The virtues of having control over thoughts and emotions are held high among many, especially professionals in cognitive psychology and some practitioners of mindfulness meditation.
For the individual and society at large, however, this kind of self-control also has a downside. The focus of self-control should be directed toward external behavior, instead of censoring and suppressing thoughts and emotions. The importance of this distinction becomes obvious when practicing nondirective forms of meditation or when performing tasks that require innovative thinking and creativity.
Self-control has been one of the buzzwords in psychology the last two decades. Any flaw in personality or shortcoming in character is often attributed to self-control difficulties. Self-control is a deliberate activity intended to stop or inhibit emotions, thoughts, and behavior in the face of temptations and impulses. Thoughts, feelings, or behavior may be stopped to be more in line with the interests of others. They might also arouse an inner conflict, remorse, or self-blame, such as distractions vs. focus, or contentment vs. shame. Self-control must constantly be recalibrated throughout life to balance individual needs with the norms of society.
The capability of self-control dwells in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, right behind the forehead, a part of the brain that is barely developed at birth and is not in place before five years of age. Parents should therefore be patient with their infants and toddlers, who are not capable of restraining their impulses because the biological foundations for doing so are not yet in place. The prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until the end of the twenties. There is a slight decline in self-control after about 50 years of age and then a merciless sharp slope downwards after 60 (De Luca et al., 2003).
The necessity of self-control for civilized behavior is beyond dispute. A certain amount of self-control is also vital to mental strength and achievement (Duckworth and Gross, 2014). When it comes to eating, exercising, sleeping, self-confidence, discipline, or consideration of others, many would surely benefit from a more balanced self-control. Yet, have our beliefs in the advantages of self-control taken us too far?
A fundamental feature of the human condition is that we cannot control everything. Bad things happen, even to good people. It is only natural for human beings to try to counteract this fact of life. The future will appear more predictable to us when we feel we are in control, thinking we know what is coming our way and therefore feel less vulnerable. Accidents, serious illnesses, and crises admittedly will happen, but we think they usually happen to somebody else. When we feel in control of our lives, a lurking existential anxiety can be kept at bay. Vaclav Havel once reportedly said that perhaps one can never find sense in life without first experiencing its absurdity. Destined to be at the mercy of absurdity, most people should at least experience some trace of anxiety. We try to avoid it by controlling whatever we can: our surroundings, life circumstances, others, and ourselves. The need for control is likely universal, but current trends in our society indicate an upswing. Some people even try to control their own death, deciding and directing how and when it should happen. Euthanasia is but one of many signs where attempts to be in control is evident. The fascination for extreme sports is on the rise, conquering the impossible, mastering the unlikely, overcoming anxiety. Surprisingly, many citizens vote for law-and-order parties or for a “strong” leader who is assumed to be in control. We must be living in very troubling times since so many strive for control. In addition to the existential anxiety and the fact that the world situation has become increasingly unstable, external norms for socially acceptable behavior have become quite lax, vague, directionless, and not easy to use for navigation in the murky waters of social interactions. How do we know when it is appropriate to express our thoughts and emotions, and in which way and to whom? Regulating social behavior when there are few social norms is no easy task. It is like feeling lost in a foreign country, not knowing the comme il faut of those around you, having no idea of their implicit rules. No wonder we become concerned with controlling what we think we can control: our inner life.
Despite the need for control, in our society, freedom of speech is defended by most people who believe in democracy. Many states’ constitutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949) protect it. Accordingly, one has the right to communicate thoughts, ideas, opinions, or discontent without fear of censorship or retaliation. Again, the paradox is evident: given these ideals, thought control is nevertheless held up as a virtue by many. What if society at large mirrored the individual solution of controlling thoughts and getting rid of anything that is not considered positive? We would have a dictatorship with restrictions on freedom of speech and suppression of anyone who opposed what is considered ideologically correct. Some will argue that this comparison is stretching it too far; certainly, there is an enormous difference between deciding for oneself to get rid of unwanted thoughts and somebody else demanding it of you. Yet, the question might still be valid: could a fundamental belief in the benefits of thought control on an individual level pave the way for a more authoritarian society?
