Proactive Boundary Management

A recent gift from a friend included a question card deck, and one of the questions was:

What is one of the most valuable lessons you have learned in the past year?

I’d say my biggest lesson of this year was to more deeply understand the relationship between intelligent boundary management and investing in deep and meaningful connections with people.

I had understood the importance of saying a firm “no” to partial matches as they arise. It’s necessary to reserve space to say “yes” to those really aligned opportunities, and I can’t do that if I’m caught up fussing with partial matches.

It’s been helpful to see partial matches as tests that I need to pass (by intelligently declining them). I know full well that the most aligned opportunities probably won’t be visible at all till I decline any partial matches that may still be tempting me. This has helped me grow into a person who feels less and less tempted by partial matches and mismatches.

Settling for less doesn’t make me happy, and it doesn’t work well for other people either. We thrive when we keep our standards high. It’s easier to enjoy abundance when we’re very clear about what we want and why,

This year showed me how important it is to do some proactive boundary management now and then. Instead of handling issues on a case by case basis, sometimes we gain enough clarity to do a more involved house cleaning.

One of the big ones I did this year was to purge Trump supporters from my life and work. I realized that their reasons and excuses for such support didn’t matter to me. I could make this evaluation based entirely on their words and actions and impacts. If someone expressed support for the current administration, that alone was more than enough to make us mismatches. It become obvious that I was never going to feel aligned with maintaining relationships with such people, even if they wanted to stay connected.

This wasn’t particularly complicated. There are zero Trump supporters that I feel aligned with enough to feel good about investing in a relationship together, personally or professionally. At best I can tolerate them, but that isn’t good enough. I don’t want to fill my social life with people I’m tolerating.

So this was an interesting invitation of sorts. Other misalignments can be complicated or ambiguous, but this one was super clear, so I went with it and cleaned house as best I could.

Even when there were misaligned situations that I initially had to resolve reactively, I paused afterwards to reflect on why those situations arose and how I could proactively prevent similar issues by making some adjustments. One example was shared in the post about admin baiting, which hasn’t been a problem in the months since I wrote that piece.

What I didn’t expect was just how much this more proactive approach would resolve and transform some social heaviness I felt earlier in the year.

Presently I feel a special kind of lightness, ease, and flow with respect to my social life. I feel more interested in people, and I enjoy connecting with them so much more (even if it’s all online still).

I think this is largely because I feel more committed to protecting my social space against intrusion from nutters and other misalignments. I had some friends I really didn’t know as well as I thought I did, and I realized that I didn’t want to consider them friends anymore. I had lost too much respect for them. Maybe that respect was too easily granted to begin with.

Since we can’t have meaningful relationships with all of the billions of people on earth, we’re always going to be limited to a small social bubble consisting of dozens of people that we could potentially get to know very well… maybe hundreds if we really push ourselves. While we can serve a lot more people, such as through business, we can only truly invest in a much smaller number on a personal level.

I feel like I’ve freed up (or somehow generated) some extra capacity and desire to invest in people close to me. This isn’t from opening myself up to love for all or anything like that. While I can still feel a connection to all people based in unconditional love, I can’t invest my time, energy, and attention in all people, so I have to be way more selective there.

I think some people have been picking up on these energy shifts in me since I’ve been observing more positive outreach from people, especially people who’ve been going through similar house cleanings this year.

I feel this year has made me more attuned to the differences between compatible and incompatible social connections. With the most compatible connections, we energize each other. We amplify each other’s energy.

This has been a draining year for a lot of people. It’s not just COVID that’s causing that. I think it has a lot to do with the social misalignments that have been exposed by our different responses to the health and political situations in the world.

What response did you choose for dealing with exposed misalignments? How has that worked for you?

And moreover, what was your most valuable lesson of the year?

Share Button

Covid cases in schools ‘reflect community levels’

Pupils and staff have infection rates which mirror rates outside the school gates, a study found.

Share Button

Covid: ‘Miracle’ survivor Mal Martin feared his life was over

Mal Martin’s family were told there was almost zero chance of survival after he contracted Covid-19.

Share Button

Covid: Cancer scan backlog raises late detection fears

Waiting times grow across the UK for potentially life-saving MRI and CAT scans, figures show.

Share Button

Complex dental care ‘threatened by NHS targets’

Dentists warn targets in England could make them prioritise routine check-ups over complex cases.

Share Button

Covid and vitamin D: ‘Not enough evidence’ for treatment

People are still advised to take a daily supplement this winter to keep bones and muscles healthy.

