The drive back to Philly from Baltimore was less than two hours, but my husband had been up since 6am and, after a very filling dinner with friends, he quickly fell asleep in the passenger’s seat. This left the night to just me, cruise control and NPR.
Which is when I encountered Studio 360, a program that had never before crossed my radar. On this week’s episode, they were exploring David Eagleman’s newish book, Sum: Tales from the Afterlives. Eagleman is a neuroscientist-turned-fiction writer. Here’s how he described himself for Studio 360:
“I call myself a Possibilian and the idea of Possibilianism is it’s trying to understand the possibility space and it’s not interested in committing to a particular story over others in the absence of good evidence to do so.”
Eagleman, and his application of Possibilianism is particularly tied to an understanding of religion and the big questions we typically relegate to that realm. He has this to say on the Possibilian website:
“It is not difficult to recognize that if you’re born in Saudi Arabia, your nervous system is likely to absorb a belief in Islam; if you’re in India, you love Hinduism; most Americans soak up Christianity, and so on. Brains in different locations are exposed to different contexts, and they come to believe the local stories with equal passion and fervor. After childhood indoctrination people will vigorously defend their story against all the other stories, which seem to them fundamentally ridiculous.”
As a coach, I very often witness how the defense of one’s personal narrative shuts a client off to the possibilities that might otherwise exist. This sometimes has to do with religious narratives. It also has to do with cultural indoctrination and family history (that’s a story, you see). I watch my clients “vigorously defend their story.” I do it sometimes too, of course. Eagleman seems to be stating in the first quote that the problem is that we commit to particular stories “in the absence of good evidence to do so.”
I agree with this. I also believe, however, that reality is a pretty fluid proposition. (A favorite quote by Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations.”) Committing to a particular story, then, is not just a matter of identifying the good evidence, it’s also a matter of interpretation. For me, that becomes an issue of usefulness.
Consider a story you feel particularly attached to – be it about the world in general, your significant other, your own character – and ask yourself:
- What good evidence do I have that supports this story?
- How is this story useful to me? Or isn’t it?
Maybe, just maybe, there’s another possibility for you!










