whole point of isolation it to not interact with the prisoner whatsoever. Therefore teaching them meditation as a tool to cope would defeat the whole purpose.
It seems like mental Choice has a lot to do with it as well – if you are choosing to cut yourself off from the world as opposed to it forced upon you – the mental trauma of knowing that it is against your will with no way to change your surroundings – or someone who chooses to live a secluded, chaste life. Like in the Matrix movies, where an enslaved humanity had to ‘chose’ to believe the lie of their situation or choose a free life.
Not all people who specifically choose to live secluded / isolated lives necessarily end up losing their social skills or become more primitive in their interactions – or do they (ie Unabomber.)?
I think it would make a difference what your emotional situation is, if it was your own choice, and what you do with that time to deal with it. I definitely think the prisoner’s scenario is more likely to cause mental issues than the yogi’s, primarily because of the anguish and loss of control without choice.
This a great discussion and article.
I am not sure whether it is a choice or not matters much. The human brain needs social interaction to function properly is what the research seems to indicate. Period. You could argue that those who choose such extreme isolation are already mentally impaired 🙂
Also, the Unabomber is now in a SuperMax facility. Kind of ironic.
Oh – and when I stated teaching meditation – meant as a rehabilitation tool – not an isolation coping method, sorry. With all of the people we have in prison, the rehab part of institutional detention is forgotten sometimes. Many people come out worse after prison as opposed to being on the straight and narrow.
So, if we have angry people who need to be isolated (or gang members held apart from each other), some form of self-assessment and guidance, maybe with meditation or other ideas, could help.
Mind you, I am more of an atheist and although I still consider myself spiritual (have attended Art of Living sessions in the past) – am not a follower of any new age or spiritual philosophies – I do think we have a lot to learn from every culture and religion.
And I can see how those who ‘adapted’ to the isolation fared better but still had some issues – I still think / wonder how much the choice aspect of it can affect someone’s ability to cope.
Curious – do all people who choose isolation end up having issues and or already had some issues ?
True that if someone were to choose isolation, they most likely have some issues they need to work on or something has happened which led them to that decision. But as you stated, many of the world’s religious prophets, monks, priests, sanths, etc all choose this way to gain some sort of perceived enlightenment or clarity – what does this say about them ?
I am not a psychology expert, but would love to hear more in this discussion from anyone who is – how much of the loss of social skills and other issues which arise from enforced isolation, are caused by the actual trauma of being forced to be alone – the loss of control, the knowing that you can’t change your current situation, etc and how much is simply from being alone and not having anyone to interact with and practice / use your social skills.
You can read about Harlow’s experiments which I link to in the post.
What struck me about this is how Sikhism views isolation.
One key aspect of the Sikh lifestyle is a refusal to use isolation as a means of attaining inner peace. Although there is a steady stream of holy-men and women who raise followings by claiming such feats, it is not recommended.
Some early evidence for this viewpoint is from the “Sidh Ghosht”, a dialog between Guru Nanak (Sikhism’s founder) and the Kanpath Yogis- there’s a translation of that discussion here: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sidh_Gosht.
The emphasis has always been on staying within society and abiding by one’s responsibilities. Isolation in forests/caves/etc is viewed as abandoning one’s duty to serve humanity and be an active citizen. Given the modern experimental findings mentioned here, perhaps the Gurus were on to something! 🙂
Also, one thing to realize is that the main difference between the prisoners in solitary confinement and the yogis is that the latter chose the lonely lifestyle while the former had it imposed upon them.
In my opinion, how the person comes out of isolation depends on his intellectual capacity. Social interaction is one way of keeping our brains sharp. An intelligent person can be in isolation and still keep his mind sharp by thinking, contemplating and solving challenging problems. This is where the yogis, scientists (who are more often in isolation compared to the normal population) and philosophers differ from the average person. All these people constantly keep questioning, even if in their own minds, and these are not significantly different from social interactions and are probably more intellectually stimulating than most conversations.
I believe the experiments on monkeys and a few hardcore criminals don’t preclude this explanation. I am sure the sharper criminals won’t mind isolation.
In that case – I hope we haven’t created hundreds or thousands of Super Criminal Masterminds who have used their time in isolation to hone and sharpen their criminal skills.
Are we going to see in the next few years many machevelian and James Bonds-ian schemes arising or maybe even a League or Brotherhood of Villians ?
I think that was geared more towards discouraging people from abandoning their families to embark on vainglorious “journeys of self-discovery” to “find themselves.”
You find a lot of Hindu writers from back in he day complaining about the Buddhist Sanghas breaking up families too.