Share Button

Potential treatment approach kills lymphoma while sparing healthy cells

Scientists at Scripps Research have demonstrated a promising new strategy for treating lymphomas, a group of cancers that begin in infection-fighting cells of the immune system called lymphocytes.

The new approach uses natural cancer-targeting immune cells, known as natural killer cells, that have been modified to selectively target lymphoma. As described in their study, published in the journal Angewandte Chemie, the modified natural killer cells brought about a dramatic reduction of lymphoma in a mouse.

“We found a way to achieve selectivity in targeting lymphoma cells, which is an important departure from existing therapies,” says co-senior author Peng Wu, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research.

Wu and his lab collaborated in the study with the lab of co-senior author James Paulson, PhD, the Cecil H. and Ida Green Professor and Chair of the Department of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research.

More than 20,000 people in the United States die of lymphomas annually, while approximately 85,000 people are newly diagnosed. Most lymphomas arise from B cells, an important type of lymphocyte whose primary function is to make antibodies.

Some existing lymphoma treatments, including B-cell-killing antibodies and so-called CAR-T cell therapies, work by targeting B cells indiscriminately, largely wiping them out. However, this strategy brings many adverse side effects, including months of immunosuppression due to low antibody levels.

Wu, Paulson and their teams have developed a more specific approach using natural killer cells, which are immune cells that normally patrol the bloodstream and tissues, seeking and destroying virus-infected or cancerous cells. These immune-system warriors, also known as NK cells, are able to recognize certain tell-tale surface molecules that signify serious damage or malignancy within a cell; they can then kill that target cell through a variety of means, including by secreting proteins that punch holes in the cell’s outer membrane.

Creating a super-powered NK cell

In the early 1990s, Canadian researchers developed a special type of NK cell, NK-92, from a patient with a rare NK-cell cancer. NK-92 cells are relatively easy to grow and multiply in the lab, compared with normal NK cells found in human blood.

The Canadian researchers and others have since shown that NK-92 cells are good at killing different kinds of cancerous cells, and can bring about dramatic results in some patients, with minimal side effects. NK-92MI cells, an easier-to-multiply version of NK-92 cells, are now being widely investigated for use against various cancers.

On their own, NK-92MI cells may not be ideal cancer-fighters, especially not for advanced malignancies, in part because they are dispersed throughout the body when infused into the bloodstream. In the new study, however, Wu and his team used chemistry techniques to modify NK-92MI cells to concentrate their cancer-fighting power against lymphoma.

Steering powerful cells where they’re needed most

In an initial set of experiments, the Scripps Research scientists re-engineered NK-92MI cells to include a surface molecule that binds to a B-cell surface receptor called CD22, which is normally abundant on B-cell-derived lymphoma cells. Thus, in principle, the NK-92MI cells would selectively recognize cancerous B cells.

In cell-culture tests, the modification brought a big improvement in the NK cells’ ability to kill lymphoma cells, and these killer cells did not harm healthy cells. In a mouse model of lymphoma, however, the strategy didn’t work so well, apparently because the NK cells still did not go where they were needed.

“We found that after being injected, these NK cells tend to be found in the lungs and throughout the bloodstream — whereas in this mouse model and in human lymphoma patients, the lymphoma cells are mostly in the bone marrow,” Wu says.

The team then added to their NK cells a new molecule called Sialyl-Lewis X, which made the cells gather in bone marrow amid the lymphoma cells. This led to a dramatic delay in the development of lymphoma in the mice. With this promising result, Wu and his lab now are continuing to develop this and related strategies for clinical use.

Wu and Paulson suspect that in general, adding homing molecules such as Sialyl-Lewis X to cell-based anticancer treatments enhances the cancer-killing power at the site of the cancer, and may be a key to these treatments’ future success — particularly against solid tumors and other highly localized cancers.

Wu notes, too, that Sialyl-Lewis X, which made the NK-92MI cells gather in bone marrow, as well as the CD22-binding molecule that directed the cells to malignant B cells, are both sugar-like “glycan” molecules. Although such molecules are found on virtually all cells, and often have essential biological functions as well as crucial roles in disease, they are difficult to study and thus have been relatively neglected.

“People are only starting to appreciate the importance of glycans,” says Senlian Hong, PhD, the first author of the study and a postdoctoral research associate in the Wu lab at Scripps Research.

Funding was provided by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI143884, R01GM113046, P41GM103390, P01GM107012, R01GM130915, R01AI050143, P01HL107151, U19AI136443) and the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF107).

Share Button

Experimental vaccine can counter dangerous effects of synthetic cannabinoids

Made in clandestine laboratories and sold widely across the United States, the diverse class of drugs known as synthetic cannabinoids presents a growing public health threat.