The amount of spontaneous thoughts that preoccupies the mind for long stretches of time often surprises new meditators. Certainly, such mind wandering does not only happen during meditation. However, it is only when starting to meditate that many become aware of its extent. In all meditation techniques and in everyday life, no matter what we set our mind to, sooner or later mind wandering will always occur. Yet the meditation techniques differ fundamentally on the basic instruction of how to deal with this phenomenon. Several forms of meditation advocate the necessity of controlling or minimizing spontaneous thought during meditation; these are called directive meditations.
In nondirective meditations, however, one does the opposite: spontaneous thoughts and emotions during meditation are neither to be restricted nor controlled. In this respect (but not in others), nondirective forms of meditation are like emotion-focused psychodynamic therapies. By not steering thoughts and emotions in any special direction, not manipulating what you think when you meditate or what you share with your psychotherapist, this honesty towards oneself may enhance self-knowledge (Holen, 2016) and is regarded among some therapists as a prerequisite for (but not a guarantee of) change.
Followers of cognitive psychotherapy encourage the control of one’s thoughts under the assumption that doing so will lead to altered behavior. This is also a popular notion; by controlling a specific thought, one assumes that it is easier to control the behavior associated with that thought, e.g., if you do not think of chocolate, it will be easier not to eat another piece. Literature can show us where this notion might take us. Dostoyevsky wrote about a man wandering the streets at night trying not to think about visiting a prostitute, a thought the man found repulsive. While thinking he had overcome his unwanted desire, he nevertheless suddenly finds himself standing in front of a prostitute’s door. Erskine et al. (2010) showed how people who were instructed to try not to think about cigarettes, afterwards smoked even more than those who had not received that instruction. Murray et al. (2016) studied youths’ social development for two years and—counter to what many believe— found that aggressive thoughts are more a reaction to rather than a cause of teenagers’ aggressive behavior. Consequently, controlling aggressive thoughts would hardly prevent aggressive behavior. Accordingly, many researchers contend that thought control does not work as a strategy for behavior control, and, if anything, suppression of thoughts can make us even more susceptible to a subsequent intrusion of thoughts and increases the likelihood of unwanted behavior (Erskine & Giorgiou, 2010). During nondirective meditation methods such as Acem Meditation, the meditator controls behavior but not any thoughts. One sits still with closed eyes for 30–45 minutes and accepts what unfolds. This implies that one does not act on a restless impulse and terminate the meditation. Furthermore, when practicing the technique, the meditator gently repeats the meditation sound (the meditator’s inner behavior) while letting all spontaneous thoughts, impulses, and emotions roam freely in the mind. Thus, behavioral control and freedom of thought occur side by side and are embedded within the basic principles of the technique.
The bottom line here is that control of thoughts is no short-cut to managing one’s behavior. How we behave, not what we think and feel, should be the focus of our regulating efforts. It is at best a waste of energy to try not to think what you are actually thinking or to struggle with producing positive thoughts that do not feel genuine. The distinction between controlling external behavior and granting yourself an inner freedom is pertinent. A further specification of this distinction concerns the differentiation between the experience of what is going on in the mind and the expression of it. This may become clearer when discussing emotions.
Cognitive psychologists seldom differentiate between the control of an emotion or thought as such and controlling the expression of that thought or emotion. The freedom to think the thoughts that come to you or allow yourself to feel whatever you are feeling is liberating and relieving. It is quite another thing to grant yourself the freedom to express those spontaneous thoughts or feelings in a given social situation. Internal self-control and the social selfcontrol one uses when being considerate of others by not expressing all thoughts or emotions are two different mechanisms (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) and have quite distinct consequences.