I am always a bit skeptical of this kind of research, though, because it seems too wrapped up in semantics. Sure we define “torture” as “irreparably damaging the brain” but it’s hard to define what “damage” or “normal functioning” are. Moderate periods of solitude are probably good for you and anything taken to excess will be bad. The point at which we reach “excess” is going to be different for every person though.
10 · jujung said
I don’t know about “smart” people, but when I think about how to solve a problem I essentially have an internal dialogue with myself. It’s about 1 easy step away from me asking myself questions and giving myself challenges to think about to me hearing questions and being challenged by disembodied voices in the ether.
i agree with gurmando. i think the difference is choice. the feeling of absolute lack of control is deeply deleterious to psychological well-being. compound that with extreme social isolation and you have a problem. the yogi’s self-imposed isolation is a completely different ‘animal.’ the yogi not only feels in control of their life but has, more than likely, mapped out strategies to live through their self-imposed isolation. not to mention the very obvious: the yogi can end their isolation at any point yet the prisoner cannot.
Folks –
As alluded to in a prior comment, there is a big difference between being forced to do something and choosing to do it.
This isn’t just true of being isolated, it is true of many activities — rape verses intimacy, assault versus judo class, etc.
Forced isolation could be considered a form of violence — intentional deprivation of love, contact, mental stimulation, etc. Chosen isolation is frequently a guided process. A monk will do this with the support of a sangha, and there will be a guiding ideology that helps the monk become an observer of self during the process.
It doesn’t surprise me that people would develop extreme anger in a situation of forced isolation. They are being forced to do something that they don’t want to do. Chosen isolation is something entirely different. Many, many people have engaged in Vipassana or other forms of extended meditation – in some cases, in isolation. This is a healthy process, because it yields insight into the nature of the mind. You are a willing observer of your own thoughts, and you are willingly avoiding the many avenues of communication that might provide a distraction from those thoughts.
If you are skeptical, I encourage you to try it. No brain damage, I assure you. 🙂
kiran bedi introduced vipassana at tihar jail and someone made a documentary about it…might add to this discussion
No, I’m pretty sure that choice has everything to do with it. To choose isolation requires concentration and effort. I believe that concentration is the very essence of meditation, and also other activities in general, such as rock climbing or knitting. Anything that requires concentration is good for the mind.
Concentration build the human brain, lack of concentration destroys it.
It concerns me when people equate their belief in some notion with scientific fact. If you look at some of the comments above they read kind of like the evolution vs. creationism debate. Take for example this comment:
Well, that is a good “belief” and it is true that a person already suffering from something like ADD will come out much worse than a person who isn’t (see the original article), both come out damaged. I still think people are choosing to ignore the basic findings because, like me, they have looked up to the ideal of chosen human isolation as a path toward enlightenment. When confronted with the ill effects of isolation (human’s need social interaction to maintain normal mental capacity), chosen or not, our inclination (myself included) is to carve out an exception that allows us to maintain our ideal.
I agree however that it would be interesting if Atul Gawande had extended his research to examine yogis or hermits so we could know definitivly by having more data. I will actually see if I can follow-up with him via email.
The hypothetical yogi voluntarily isolates himself. The inmate is forced into isolation. The difference is not a trivial distinction at all! The cause of stress in humans, e.g; the stress from traffic, random noise, has everything to do with a lack of control over our circumstances.
Thanks for an interesting blog post, Abhi.
I don’t think you can make a fair comparison between sadhus and prisoners, or between sadhus and monkeys raised in isolation. The prisoners are an extremely biased sample; the ones who were placed in solitary confinement were already behaving differently from the norm (the other prisoners) before isolation. The monkeys were infants when they were placed in isolation, so in Harlow’s experiments, it was a question of how the brain develops when contact with other individuals is limited or cut off completely.
Finally, meditation does other interesting things to the brain which might combat the potential hazards of isolation. Richard Davidson’s work is a good source for more info on this topic.
Ahhhh, but don’t the vast majority of sadhus behave “differently” even before isolation also? Regardless, whether they were a problem before the isolation does not negate the fact that they were damaged when the came out. And don’t forget that some not so bad prisoners are put in the hole by evil guards even though they aren’t that bad.
And by the way, just to be clear, I would never knock meditation. I am a huge believer in meditation. I am simply focusing on one type of person: the extreme sadhu who isolates himself for ~decades, like we read about in books like Autobiography of a Yogi. I agree that meditation is a great defense against isolation. Some of the subjects probably even used it. Meditation is not the problem. Lengthy isolation from human contact is.