In a new study, Scripps Research scientists have devised a way to deactivate these designer drugs after they’ve been administered — offering a potential path for treating addiction and overdose.

The research appears today in the American Chemical Society’s open access journal JACS Au, with findings from the laboratory of Kim Janda, PhD, the Ely R. Callaway, Jr. professor of chemistry at Scripps Research. Janda and his team developed a vaccine that was able to broadly counter the effects of synthetic cannabinoids in rodents, sequestering the drug molecules before they could interact with the central nervous system. Importantly, the approach worked in models that simulated smoking and vaping, which is how the drugs are most commonly used in real life.

“Synthetic cannabinoids are much more powerful and toxic than users often realize, and their rising prevalence has led to serious health issues among young people and adults,” Janda says. “We found a way to negate the dangerous effects of these drugs, even when they’re consumed in impure forms, as is often the case. Our hope is that this may one day help treat cannabinoid use disorders or accelerate recovery for people who overdosed.”

Not to be confused with marijuana

Synthetic cannabinoids act on the same brain cell receptors as THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana. However, they’re human-made in a laboratory, with chemical structures that don’t look anything like THC. Moreover, their actual effects can be unpredictable and, in some cases, fatal, Janda says.

The synthetic drugs are often sprayed on dried plant materials so they can be smoked, or sold as vaping liquids to be inhaled using e-cigarettes. Manufacturers tend to sell the products in colorful foil packages and plastic bottles under a wide variety of brand names, including Spice, K2, Joker, Black Mamba and hundreds of others.

Synthetic cannabinoids are also sometimes mixed with other dangerous drugs such as fentanyl, which can make them more deadly. Overdoses are on the upswing, as evidenced by calls to poison control centers.

“The drugs often called synthetic marijuana are, in reality, very different from marijuana,” the American Association of Poison Control Centers says. “They contain powerful chemicals and can cause severe, life-threatening health effects: severe agitation and anxiety, nausea, vomiting, seizures and hallucinations. The drugs are made specifically to be abused. Like many other illegal drugs, synthetic marijuana is not tested for safety, and users don’t know exactly what chemicals they are putting into their bodies.”

Expanding on a proven method

For the study, Janda says first author Mingliang Lin, a graduate student, wanted to explore whether a vaccine could work against synthetic cannabinoids, just as they have shown to do against some other drugs of abuse. Janda already has developed vaccine-based approaches to combat heroin, fentanyl and cocaine.

As an addiction treatment, Janda believes vaccines provide benefits over other therapeutics, as they don’t require taking a daily pill and can reduce the risk of an overdose if the user relapses.

The newest vaccine differs from Janda’s previous work in that it’s composed of multiple drug-like antigens that stimulate “broadly neutralizing” antibodies within the body, which disable many types of cannabinoids. This is key, as synthetic cannabinoids encompass a wide range of human-made chemicals.

In behavioral experiments involving mice, the team found that even when exposed to a large amount of the drug, the vaccine offered broad protection against the psychoactive effects. The team also developed a version of the vaccine that could be inhaled, which could offer greater convenience.

“This work provides a solid foundation for future therapeutic development against synthetic cannabinoid abuse,” Janda says. “The ultimate goal is to provide prolonged protection for those who may be struggling with substance abuse.”

The study, “Broadly Neutralizing Synthetic Cannabinoid Vaccines,” is authored by Mingliang Lin, Jinny Claire Lee, Steven Blake, Beverly Ellis, Lisa Eubanks and Kim Janda.

The project was supported by the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at Scripps Research.

Share Button

How the spread of the internet is changing migration

The spread of the Internet is shaping migration in profound ways. A McGill-led study of over 150 countries links Internet penetration with migration intentions and behaviours, suggesting that digital connectivity plays a key role in migration decisions and actively supports the migration process.

Countries with higher proportions of Internet users tend to have more people who are willing to emigrate. At the individual level, the association between Internet use and intention to migrate is stronger among women and those with less education. The same result was found for economic migrants compared to political migrants, according to the team of international researchers from McGill University, University of Oxford, University of Calabria, and Bocconi University.

“The digital revolution brought about by the advent of the Internet has transformed our societies, economies, and way of life. Migration is no exception in this revolution,” says co-author Luca Maria Pesando, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Centre on Population Dynamics at McGill University.

In the study, published in Population and Development Review, the researchers tracked Internet use and migration pathways with data from the World Bank, the International Telecommunication Union, the Global Peace Index, the Arab Barometer, and the Gallup World Poll, an international survey of citizens across 160 countries.