This is well known from many everyday situations. Suppose for example that you become annoyed at your partner. You then might enjoy the fantasy of giving her/him a good scolding. Still, you don’t necessarily do this. If your partner’s misdeed was a rather trivial matter and you had a bad day at work, a rational part of you might consider it unfair to scold your partner. So you stop yourself. The crucial question is whether this strategy of stopping yourself means 1) that you try to stop feeling what you are feeling, or 2) that you stop the expression of the feeling. If you use strategy no. 1, you may be in for a rough ride, since you might use quite a lot of inner psychological acrobatics in an attempt not to be angry when this is exactly what you are. If nothing else, this will drain your energy. A common way to try to rid yourself of unwanted thoughts and feelings is by suppression. However, as we shall see, suppression is not a viable strategy in the long run. If you use strategy no. 2, you get to keep your psychological integrity, since you do not disown your anger—you simply refrain from acting on it.
Recent research indicates that this strategy is more sophisticated. The ability to stop oneself from acting on an emotion while at the same time being fully aware of it, is cognitively more advanced than simply suppressing the emotion and action altogether, which is more characteristic of what younger children do. The distinction between suppression of an emotion and stopping a behavior that expresses the emotion is not merely academic but highlights the fundamental difference between controlling behavior and controlling thoughts/emotions. This distinction is often blurred in academic literature.
The many possible ways of expressing emotions must be developed, refined, and modulated through the course of a lifetime. Good parents are very aware of the distinction between thoughts/ emotions and their expression, and will try to teach this difference to their children. Good parenting means acknowledging and respecting the thoughts and feelings of the child, and certainly not attempting to suppress them, while at the same time teaching the child that behavior can and often must be regulated. “You are angry at the boy and that is ok, but it is not ok to push him.” This attitude, acknowledging and allowing emotions and thoughts yet stopping socially undesirable behavior, may serve as a model not only for how to deal with one’s children but also with oneself. We shouldn’t punish children for their thoughts. We shouldn’t try to stop them from thinking and feeling the way they do. That would be teaching them a neurosis—that they should try to disown their feelings. When children need some form of negative sanction, it should be related to something they have done, not how they feel, nor should the sanction be directed at who they are. That would burden their self-esteem unnecessarily. Even dictators do not usually arrest people for their thoughts or emotions unless they are expressed (in public). (Unfortunately, history shows that there have at times been exceptions even to this principle.)
Good parents help children to regulate their behavior by redirecting them and giving them alternatives while at the same time allowing their thoughts and feelings. In research studies, aspects of parenting that are optimal for development of behavioral regulation in children have been examined (Roskam et al., 2014). It is noteworthy that parents with well-regulated children are not especially focused on control; they even discipline their children less than do parents of children who are not so well-regulated. At the same time, they are consistent in what they do, convey expectations clearly, have good knowledge of their children’s whereabouts, and appropriately praise and show their children that they enjoy their company. Of course, wise and sensitive parents usually have the same genes as their well-behaved children. Nevertheless, in general, parenting accounts for a substantial share of child outcome. Sensitive parenting is very different from the suppressive attitude that some adults nourish towards themselves when they do not accept their own thoughts and emotions. If sensitive parenting works best for children, it is reasonable to assume that it should also work for adults.
Parents have not always reared their children in this manner. On the contrary, children have often been told that it is bad to feel envy and anger, or to have naughty thoughts. So why is it so wrong to teach children that suppression is necessary and can be helpful? After all, this is what cognitive psychologists teach adults.