8 · Abhi said
That’s a good read – and I know what you mean re: belief vs. scientific fact – but humans can deal with isolation different than monkeys – specifically ones who choose to be isolated – but I wonder what type of studies are out there on the effects of chosen isolation, and on inmates who use meditative isolation as rehabilitation. It could also make a difference how someone was raised or their own personal experiences (ie, if they had a loner life or were used to being on their own).
Agreed – every bit of data that you have tells you that. What about the data that you don’t have? Are any of the ‘scientific facts’ you refer to based on studies of samadhi seeking yogis? Aren’t you extrapolating data from studies on a group to another group that is dissimilar to the studied group in many ways?
This is a pervasive problem with the ‘scientific way’ of thinking. You kill an existing concept that has proven itself through aeons of practice, only to rediscover it when some scientist figures out a way to measure why the concept was good in the first place.
I also love it when passed down wisdom is derided and dismissed as a ‘belief’. Why does a fact need to be proven only through observations during a finite period. Why can’t it be established through multi-generational observations?
Budugu, please read the post and comments before commenting. It helps the conversation.
Yes, assuming that I haven’t read the post & comments also helps the conversation. Thanks for the great advice.
If you think I am off-mark with my comments, don’t engage me. Ignore. Using that pathetic retort is useless.
When you cherry picks single sentences ignoring all comments and additionally take an indignant position I have to assume that you either didn’t read the post or aren’t interested in a discussion but prefer haranguing. Also, as the moderator of the post I try not to ignore any comments.
I will concede that my tone overwhelmed the point I was trying to make (SM’s forced secularist-stance on everything does that to me).
The question remains: how do you fit the known unknowns (studies on brains of Samadhi-seeking yogis) and unknown unknowns (possible involvement of divine in what the yogis are doing) into your comparison of forced solitary confinement with seeking Samadhi.
Also the broader question: why is passed down wisdom (which I will also call multi-generational observation) is subpar to a finite period scientific study?
29 · Budugu said
No one is saying that there has to be a division between belief and science, but I do think that the best ‘passed down wisdom’ should be able to withstand the basic scientific method, with demonstrable, repeat-able results. The very nature of a successful belief system is its ability to do well because of the good it does in assisting people with their troubles or questions.
To be scientific does not mean you are non-religious – many scientists are believers who are trying to figure out the brilliance of their perceived creator.
There is the question of having faith without results – that is the definition of a believer – but the problem with only relying on ‘passed down wisdom’ is that many take it at face value without any deeper investigation of truth or meaning. Lots of passed down wisdom is valid, while other information is outdated or no longer valid – but if truly works, there should be no issue with looking at it through the scientific lens, not to de-construct or invalidate it, but to verify and accept it more broadly. Once something is validated through testing, it can be applied outside of the religious setting as well.
But doesn’t that argument assume that there is a known scientific method to measure everything. And demonstrable, repeatable in what time period?
I’ll give you an example: during late 80s and early 90s we were told that eating peanuts was bad for us (it got so bad that Planters brand was nearly bankrupt). But, nuts being bad flew in the face of traditional wisdom (certainly in India) about their health benefits. A few years later, we are being told that we gotta have nuts in everything we eat (I am exaggerating a bit), because we have better knowledge about the fats in nuts.
I am not saying Abhi is doing something similar and writing off samadhi-seeking as BS. But we need to be watchful to the possibility that the truth we have currently is not the whole truth.
I’m not comfortable with the word “choice”. It is tied specifically to Christian theology where concepts like “free will” and “choice” are utilized to explain the fact that there is evil in the world in spite of the fact that God is perfect. In other words, the word “choice” reflects a certain set of facts, stories, beliefs and assumptions and works to explain attitudes within that framework. In the indigenous Indian traditions I can think of no equivalent. The words that come to mind instead are things like “kartavya” or “karma” where obligations and actions seem to be what it is about. I am also not comfortable with any implication that meditation is the only way, or the preferred way, to get where it’s at.
So if it’s not about choice, and it’s not the only way, it could be that yogis who isolate themselves just have to or feel compelled to live the life they live. I don’t think this is something that can be analyzed in cold blood. If isolation and self-immersion is just what someone needs it could well have beneficial effects. Also, I find the comparison between prisoners and yogis ridiculous. Seriously, these scientists sometimes . . .
As several others have mentioned, yogis/sadhus choose to be isolated, whereas prisoners do not. It might also be worthwhile to consider the physical spaces inhabited in isolation, and their effect on the brain/mind. A prisoner is in a sterile, artificial environment. A hermit may meditate for long periods, even in a dark cave, but is probably more attuned to the physical/natural world around him/her. I can’t help also think of the Robinson Crusoe story (or Castaway for that matter) — the Crusoe novel is based on real-life event. Again, isolation in a natural environment is different from being put in a concrete and steel cell.