Their findings underscore the importance of the Internet as an informational channel for migrants who leave their country in search of better opportunities. Unlike political migrants, who might be pushed, for example, by the sudden explosion of a civil conflict, economic migrants’ decisions are more likely to benefit from access to information provided by the Internet, and more likely to be shaped by aspirations of brighter futures in their destination countries.

“The Internet not only gives us access to more information; it allows us to easily compare ourselves to others living in other — often wealthier — countries through social media,” says Pesando.

Case study of Italy

Looking at migration data in Italy — a country that has witnessed sizeable increases in migrant inflows over the past two decades — the researchers found a strong correlation between Internet use in migrants’ countries of origin, and the presence of people from that country in the Italian population register in the following year. Tracking migrants including asylum seekers and refugees passing through the Sant’Anna immigration Centre in Calabria, the researchers also found a link between migrants’ digital skills and knowledge of the Internet and voluntary departure from the Centre in search of better economic opportunities.

“Our findings contribute to the growing research on digital demography, where Internet-generated data or digital breadcrumbs are used to study migration and other demographic phenomena,” says Pesando. “Our work suggests that the Internet acts not just as an instrument to observe migration behaviors, but indeed actively supports the migration process.”

As next steps, the research team, which includes Francesco Billari of Bocconi University and Ridhi Kashyap and Valentina Rotondi of University of Oxford, will explore how digital technology and connectivity affect social development outcomes, ranging from women’s empowerment to reproductive health and children’s wellbeing across generations.

Story Source:

Materials provided by McGill University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Thriving Without a God

In your favorite models of reality, do you include a god or gods? Have you tested models and frames that are god-free to see how well they work for you?

I grew up learning models of reality that include a god, in that case a Christian version of one. Later I went atheist, and I enjoyed the godless style of living – perhaps a little too much. It was way more fun, but it took me a few years to find my footing with it.

After that I explored some New Age models that included angels, spirit guides, Source, and so on. There are many flexible ways to include divinity in our models of reality, but one key aspect is whether or not you include any “superior” beings that are more divine than you are.

Here’s what I learned after lots of exploration and experimenting.

Perhaps the most important aspect of these explorations was to learn how mysterious, fascinating, and inherently unknowable so much of reality is. It was a special turning point when I worked through the logic and truly grasped that no matter what kind of entity I am – physical, spiritual, or otherwise – I will never ever be able to discern the true nature of reality. No god would be able to discern that either. It was really interesting to see that even an all-knowing, all-seeing god would never have the power or ability to know what’s outside of its scope.

Even if this god’s scope of knowingness is infinite, you can always put a bigger infinity around it as a container. Even if the god knows everything, there could always be a bigger everything that contains it. And no god could be certain that there wasn’t some other kind of reality beyond its scope.

A smart enough god would eventually figure this out. And it would probably be damned curious to test and probe what kind of reality it exists within, even as it accepts the unknowability of this.

So this helped me see that if there is a god, it’s never actually going to be as omniscient as a religion makes it out to be. And honest god would have to wonder about the extent of its divinity, and hence it would also have to wonder about a lot more than that.

Why does this matter? I grew up being taught a model of reality that included an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-loving god. This model is inconsistent with any sort of reality that includes conscious beings though. So if I do include such a god in my reality, I have to bump it down a few notches in terms of how I relate to it.

If there’s some other conscious entity with superior knowledge and wisdom, that could be interesting, but then I must also recognize that its knowledge and wisdom will always be limited. Since it can’t understand anything beyond the realm of reality that contains it, it can’t even know if parts of me exist beyond its understanding. There are a lot of fundamentals that it can’t know for sure, such as the nature of its power or the true depth and accuracy of its understanding. If such a god cannot access and understand its container reality, it can never really understand itself or anything else within that reality.

Since I’m a part of this god’s reality, this god also can’t actually hope to ever understand my nature, even if it thinks it created me. So an honest god would have to consider me a bit of a mystery too.

Isn’t that interesting? Even the most omniscient god cannot actually hope to understand me completely. Some aspect of my nature will always be opaque and mysterious to it.

You can flip this around as well. In the domains of life where you have the greatest control and deepest understanding, you have to admit that you’ll never reach 100%. There’s always something mysterious and unknowable if you look deeply enough.

You can never know for certain if your base reality is some kind of simulation or not. You can never know if you’re a real biological being or a simulated character with a simulated body. You can never know if your memories are real events or just programmed into you.

Any god you can possibly imagine, as well as any gods that are beyond your imagining, are subject to similar constraints. That’s just the nature of being aware. Awareness has some inherent limits we can’t hope to bypass.