Managing “disturbing” or unwanted aspects of ourselves, be it during meditation, when looking in the mirror, or just before delivering a speech, touches upon basic psychological principles. One of the main reasons cognitive psychologists advocate the benefits of getting control of one’s thoughts is the idea that by focusing on something positive you can avoid negative thoughts or emotions. Furthermore, it is contended that by letting thoughts wander without any control, negative thinking or rumination may increase. In cognitive therapy, children may be taught that negative emotions like sadness, disappointment, or anger are “red” thoughts and are to be pushed aside while “green” thoughts like happiness or being proud of oneself are encouraged and should outmaneuver the “red” thoughts (Raknes & Haugland, 2013). What if a child is sad and worried for a good reason, such as parents’ frequent fights or a sibling being in the hospital with serious asthma? What is the point of trying to push aside emotions that are natural and appropriate given the circumstances? If taught to do so, children learn self-censorship; some thoughts are permissible while others should be banned. Some parts of oneself are not desirable, only the positive sides are given a green light. It is difficult to grasp how such censorship can promote robust mental health in a child.
Some recent research also indicates that trying to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts or emotions does not help improve one’s stress level. Telomeres are protective caps on the end of our chromosomes that gradually decrease in length in the course of a lifetime. The faster they decrease, the sooner we grow older. Many factors influence the erosion of the telomeres, either slowing it down or speeding it up. Stress is among the factors that increases the erosion, making us age more quickly, as the Nobel prize-winner Elizabeth Blackburn and her team found evidence for (Epel et al., 2006). Women who had more stress also had shorter telomeres, equivalent to 10 years of aging (Epel et al., 2004). Relaxation resulting from a non-concentrative form of breathing meditation, where spontaneous activity in the mind was not avoided, had the opposite effect on telomere length, slowing down the wearing process (Jacobs et al., 2011). Other researchers have looked into which self-reported aspects of Zen meditation are most strongly associated with the slowing of the telomere erosion. Among others was the “nonavoidance of negative thoughts” (Alda et al., 2016). Being able to accept and reconcile even the unwanted or “negative aspects” of one’s inner life can be relieving, reduce stress, and is good for longterm health. Telomeres don’t lie.
Consequently, to control, suppress, or reject thoughts and emotions can stress our system. In addition, one ends up in the rather awkward psychological position of having to disown parts of the self. It could for example be feelings of inferiority (who wouldn’t want to get rid of them?) or narcissistic fantasies of brilliance. Either way, the price of suppressing those feelings or fantasies are 1) diminished self-insight (a denial of the complexity and polarities within) and 2) a subsequent ingenuine behavior, e.g., being excessively self-assertive to avoid an underlying insecurity or being overly modest to cover up the greed within.
Generally, psychological suppression is defined as the conscious act of trying to rid the mind of unacceptable thoughts or desires (Wegner, 1989). It constitutes a deliberate effort of top-down control, excluding or pushing down mental content or behavior that is unwanted, painful, difficult, or at odds with wishes, intentions, or values (whereas repression is an unconscious act) (Amodio & Divine, 2010). For most people, suppression has negative associations. A person who characteristically suppresses his/her thoughts and feelings will appear to others as guarded, tense, controlled, and conforming. Despite the very common use of deliberate suppression of unwanted thoughts or behavior (who hasn’t tried?), according to research studies, suppression is an unsuccessful strategy in the long run.
Imagine that your long-term goal is to lose weight. There is a delicious piece of chocolate on the table and you try not to think about it. As your inner censor keeps a vigilant outlook for any forbidden chocolate thoughts in your mind, this ironically causes just that very thought constantly to come back, even stronger than before. Daniel Wegner (1989), a psychology professor at Harvard, has shown in experimental research that when we try not to think of something, one part of our mind avoids the forbidden thought, and “the operative process” starts in which the unwanted thought is pushed out and a more acceptable thought takes its place. But the other part of the mind has to check in ever so often for the forbidden thought, what Wegner (1994) calls “the monitoring process,” to make sure the thought is not there—paradoxically bringing just that thought back to mind. This well-documented phenomenon is called the “post-suppression rebound” (Förster & Liberman, 2005; Wegner et al., 1987). The more you want to get rid of a thought, the more it bothers you. When you deliberately try to push the thought to oblivion, the monitoring process brings it back again.