Interesting post. Can we all drop the science bashing please? The post is rather direct. Isolation causes harm and thats a demonstrable fact. Yogis allegedly practice similar isolation. It is not unreasonable to posit that Yogis who self isolate might also suffer from the same problems. I am personally more sceptical of the claims of prolonged isolation by Yogis. I would like to seem them replicate the performance in a controlled experiment.
Also the broader question: why is passed down wisdom (which I will also call multi-generational observation) is subpar to a finite period scientific study?
Is this a serious question? You really want someone to put forth an argument on why conrolled experiments are more accurate than passed down wisdom?
I personally think the claims by and folklores about Yogis are mostly bullshit and as these claims are so deeply ingrained in our culture, our bull shit detector is on snooze. As # 33 brought up, how do we know there was no interaction between these yogis and the environment. Surely, they did not crap and pee in their pajamas, so how far did they have to walk to to crap? Did they have to walk to the river, lake three times a day? What about food and water? Was someone delivering them food? Did they have to go hunt for food? If someone was delivering them food, did they talk to the person? If not, did they go hunting? How did they wash their clothes? Did they wear the same robe for 13 years? I think yogis at best were wanderers walking around forests and remote villages away from home and engaging in transactions, conversations with other people at a daily basis.
Indian traditions accommodated the widely disparate theological/philosophical thought schools such as asthikathvam, nasthikathvam, Carvaka/lokayata, etc. “To each his own…” type of thinking, free will, choice are very much part of why such polar opposites and everything in between took root.
However, I totally agree with you when you say “this is not something that can be analyzed in cold blood”. The facile comparison of prisoners and yogis/rishis was almost offensive to me.
In this alternate universe, we are bashing controlled experiments and accepting the claims by yogis/rishis/mystics at face value. How we do know that the mystics dont embellish?
Yes, it is that exact attitude that I am questioning. Why should passed down wisdom be automatically dismissed? The controlled experiments you are talking about fit into certain parameters that we are aware of. On many occasions, especially when we are talking about concepts that involve the divine, it is arrogant to think that you know everything that is involved.
Lack of that interaction is the exact definition of Samadhi. No eating, no crapping, no walking down to the river, no clothing… If you want to call that BS, that’s your belief. Don’t try to use data on prison inmates to prove it to me.
Great post!
PAFD writes: >>Isolation causes harm and thats a demonstrable fact. Yogis allegedly practice similar isolation. It is not unreasonable to posit that Yogis who self isolate might also suffer from the same problems.
Abhi writes: >>You could argue that those who choose such extreme isolation are already mentally impaired 🙂
Please re-read Divya’s excellent comment regarding choice and free-will. To add to it…
Yogis don’t choose to isolate themselves pretty much like gay folks don’t choose to be gay. That’s who they are. That’s how they are wired. To tell a Yogi that he’s mentally impaired is as intolerant as telling a gay person that something’s wrong.
In short – a Yogi is born, not made. After enjoying all the worldly pleasures in thousands of births, you and I will be born as Yogis too and we won’t need human company. To even think of comparing prisoners (who have no gunas to be a Yogi) forced into isolation with Yogi is laughable at best.
As for Abhi…why are your thoughts going in this direction, bro? Don’t worry – you’ll find someone who’s out there for you! Don’t make YoDad nervous now!
M. Nam
I am not doing that. They have their own value. All I am asking is to not make them bigger than they are. Leave the door open for what we don’t know to control or not control.
35 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
Dude, everyone knows yogis don’t eat,sleep or shit.
19 · Abhi said
There’s the thing though. One study doesn’t make a “scientific fact” and whether “deviation from normal functioning” constitutes an “impairment” is also up for debate, in no small part because I don’t think anyone agrees on what “normal” is and some might even disagree that “normal” is “good.” And on top of that, the conclusion that “humans need social interaction in order to maintain “normal” mental capacity isn’t the fact being proven here. It’s a theory (in the colloquial sense) which is supported by some evidence but is still up for debate.
I’m always skeptical whenever I hear someone make a blanket statement like “humans need. . .” because everyone is wired differently and trying to apply the findings made of large statistical groupings of people doesn’t really tell you anything about individuals in that group or the different reasons individuals within a group might behave a certain way.
On top of that I would have to question the validity of a study done on criminals versus the population at large. There is the issue of whether it’s the isolation doing it or the loss of power over themselves. Or whether someone with sociopathic tendencies is going to react the same way to a treatment as someone who is more compassionate. It’s not about trying to carve out an exception, it’s just that the study has problems and doesn’t necessarily support the conclusions they are trying to draw out of it.