Consequently, I favor the framing that any god, angel, spirit guide, or other entity that may have superior knowledge and wisdom is ultimately just as perplexed about the nature of their reality as I am. I can imagine that they see things from a different perspective, but I can never assume that their perspective is truly superior to my own personal perspective.

Same goes for any human advisors, coaches, teachers, or mentors. No matter how far advanced they may be in some area of life compared to me, I always have to take their advice with a grain of salt. I can never accept their models and understanding as 100% accurate.

One thing I wanted so desperately when I was younger was for someone or something to play the role of my ideal spiritual advisor. I wanted my own personal version of Mr. Miyagi, someone who could give me the most intelligent answers and instructions for getting better results and living a better life. Sometimes I looked for that in the human realm. Sometimes I looked for it in the spiritual realm. But however I searched, I was always disappointed. No such version of god existed, and I eventually accepted that I needed to outgrow this folly.

When I was wallowing in the depths of stuckness, I often turned to spiritual models for answers. I loved reading books about spirituality because they were so comforting. The authors seemed certain of their models, and certainty is such a tempting drug when you’re stuck. Solutions were presented as: Try this and it will always work (if you’re spiritual enough).

Of course their models felt flat when I actually tried to practice them. The results were sometimes fascinating, sometimes dreadful, and generally inconsistent. A special turning point happened when I got into public speaking and realized that behind the scenes, these teachers are just as confused as everyone else, but they’re good at marketing certainty.

Pick anyone on earth that you might label as a spiritual guru. Then consider the framing that they’re really no wiser than you are. They may have good marketing skills though.

Eventually I found that a more effective way to connect with spirituality isn’t by looking for a wiser entity with the answers I need. It’s better to recognize that uncertainty is universal, and no advice should be swallowed whole.

These days I find it more effective to use models of reality that don’t include any superior beings. I don’t need a god or gods to look up to. We’re all essentially on equal footing. No spirit guide or coach has any guaranteed superior perspective to my own, but they may offer different perspectives for me to sample and test.

This year I received much advice that I could easily have put on a pedestal due to where it came from, but then I kept getting better results when instead of acting on the advice blindly, I chewed on it for a bit, let it bounce around in my thoughts and feelings, and then I made my own independent decisions, often doing the opposite of what the advice was. I really liked the results of that.

Consider that the more faith you put in a god (or in any other spiritual being), the more powerless and helpless you become. This may be good marketing for those who want to fill that power void and insert themselves above you, but it’s not good spirituality.

I’ve also witnessed this from the other side. Sometimes when I share coaching insights or advice, the person I’m coaching will apply the ideas very differently than I expected. Or they may reject the advice and do their own thing. The coaching challenges them to go deeper into their own thinking and figure out what’s likely to work for them.

I’ve noticed that a lot of people take effective actions after coaching, but it’s best when they see the coach as a relative equal, not as someone whose advice should be taken blindly. I’ve seen other people follow a coach’s advice blindly when it’s contrary to their own best thinking. Even when the external results look good, they still seem unhappy and unsatisfied. People who seem happiest keep putting their own spin on what they learn.

We seem to get better results when we behave like co-gods who have no superior. Even if you want to include a divine god in your model, I encourage you to see that god as an equal teammate, not as any sort of superior being. At least try that model on for size if you like having a god to play with. Personally I prefer goddesses, but just the human kind.

Be cautious about adopting a model with a divine being that you presume is somehow superior to you. This type of model keeps people stuck in an immature and child-like relationship with reality. I know it can be comforting, but you can still create those feelings of comfort by relating to reality as an equal, not as some kind of lesser or more limited being.

Do we actually need a superior god in our models of reality? No, we don’t. I fail to see any areas where such models provide benefits that other models don’t surpass, unless you just want to go slower and wallow in powerlessness for a while. Maybe that’s an interesting setup experience, so you can later appreciate the contrast with better models, but I don’t recommend you remain stuck there for too long. Feel free to let go of any superior god once you feel that model has run its course for you. Drop the “levels of consciousness” nonsense too; there are no levels.

When someone suggests or demands that you believe in a superior being, look to their own self-interest, and it won’t be too hard to see why they’re promoting such a model.

Imagine living in a reality where you’re inferior to no one. You have no superiors. There are no spiritual entities that are above you in any meaningful way. There are just a lot of different perspectives.

If you still feel clingy with god-based models, just remember that there are alternatives, and you’ll probably want to explore them sooner or later. I think you’ll like being god-free once you get used to it.

Share Button