Mindfulness meditation is often characterized by alertness during meditation, being mindful of the present moment, and monitoring what is going on in mind and body. The drifting away in spontaneous thought is accepted, but often subtly avoided. In one version of mindfulness meditation, when the meditator becomes aware of drifting, he or she should sharpen her/his attention. Most likely, Wegner’s monitoring process is well represented in this form of mindfulness meditation. There are two possible caveats when trying to monitor one’s own thoughts. First, one could end up as a kind of suppressive gatekeeper, seeing to it that unpermissible thoughts are rejected while others may pass. This gatekeeping can also happen unconsciously. Regardless, it is most likely a losing battle; the mind’s propensity to spontaneous thinking surely won’t go away. And maybe it shouldn’t; unwanted thoughts are certainly not always a nuisance. Ask any artist or writer. The second limitation with being excessively mindful during meditation is that the access to more fragmented, unclear, unconscious, peripheral thoughts and emotions may be restricted. One benefit of allowing the mind to become absorbed in spontaneous thought is the processing of impressions, experiences, and perceptions. This processing, which is vital for stress reduction, will be hindered if the meditator has a gatekeeper function checking what is acceptable to the conscious mind and what is not. Acem Meditation and other nondirective meditation methods do not prescribe any form of suppression, due to its incompatibility with the essential free mental attitude during meditation. Like most meditation, Acem Meditation uses a meditation object, a neutral meditation sound consisting of vowels and consonants, which is gently repeated in the mind. When the meditation sound is repeated with a free mental attitude, one will discover from time to time that one has become absorbed in spontaneous thought. Drifting away in thought is not regarded as an interference or distraction but as a necessary mental discharge, a release of residual impressions from the day or past, or thoughts about the future. The instruction then is to shift one’s attention back to the meditation object. This is done exceedingly gently without actively suppressing other thoughts, emotions, or bodily sensations. Nothing is to be suppressed, directly or subtly. The sheer absence of thought control is essential for relaxation.
Apart from not being very effective, obvious or subtle suppression is never much fun to do, and in addition it impairs memory (Gross, 2002). Restricting one’s mind to what is acceptable and politically correct may dampen inner vitality, or at least make it quite boring. Furthermore, suppression is also draining, and has its physical correlates in tense muscles, restlessness, and fatigue. So if suppression is useless and possibly contraindicated, what is the alternative? How can one deal with unwanted parts of the self? The answer is hardly to get better at controlling oneself, but rather to develop a more flexible self-control and knowing what to control and what to let be.
How to become more of what we want and less of what we are not so proud of? Given the universality of such a question, it is remarkable that so little research has been devoted to how adults effectively can develop a more flexible and graded self-control directed towards behavior and not the mind. Psychotherapy is costly, time-consuming, and of limited availability and therefore should be earmarked for those who really need it. In addition, many psychotherapies propagate control of thoughts and emotions instead of behavior. There exist several effective interventions for children that help to promote the development of self-regulation in general (Rueda, 2012). Among self-administered techniques for adults, a few studies involving mindfulness meditation (training focused attention) have shown some effect on the control of attention and thoughts (Moore & Malinowski, 2009; Teper & Inzlicht, 2012). This type of mind control is prevalent among most directive meditation techniques.
Nondirective techniques do the opposite. Acem Meditation gives ample experience with the needs of the mind for freedom of thought. Brain scientists have shown that spontaneous mind wandering happens frequently during the day and therefore hypothesize that mind wandering might have very specific purposes in relieving the brain of insufficiently processed impressions. The release of spontaneous thoughts during Acem Meditation does not happen in a vacuum; the thoughts are simultaneously accepted by the conscious mind with a free mental attitude. The clue is to gradually moderate not the content of the mind but the attitude towards whatever is preoccupying it.
The practitioner of Acem Meditation is instructed not to monitor nor be especially attentive to whatever preoccupies the mind during meditation. Such mind wandering is neither minimized nor avoided.