No doubt idle mind is a devil’s workshop. The psychological effects of physical isolation is probably more determined by how you re-direct your brain activities – positive or negative. In the movie Reader, Kate Winslet used the isolation (not exactly supermax) to learn to read and write.
Abhi, I think my perspective, as Harminder described, is going to be different because of religious context. Isolation amongst trauma victims and prisoners (arguably also trauma victims in most cases) seem to present similar results. I do think the element of violence and removal are important to distinguish, even if the end result is the same. So how do we factor in ascetics?
I am less compelled to believe a person is “born a yogi” and born to self-isolate as Moor Nam and Divya described; I certainly do believe some people are more moved than others by religion and religious teachings/reflection, but in other faith traditions this doesn’t necessarily manifest in self-isolation. Perhaps the belief over whether or not the manifestation of devotion (isolation) is chosen or compelled will vary based on faith background. I think it’s also difficult to achieve a truly contemplative or restorative meditative state without a lot of practice, and for some, without removal from distractions. As mentioned before, for many this is a guided development or experience. I’m always a little more skeptical of sadhus, though, not out of inherent disrespect but out of a general sense of “I wonder” around questions like mental health, social interaction/class, etc. I feel like religion is a strong frame for how we value or perceive behaviors, though, and so I’m not surprised that even if data indicated that isolation was harmful, religion could override the “evidence.”
I don’t mean to assume in people’s life experiences, but I think these comments show a fundamental lack of understanding of the terrible reality of the modern prison, in addition to drawing conclusions based on presumptions of the average intelligence or capacity of a prisoner in a max/supermax facility. Plenty of people participate in self-guided educational programs within confinement (e.g., like Kate Winslet in the Reader — but are we really citing a fiction-based movie as a rebuttal of contemporary prisons??); intelligence, or the pursuit of knowledge, has nothing to do with the devastating psychological impact of incarceration, particularly as it’s practiced today.
Would it comfort you to know the average education level of a murderer or drug dealer or arsonist in a max facility outpaces the U.S. population? I have a feeling that, because the face of prisoners is generally low-income and of color, it’s easier to pretend that prisoners are incarcerated, and suffering, because they are stupid. With no disrespect meant, I seriously doubt the average yogi is categorically “more intelligent” or “more learning-oriented” than others.
Abhi said:
But then again, the Sepia Mutiny you founded engages you in human socialization.
It seems to me that you (consciously or subconsciously) found a way to balance your life.
jujung said:
Jujung, did I misunderstand you? You make it sound like humans are all about sharpness, intellect and solving problems. What about the emotional core and its needs? What effect do one’s emotional needs have on one’s intellect or ability to solve problems or not? Even intellectually homogeneous groups of people like med students and engineers vary in their styles, abilities and motivations to learn facts, knowledge, and skills from one another; their personal definitions of what constitutes a meaningful life is not a unidimensional picture.
I think no discussion on isolation-socialization can be complete without talking about cats–the solitary animal that so loves company when it chooses to need it.
Ok, I started these comments about an hour ago–and got interrupted several times, so if someone has said the same things in the interim, my apologies.
39 · MoorNam said: “Yogis don’t choose to isolate themselves pretty much like gay folks don’t choose to be gay. That’s who they are. That’s how they are wired. To tell a Yogi that he’s mentally impaired is as intolerant as telling a gay person that something’s wrong.”
I have a feeling you are just kidding, but may be you suggesting that Yogis are gays?, it would not surprose me since its a random occurance in a society startified by caste (as far as i know, I have heard of prince becoming a sadhu).
Camille@45, I am not question the brutality of modern day incarceration or their psychological effects but what I am saying is that brain can be molded in a positive or negative way even in isolation. So I am rebutting the premise of the post that isolation per se is devastating. Reader was probably an fictitious example but note that meditation programs in US prisons have shown to be effective in this regard and many US prisons are trying it out and doesn’t have anything to do with the average intelligence of the prisoner.
Lack of that interaction is the exact definition of Samadhi. No eating, no crapping, no walking down to the river, no clothing… If you want to call that BS, that’s your belief. Don’t try to use data on prison inmates to prove it to me.
Do you have any evidence to support this rather incredible belief that the mystics dont eat and crap?
48 · Priya said, “So I am rebutting the premise of the post that isolation per se is devastating”
Exactly, what about the mental condition of a prisoner before going into the prison and NOT into the confinement? Not all sadhus reached “Smadhi” either, would you need a clear mental goal to reach “Samadhi” or at least still be on a look out w/o going nuts? Or have the mental capacity to even leave wife and family to go partake on it?