Discussion: View Thread

In a private communication, Don McIntosh replied to my posting about
“Performance, Well-Being, and Paradigms of Time.” I asked Don for permission
to post his question and my response to the whole list, and he agreed to it:

Don wrote: "I believe that the statement, "Scientists have not discovered any
flow of time in nature." makes it [my article] lose credibility. How can you
say this as you watch the sun pass through the sky each day and the seasons
pass each year."

Yes, Don, I would be silly to claim that the sun doesn’t move. But I think
there’s a difference between the movement of time and the movement of the sun
on which time is projected. The Dalai Lama wrote: “I feel there is a
difference between time and the phenomena on which time is projected.”

What I wrote was: “the flow of time is not objective and external.
Scientists have not discovered any flow of time in nature. This flow is a
product of our conditioning, and is under our control.”

There is a distinction that can usefully be made between events occurring
(such as the sun passing through the sky) and the perception of flow and the
attribution of the perception to such naturally occurring events. I say that
events occur, but they don’t flow. Scientists say similar things: “The flow of
time is clearly an inappropriate concept for the description of the physical
world that has no past, present and future.” --Thomas Gold, “Relativity and
Time” in The Encyclopedia of Ignorance, ed. R. Duncan and M. Weston-Smith (New
York: Pergamon, 1977), p. 100

Also, from psychoanalyst Hartocollis, in his book *Time and Timelessness*, pp.
5-6: “The experience or sense of time, and later the perception of time as an
attribute of objective reality, is a function of consciousness. It grows
along with consciousness, beginning with the differentiation of the self from
the object world.…What gradually establishes the sense of time as duration,
and more or less coincidentally as temporal perspective, is the felt
inadequacy of the self in terms of growing unpleasure and the awareness of the
possibility that the need-fulfilling object–mother–may or may not come.”

And from football player John Brodie: “Time seems to slow way down . . . . It
seems as if I had all the time in the world . . . and yet I know the defensive
line is coming at me just as fast as ever.” (p. 42, *In The Zone*, by
Michael Murphy)

In this quote by Brodie, it’s clear that his perception of time is somehow
independent of what’s happening physically. In other words, *flow* of time is
psychological, not something objectively measured. And my claim is based not
just on others’ statements, but on my research over 21 years with thousands of
people using quite a few different experiential exercises.

You might also ask in a similar vein, “How can you say this as you watch the
second hand of a clock move?” I’ve had perhaps a thousand people do exactly
that. The results? Most people will say that the speed of the second hand
varies a lot as they watch it for five minutes; some even say that it stopped.
That’s their perception of its movement, which is sometimes experienced as
flowing quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes stopping. The perception can be
distinguished from the commonsense notion that its physical speed was quite
constant. It’s useful to distinguish the physical movement (not flow) or
occurrence from the perceived flow, which is a feeling of a special kind: we
can’t do much about physical time, but we can do a lot about psychological
time, and I think it’s the latter that gives us problems, not the former.

Best wishes,
Steve Randall, Ph.D. - Results in No Time - email: stevrandal@aol.com
Time Management Supersite: http://members.aol.com/rslts
Site includes complete time management courses & resource directory

land: 1124 Ballena Blvd., Suite 5, Alameda CA 94501
phone & fax: 510-749-9931

The discussion between Steve Randall and Don McIntosh is worthy of further
elaboration for at least three reasons: 1) for anyone working in a cross
cultural context, it is importaant to be aware of the cultural nature of
time; 2) time is increasing recognized as an important dimension of
competition, i.e., the notion of competing on the basis of time, e.g., from
idea to market; and 3) in some theories of leadership, e.g., Jacques's
Stratified Systems theory, time is a critical variable.

At least two typologies of time have appeared in the literature. Hall and
Hall (1987) discuss monochronic, polychronic, and rhythmic time, while
Kelly and McGrath (1988) discuss Newtonian, Einsteinian, and transactional
perspectives of time.

Don's argument, which appears Newtonian or monocchronic in nature, I think
reflects the dominant view to time in the US. Here time is viewed as
atomistic but homogeneous, abstract and absolute, linear, segmented, and
tangible, characterized by a clock and calendar orientation, and driven by
schedules and agendas. Examples of this orientation are being on time,
time management, and saving, wasting, or losing time.

Steve's position, on the other hand, appears Einsteinian or polychronic in
nature, the antithesis of the monchronic time orientation. Here time is
viewed as indivisible but differentiated, abstract but relational with
simultaneous occurence of many things, and mutidimensional. Here time is
viewed in terms of movement. The radar scope captures this notion. The
event time horizon between planes is a function of their current location
and relative movement. As they change location, so does the event time
horizon between them. The argument here is that organizations and people
do not operate in a vacuum.