On the contrary, free-flowing thought is a cornerstone of this type of meditation. Since the purpose of Acem Meditation is to relax rather than to train one’s attention, the unfolding of spontaneous thought is welcomed and regarded as an integral part of the meditation process (Holen & Eifring, 2013). Few things give us the sense of freedom and calm us as much as those moments when we let our thoughts roam freely. Letting go of the censorship of one’s own mind is something we usually do when we are relaxed, content, and feel secure. It is not a specific phenomenon that occurs only during Acem Meditation but is also present, albeit somewhat differently, when we for example gaze out of a train window at an open landscape and the distant horizon opens doors in the mind.
Some researchers argue that our brains must choose between the neural network that is activated when our minds wander (called the default mode network) and the network that helps us regulate ourselves (often called the executive attention network). The two networks are assumed to compete for “workspace” in our heads (Baars, 2002). Fox et al. (2005) found that when one network was more active, the other one was proportionately less and vice versa. Accordingly, mind wandering is restricted in directive meditations when the executive attention network is activated (see chapter 2).
On the other hand, in Acem Meditation, two mindsets appear in close succession or even simultaneously: a deliberate task (repetition of a sound in thought) and involuntary spontaneous thoughts. Psychologically, one mindset doesn’t try to elbow out the other. But what happens then in the neural networks? Recent research has shown that deliberate activity and mind wandering do not necessarily compete in the brain. An individual can engage in a kind of multi-tasking-attention, but only if the two mindsets work in cooperation. In our daily lives, and not only when meditating, the same kind of cooperation may occur. One can be focused at work while the conscious mind has access to and can freely select relevant associations from mind wandering that can add insight, color, creativity, vigor, and spice to the work being done (Baird et al., 2011; 2012; Immordino-Yang et al., 2012).
It seems that competing neural networks are more characteristic of the concentration in directive meditation than of the free mental attitude in nondirective meditation, since concentration and attentive mindfulness require more discipline and therefore also more brain space. Cooperating neural networks could be more typical of nondirective meditations which demand less focus, like the very effortless, gentle repetition of a sound in Acem Meditation while mind wandering simultaneously is allowed. Maybe it is also easier for the networks to cooperate if one is more relaxed?
Since mind wandering during nondirective meditation is experienced as releasing and relieving, a not unlikely outcome after meditation would be a reduction in the amount of imperative thoughts and impulses that preoccupy the mind and distract from focus and concentration. Similarly, when inner states become less pressing, there is less propensity to impulsiveness and subsequently better regulatory capacity. It is not so hard to imagine that if one from time to time allows oneself the freedom to think and feel whatever might be present in the mind, it also becomes easier to regulate one’s behavior. The mental energy that otherwise would be used to disown thoughts and feelings can instead be redirected to regulate behavior.
Recall the story of Archimedes from ancient Greece. For days, Archimedes struggled with a mathematical/physical problem without finding a solution. Finally, he gave up and took a bath. It was then, while relaxing in the warm water and not thinking of anything in particular, when he just let his thoughts wander in the hot steam, that the answer to his problem came to him. A broader range of ideas could roam more freely in his head when his mind was not too sharply focused and gave room for new ideas. Usually, innovative thoughts are not bright lightbulbs popping up out of the blue. More often they are vague, like a whisper or a hardly perceptible inkling lingering in the periphery of the mind. With thought control these hunches are so easily ignored. A more open mind, however, is more likely to detect them, maybe considering them irrelevant, but still who knows? Maybe they will evolve into an idea that is both creative and useful. Some call this gradual process “creative incubation” (Ritter and Dijksterhuis, 2014). Such incubation presupposes an open mind, encompassing also the negative, the painful, and shameful. Where would art, literature, and culture at large be if we all exercised control of what society terms negative thinking? The birthplace of creativity is truly not made up of only positive thoughts, conformity, and politically correct ideas.
People who have practiced Acem Meditation for many years, even decades, report not only that a receptiveness towards ideas, thoughts, and emotions increases but also a receptiveness for perceptions of nature as well as a sensitivity for others. This receptiveness and openness is a constant source that ignites afterthought, reflection, insight, a questioning of mainstream ideas, and consideration of what is possible. Others have called mind wandering “constructive, inner reflection” (Immordino-Yang et al., 2012). Brain researchers describe mind wandering as a default condition that the brain reverts to when it is not busy with any specific task. Mind wandering may sound like useless daydreaming, but researchers hypothesize that it is a way of processing whatever issues preoccupy our minds, almost like a biological necessity (see chapter 4). Just take a look at what actually goes on during mind wandering: increased self-awareness, improvisation and evaluation, memory consolidation, autobiographical planning (Stawarczyk et al., 2011), reflective consideration of the meaning of events and experiences, simulating the perspectives of others, evaluating implications of one’s own and others’ emotional reactions, moral reasoning (see chapter 11), reflective compassion, and the aforementioned creative incubation (Baird, 2012).
Mindfulness meditation often instructs meditators to keep sustained attention on the present moment. Nondirective techniques, however, recommend a more inclusive, open-minded, and relaxed attention that also encompasses what is on the periphery of the conscious mind. Putatively, a relaxed mind is a more flexible mind. “The ability to change focus of attention in a flexible and adaptive manner” (Mirsky et al., 1991) is described as an important selfregulatory function. This implies being able to shift between different mental sets (Miyake et al., 2000). Such shifts take place continuously during Acem Meditation.
The unconscious shift towards mind wandering With an effortless repetition in the mind of a non-semantic and neutral sound, with a free mental attitude, and due to the nonassociative nature of the sound, the mind is left open and receptive to whichever way the wind and spontaneous thoughts go. The ability to let go of all predetermined ideas, and adjust to an unexpected, ever-changing reality is vital for creativity and innovative thinking. This is the essence of cognitive flexibility —the ability to switch ways of thinking, either automatically or deliberately, in situations where adaptability is necessary. It also requires the ability relinquish a way of thinking or behaving that previously might have been successful but no longer is.
The conscious, voluntary (yet gentle) shift When the meditator, after being absorbed in thought, realizes that the repetition of the sound is gone, she/he will then shift back to effortless repetition and regain a relaxed focus. The meditator thereby practices unrestrained and effortless shifting of her/his main focus from mind wandering to the repetition of the meditation sound done with a free mental attitude and without pushing the spontaneous thoughts aside. A relaxed training of this ability to disengage from dominant mental activity without using suppression is the essence of the technique. The mental content that absorbed the mind is simply allowed to be, nothing is controlled or held down or pushed away, the thought is simply not given attention then and there. It is allowed to disappear or to remain in the periphery of mind, waiting to see if the meditator looks its way. The putative link between freedom of thought and efficient functioning need not be antagonistic. Instead, mind wandering every now and then probably facilitates subsequent efficient functioning.
A rich and fulfilling life presupposes a sound and flexible capability to control behavior. However, that does not imply that our inner thoughts and emotions must be subjected to the same restraints as we put upon ourselves as social beings. We all have to adapt to external restrictions in a modern society, yet we can still nurture our inner freedom. By doing so we may fertilize the very soil in which flexibility, creativity, and innovation thrive, as well as our spontaneous self—maybe the most genuine, existentially reflective, and honest part of who we are.
Alda, M., Puebla-Guedea, M., Rodero, B., Demarzo, M., Montero-Marin, J., Roca, M. & Garcia-Campayo, J. (2016). Zen meditation, Length of Telomeres, and the Role of Experiential Avoidance and Compassion. Mindfulness, 7, pp. 651–659.
Amodio, D. M. & Devine, P. G. (2010). Control in the regulation of intergroup bias. In R. Hassin, K. Ochsner & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain. Oxford University Press, pp. 56–58.
Baars, B. J. (2002). The conscious access hypothesis: Origins and recent evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 47–52.
Baird, B., Smallwood, J. & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1604–1611.
Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W., Franklin M. S. & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: Mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23, pp. 1117–1122.
De Luca, C.R., Wood, S.J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J.-A., Proffitt, T., Mahony, K., et al. (2003). Normative data from the CANTAB: I: Development of executive functions over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, 38, pp. 352–362.
Duckworth, A. & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separable determinants of success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, pp. 319–325. doi.org/10.1177/0963721414541462
Epel, E. S., Lin, J., Wilhelm, F. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Cawthon, R., Adler, N. E., Dolbier, C., Mendes, W. B. & Blackburn, E. H. (2006). Cell aging in relation to stress arousal and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, pp. 277–287.
Epel, E. S., Blackburn, E. H., Lin, J., Dhabhar, F. S., Adler, N. E., Morrow, J. D. & Cawthon, R. M. (2004). Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, pp. 17312–17315.
Erskine, J.A.K., Georgiou, G.J. & Kvavilashvili, L. (2010). I suppress therefore I smoke. Psychological Science, 21, pp. 1225–1230.
Förster, J. & Liberman, N. (2005). A motivational model of post-suppressional rebound. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, pp. 1–32.
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A.Z., Vincent, A.Z., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D.C. & Raichle M.E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy Science of the United States of America, 102, pp. 9673–9678.
Gresham, F. M. & Elliot, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, pp. 281–291. doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198
Holen, A. (2016). The Psychology of Silence. Oslo: Dyade Press.
Holen, A. & Eifring, H. B. (2013). Acem Meditation: An introductory companion. Oslo: Acem Press.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Christodoulou, J. A. & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, pp. 352–364.
Jacobs, T. L., Epel, E. S., Lin, J. Blackburn, E. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Bridwell, D. A., Zanesco, A. P., Aichele, S. R., Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., King, B. G., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Ferrer, E., Wallace, B. A., Saron, C. D. et al. (2011). Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, pp. 664–681.
Mirsky, A. F., Anthony, B. J., Duncan, C. C., Ahearn, M. B. & Kelliam, S. G. (1991). Analysis of the elements of attention: A neuropsychological approach. Neuropsychology Review, 2, pp. 109–145.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerte, A. & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of Executive Functions and their contributions to complex ‘‘Frontal Lobe’’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, pp. 49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Moore, A. & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, pp. 176–186.
Murray, A. L., Obsuth, I., Eisner, M. & Ribeaud, D. (2016). Shaping aggressive personality in adolescence: Exploring cross-lagged relations between aggressive thoughts, aggressive behaviour and self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, pp. 1–7.
Raknes, S. & Haugland, B. S. M. (2013). Psykologisk førstehjelp. Oslo: Voksne for Barn.
Ritter, S. M. & Dijksterhuis, A. (2014). Creativity: The unconscious foundations of the incubation period. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, p. 215. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00215
Roskam, I., Stievenart, M., Meunier, J-C. & Noël, M-P. (2014). The development of children’s inhibition: Does parenting matter? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, pp. 166–182.
Rueda, M. R., Checa, P. & Combita, L. M. (2012). Enhanced efficiency of the executive attention network after training in preschool children: Immediate changes and effects after two months. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, pp. 192–204.
Stawarczyk, D., Majerus, S., Maj, M., Van Der Linden, M. & D’Argembeau, A. (2011). Mind-wandering: Phenomenology and function as assessed with a novel experience sampling method. Acta Psychologica, 136, pp. 370–381.
Teper, R. & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Meditation, mindfulness and executive control: The importance of emotional acceptance and brain-based performance monitoring. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Advance, 8, pp. 85–92.
Wegner, D.M., Schneider, D.J., Carter, S. & White, T. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, pp. 5–13.
Wegner, D.M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts. New York: Viking/ Penguin.
Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, pp. 34–52.