With numerous Israeli medical centers around the country building new wings and even whole new buildings, it would be worthwhile for administrators to take into account research on how courtyard gardens and other aesthetic touches – including the inclusion of animals – are important to the well-being and recovery of patients. The Israeli Hebrew-language edition of Scientific American reported in its latest issue that scientific research has proven such elements are beneficial to patients (and probably also to hospital staffers). San Francisco medical writer Deborah Franklin, whose article was translated by the magazine, said that the greener such hospital facilities are, the better. Bushes, trees that provide shade and flowers that gladden the eye have shown to be desirable, especially if they attract birds. Realistic statues are also loved by patients, as are wide and meandering paths that are made of dark materials (so they don’t blind patients in the sun). Plants and trees that emit pleasant scents and can be safely touched are preferable, and doors to the courtyards should not be so heavy that it’s difficult for people to open them.Having such places within the hospital grounds where patients can “escape” to speeds up recovery from surgery, infection and disease in general. The research proving these statements were randomized, controlled studies. If such touches cannot be added to old buildings, even hanging large photos of nature spots such as a running stream or a shady forest speeds up recovery of heart surgery patients, the article reported, and were much more effective than abstract paintings or drawings.FOLLOW YOUR DREAMS
How often do you encourage others to pursue their dreams? How often do you feel caught up in daily hassles that keep you from following your own dreams? Dr. Rachel Barkan of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Prof.Shai Danziger of Tel Aviv University have been trying to understand why it is always easier said than done. Their research, funded by the Israel Science Foundation, examines the differences between choice and advice in a wide variety of situations. In a new research paper Danziger, Barkan and their student, Ronit Montal, demonstrate that advisers tend to promote idealistic options while choosers tend to opt for pragmatic options. The paper was recently published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.“It’s a matter of seeing the forest for the trees,” Barkan explains. “The advice we give is not anchored in the choice we would make. When we give advice, we don’t consider what we would have done in the same situation. Instead, our role as adviser distances us from the dilemma at hand.From afar, we see the forest. We consider long-term goals that are worthy and desirable. As advisers, we overlook the trees and discount obstacles and impediments on the way to this goal. As choosers, however, we can’t avoid seeing the trees – sometimes to the extent of losing the forest. As choosers, our mindset is oriented toward implementation and we give more weight to concrete details of feasibility and pragmatism.They conducted a series of six studies showing that – compared with choosers – advisers weigh idealistic considerations more heavily than pragmatic ones, place greater emphasis on goals (“why?” questions) than on means to achieve the goals (“how?” questions) and generate more reasons in favor of acting idealistically. Advisers do not put themselves in the chooser’s position before offering advice (unless specifically asked to). Finally, studies confirmed that choice-advice difference was present in consequential reallife decisions.“The clash between the idealistic desire to follow our dreams and the pragmatic considerations that hold us back resembles the experience you go through looking at the famous picture of the young/old woman. You see the young woman for a moment, but then the old lady jumps in,” says Barkan. “You can’t keep a steady image of one of them for very long, and you can’t see both of them at the same time.”Then how can people follow their dreams? One answer lies in the findings, Barkan says: “It takes two. Not one person juggling two hats, but actually two people – a believer and a doer. They may fight throughout the journey, but if they share a dream they have a better chance of making it a reality together than apart.”