Changing Your Mindset

[basilio]

Changing your mind set

Something happened to me a couple of days ago that I think is worth sharing.

I was watching QI on the ABC and there was this quite astonishing revelation.

The incubator was developed by French inventors in the 1880's. By 1900 it had been developed for premature babies to help them through the first difficult months. Up till then, pretty clearly, many premature babies would have sickened and died.

Great. Now where do imagine these incubators would have been located ? Hospital ? Maternity hospital perhaps ? Expensive private residence ? (They were new and very pricey after all )

Nope. In New York from 1903 till 1940 the baby incubators were located in a glass walled ward in a the Coney Island amusement park. People paid to see these premmie babies live and thrive. It was a significant part of the whole entertainment complex.

I was totally floored when I heard this ! (and so was everyone else on the show by the way.) But after a few minutes hearing about and thinking about it seemed to make sense. This was a new very expensive technology. Normal people couldn't afford to pay for it. Using the success of the children's survival as an "entertainment" package enabled the doctors using the technology to cover their costs and make a dollar. And they did a similar exercise in Europe.

Anyway it was interesting for me to aware of how my thinking about the idea rapidly changed from completely incredulous to understanding and accepting it.

And I'm sure everybody else could relate similar changes of view in other circumstances.

http://io9.com/5885939/babies-in-incubators-were-once-an-attraction-at-coney-island

 

[basilio]

Re: Using your Ignore List

For anyone interested in learning more about the prem babies on Coney Isalnd I found a far more indepth paper written by a doctor in US.

In the big picture this wasn't a simple feel good story. After the first excellent results and financial success of the public baby hospital a number of opportunistic promoters tried to create their own (not so effective) operations.

Well worth a read for anyone interested in following this further.

http://www.neonatology.org/classics/silverman/silverman1.html

On the morning of Thursday, March 2, 1950, I read the following obituary in the New York Times:

MARTIN A. COUNEY, "INCUBATOR DOCTOR"

Dr. Martin A. Couney, a specialist in the care of prematurely born infants, who had shown such babies to the public for an admission price at fairs and other exhibitions throughout the United States and in Europe for more than fifty years, died last night at his home, 3728 Surf Avenue, Sea Gate, Coney Island. He was 80 years old. "The Incubator Doctor" as Dr. Couney was informally known, was born in Germany, studied medicine in Breslau, Berlin and Leipzig, receiving an M.D., and later in Paris under Dr. Pierre C. Budin, noted pediatrician, who developed a method of saving the prematurely born.

At the Berlin Exposition in 1896, Dr. Couney operated an exhibit of prematurely born babies to show the Budin technique. The exhibit was a financial success, as was a second one at Earl's Court in London. In 1898 Dr. Couney paid his first visit to the United States and staged an exhibit at the Omaha Trans-Mississipi Exposition. He returned to Paris for the exposition of 1900, but was back in this country for the Buffalo Exposition the next year, and then decided to remain here for good.

For years he had shows at both Dreamland and Luna Park, and the night Dreamland was destroyed by fire the babies were saved by a quick transfer to the Luna Park incubators, some of the lodgers doubling up.

Dr. Couney had one of his Baby Incubators attractions at the New York World's Fair [1939-40]. He leaves a daughter, Hildegarde Couney, long associated with her father's affairs. His wife, Annabelle May Couney, died in 1938.

 

[wayneL]

Moved from Using Your Ignore List.

An interesting topic that should have its own thread.

 

[burglar]

Moved from Using Your Ignore List.

An interesting topic that should have its own thread.

Agree! I am ruminating on the idea too.

 

[wayneL]

There are many such incidences of mindset changes in modern society.

Religion, sex, sexism, racism, drinking and driving, smoking... the list is endless.

Same sex marriage is one we seem to be going through the process of right now on a societal scale... which of course requires the change in a critical mass of individuals.

 

[DocK]

As a woman born in a Western country in the 60's - it boggles my mind to figure out how my ancestors ever believed:

That women shouldn't be allowed to vote,
That women shouldn't be paid as much as men for the same job
That taking babies away from their mothers was a good idea
That an entire nation would rally behind Hitler and believe his rhetoric
That Australia should be White
That smoking was cool, so cool that doctors and nurses smoked at work, and in my first job every desk had an ashtray

I could go on, but I'm sure you get what I mean. The vast majority of humans once believed utterly that the earth was flat, and man could no more fly to the moon than travel through time! I'm sure if I live long enough my mindset on several issues may change completely. We humans are a strange lot aren't we?

 

[wayneL]

We are certainly a strange lot Doc. I have always been astonished by the paradox of humanity.

One such paradox (inter alia) which for me is topical at the moment, is the favour we see in changes of mindset from individual plebeians (or en masse), whereas changes in mindset by politicians viewed as a "backflip" with associated negative connotations.

 

[DocK]

We are certainly a strange lot Doc. I have always been astonished by the paradox of humanity.

One such paradox (inter alia) which for me is topical at the moment, is the favour we see in changes of mindset from individual plebeians (or en masse), whereas changes in mindset by politicians viewed as a "backflip" with associated negative connotations.

Yes, it's frustrating to see people lambasted for changing their view on an issue, even though the circumstances under which their original decision was made may have changed. If new information comes to light, or there is a substantial change in the economy for instance, surely a willingness to move with the times should be encouraged. I'd rather not be governed by a party with entrenched policies or ideas - anyone who is willing to admit they may have been wrong in the past and has changed their mindset, or who is willing to be influenced by new information or changing public sentiment towards an issue, should be given leeway to change their mind, rather than be forced into a position where they have to defend every comment they may have made in the past or be seen as weak. There's a fine line between being open to new ideas and being a slave to the most popular or vocal viewpoint however. Holding firm to convictions is also to be applauded where it is appropriate. Having the wisdom to know when your convictions are out of step is the tricky bit.....

 

[Gringotts Bank]

It's good to have a healthy mindset, but even the most healthy mindsets will be a cause of suffering in the end. Because there is no truth in any mindset, it's better to realize this as early as possible.

We erroneously think we are making great progress when we replace old mindsets with new ones. But there's a limit to this constant updating of mindsets. Such alterations can make you a bit more happy and prosperous and a bit less harmful, but can never free you. Even the most egalitarian, free, kind and prosperous mindsets are binding.

 

[So_Cynical]

We are certainly a strange lot Doc. I have always been astonished by the paradox of humanity.

One such paradox (inter alia) which for me is topical at the moment, is the favour we see in changes of mindset from individual plebeians (or en masse), whereas changes in mindset by politicians viewed as a "backflip" with associated negative connotations.

The swing voters are voting for something, a promise of sorts...not unreasonable to expect election promises to be kept, much like we expect wedding vows (promises) to be kept.

What would be refreshing and a possible mind set changer...is for Tony to simply say "i changed my mind because" and then sell that as a positive and not a lie.

 

[wayneL]

The swing voters are voting for something, a promise of sorts...not unreasonable to expect election promises to be kept, much like we expect wedding vows (promises) to be kept.

What would be refreshing and a possible mind set changer...is for Tony to simply say "i changed my mind because" and then sell that as a positive and not a lie.

Changing mindsets is not exclusive to Tony SC. Others do so as well and if it is well reasoned, it doesn't matter the political affiliation, it has my respect.

Let's not go politicking here.

 

[burglar]

... That an entire nation would rally behind Hitler and believe his rhetoric ...

I couldn't believe lots of stuff about WWII
But a German woman who was there, explained it simply.
The German people were hungry and unemployed.
Hitler delivered food and jobs.

 

[wayneL]

I couldn't believe lots of stuff about WWII
But a German woman who was there, explained it simply.
The German people were hungry and unemployed.
Hitler delivered food and jobs.

Burglar, my old man had a German accountant who was in the Hitler youth (though too young for the Wehrmacht). A lovely man who explained in much the same terms.

 

[So_Cynical]

I had a German friend, old dude at the time now passed...he simply left, took what he had in 1933 and sailed for England and when a few years later war was inevitable sailed for neutral Ireland, sat out the war there.

 

[basilio]

I thought the story on Nelson Mandela which I posted in the breaking news thread was very appropriate for Changing your Mindset.

Nelson Mandela managed to win over the majority of the Afrikaner community in South Africa. That was some feat.

The insight into how he achieved this is (IMO) worth a Sunday afternoon read.

Nelson Mandela: the freedom fighter who embraced his enemies
John Carlin knew Mandela in the tumultuous years just after his release. Here he tells of the private meetings that proved he was a master at winning over even the most implacable opponents


Nelson Mandela arrived early for work on 11 May 1994, the day after his inauguration as the first black president of South Africa. As he walked down the deserted corridors, past framed watercolours celebrating the derring-do of white settlers at the time of the Great Trek, he paused outside a door and knocked.

A voice said "Come in" and Mandela, who was 6ft, found himself looking up at a vast, second-row forward of a man, an Afrikaner by the name of John Reinders, chief of presidential protocol during the tenure both of the last white president, FW de Klerk, and his predecessor, PW Botha.

"Good morning, how are you?" said Mandela, with a cheery grin.

"Very well, Mr President, and you?"

"Very well, ve-ry well …" Mandela replied. "But, ah … may I ask, what are you doing?"

Reinders, who was packing away his belongings into cardboard boxes, replied: "I am taking away my things, Mr President. I am moving to another job."

"Ah, very good. Where is it you are going?"

"Back to the prisons department. I served there as a major before coming to work here in the presidency."

"Ah, no," Mandela grinned. "No, no, no. I know that department ve-ry well. I would not recommend doing that."

Turning serious, Mandela proceeded to persuade Reinders to stay. "You see, we people, we are from the bush. We do not know how to administer a body as complex as the presidency of South Africa. We need the help of experienced people such as yourself. I would ask you, please, to stay at your post. I intend only to serve for one presidential term and then, of course, you would be free to do as you wish."

Reinders, as astonished as he was charmed, needed no further explanations. Slowly, shaking his head in wonder, he began to empty his boxes.

Reinders, whose eyes filled with tears as he recalled that story some time later, told me that during the five years he had served at Mandela's side, travelling far and wide with him, he had received nothing but courtesy and kindness. Mandela treated him with the same respect, he said, as he showed the president of the United States, the pope or Britain's Queen, who, incidentally, adored him. Mandela must have been the only person in the world, with the possible exception of the Duke of Edinburgh, who always called her "Elizabeth" – or at least who was able to do so without drawing even a shadow of a rebuke. (A friend of mine who was having dinner with him once at his home in Johannesburg recalled how a servant came in with a portable phone. It was the Queen on the line. Smiling broadly, Mandela put the phone to his ear and exclaimed: "Ah, Elizabeth! How are you? How are the children?")

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/07/nelson-mandela-freedom-fighter-john-carlin

 

[wayneL]

I had a German friend, old dude at the time now passed...he simply left, took what he had in 1933 and sailed for England and when a few years later war was inevitable sailed for neutral Ireland, sat out the war there.

Few have such foresight, most are too trusting of their gu'mints and fall for the propaganda of the day. Such was the case with the accountant.

I'll bet your friend was not popular amongst his countrymen at the time. :-(