Hall and Hall (1987) propose that there are significant cultural
differences in terms of which orientation is dominant and that polychronic
and monochronic people behave differently.

The third view of time is transactional. Here time is cyclical, not
linear. The notion of circadian rhythm is an example. Another is example
is the setting of time according to personal epiphanies or other important
events. A particular aspect of the transactional view of time is the
notion of entrainment. Entrainment is the phenomenon in which one cyclic
process becomes captured by, and set to oscillate in rhythm with, another
process. The four elements of entrainment are rhythm, mesh
(synchronization), tempo, and pace. To these we might add the notions of
sequence, rate, and allocation. The transactional nature of time makes us
sensitive to the importance of bringing the right objects to the right
place at the right time and in the right order.

Sensitivity to the issues raised by Steve and Don, and recognition of the
effects their different perspectives can have, can aid us all when we deal
with people who "don't seem to understand the importance of time" as we do.

Regards, Kim Boal







At 06:25 PM 8/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>In a private communication, Don McIntosh replied to my posting
about
>“Performance, Well-Being, and Paradigms of Time.” I asked Don for
permission
>to post his question and my response to the whole list, and he
agreed to it:
>
>Don wrote: "I believe that the statement, "Scientists have not discovered
any
>flow of time in nature." makes it [my article] lose credibility. How
can you
>say this as you watch the sun pass through the sky each day and
the seasons
>pass each year."
>
>Yes, Don, I would be silly to claim that the sun doesn’t move. But I
think
>there’s a difference between the movement of time and the movement
of the sun
>on which time is projected. The Dalai Lama wrote: “I feel
there is a
>difference between time and the phenomena on which time is
projected.”
>
>What I wrote was: “the flow of time is not objective and
external.
>Scientists have not discovered any flow of time in nature. This
flow is a
>product of our conditioning, and is under our control.”
>
>There is a distinction that can usefully be made between events
occurring
>(such as the sun passing through the sky) and the perception of
flow and the
>attribution of the perception to such naturally occurring
events. I say that
>events occur, but they don’t flow. Scientists say
similar things: “The flow of
>time is clearly an inappropriate concept for
the description of the physical
>world that has no past, present and
future.” --Thomas Gold, “Relativity and
>Time” in The Encyclopedia of
Ignorance, ed. R. Duncan and M. Weston-Smith (New
>York: Pergamon, 1977),
p. 100
>
>Also, from psychoanalyst Hartocollis, in his book *Time and Timelessness*,
pp.
>5-6: “The experience or sense of time, and later the perception of
time as an
>attribute of objective reality, is a function of consciousness.
It grows
>along with consciousness, beginning with the differentiation of
the self from
>the object world.…What gradually establishes the sense of
time as duration,
>and more or less coincidentally as temporal perspective,
is the felt
>inadequacy of the self in terms of growing unpleasure and the
awareness of the
>possibility that the need-fulfilling object–mother–may or
may not come.”
>
>And from football player John Brodie: “Time seems to slow way down . . .
. It
>seems as if I had all the time in the world . . . and yet I know the
defensive
>line is coming at me just as fast as ever.” (p. 42, *In The
Zone*, by
>Michael Murphy)
>
>In this quote by Brodie, it’s clear that his perception of time is
somehow
>independent of what’s happening physically. In other words,
*flow* of time is
>psychological, not something objectively measured. And
my claim is based not
>just on others’ statements, but on my research over
21 years with thousands of
>people using quite a few different experiential
exercises.
>
>You might also ask in a similar vein, “How can you say this as you watch
the
>second hand of a clock move?” I’ve had perhaps a thousand people do
exactly
>that. The results? Most people will say that the speed of the
second hand
>varies a lot as they watch it for five minutes; some even say
that it stopped.
>That’s their perception of its movement, which is
sometimes experienced as
>flowing quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes
stopping. The perception can be
>distinguished from the commonsense notion
that its physical speed was quite
>constant. It’s useful to distinguish
the physical movement (not flow) or
>occurrence from the perceived flow,
which is a feeling of a special kind: we
>can’t do much about physical
time, but we can do a lot about psychological
>time, and I think it’s the
latter that gives us problems, not the former.
>
>Best wishes,
>Steve Randall, Ph.D. - Results in No Time - email: stevrandal@aol.com
>Time Management Supersite: http://members.aol.com/rslts
>Site includes complete time management courses & resource directory
>
>land: 1124 Ballena Blvd., Suite 5, Alameda CA 94501
>phone & fax: 510-749-9931
>
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu