Posts
The advent and popularity of positive psychology portends a brighter future for psychotherapy. Where previous therapy tried to eliminate negative emotions and pathological behaviors, positive psychology emphasizes the value of doing the right thing.
Instead of trying to figure out why people get things wrong, positive psychology aims to help them get things right.
Positive psychology originated with Aristotle's ethics. Therein we find the basis for a psychology that encourages self-improvement, good habits, virtuous action, and happiness.
For Aristotle happiness came to those who did the right thing, not necessarily to those who followed their bliss, acted according to their desires, or acquired what they wanted.
This does not mean that you can be happy with nothing. It means that you will not be happy merely by getting what you want. And it also means that while you can control and be responsible for your actions, you cannot control the actions and decisions of another person.
You should not base your happiness on whether or not you find the lover of your dreams. Making your happiness depend on the choices of another person may bring ecstasy, but it is more likely to bring despair.
The concept of virtue might well be confusing here. Aristotle and positive psychology have one notion of virtue; religions have another.
In religion most virtue involves abstaining from sinful actions. We can even call it a morality of inaction. If you slip up and fail to abstain, religion offers ways to repent the sin.
When it comes to positive virtue, Christianity, for example, sees it wholly in the practice of a certain kind of love, called "agape," which translates as charity.
Where positive psychology emphasizes doing the right thing in the sense of being a good friend, being responsible, reliable, loyal, and trustworthy, Christian love involves giving alms to the poor.
As for happiness, Christian religions generally identify happiness with the eternal bliss that will be yours in the after-life.
Psychoanalysis transformed this into the notion that you will be happy when you complete treatment... except that treatment never really ends. In Freud's words, it is interminable.
If classical psychotherapy-- the kind that seeks to cure through insight into the past-- has survived this long without ever really offering a cure, the reason must be that it has been selling hope. Hope for a Promised Land or for a Paradise that would be yours in some ill-defined future.
Our secular culture has transformed this version of happiness and offered the notion that we are happiest when we are on vacation. Happy people do not bask in the glow of God's love; they return to a more pagan version and see happiness as an afternoon of sun worship on the beach.
Making vacation (and its cousin, leisure) the prototype of happiness means that happiness involves being absolved of all responsibility, no longer having to work, and being liberated from all of the rules that society imposes on us.
Better yet, this version of happiness involves inactivity, even passivity. It has nothing to do with the Aristotelian concept of virtuous action.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The One True Secret to Success: Grit
As Jason Lehrer explains in a great article in the Boston Globe, the one true secret to success is grit. Link here.
Obviously, intelligence and talent have something to do with it, but if you cannot stick with a project, if you do not put in the extra time and energy, you are far less likely to succeed.
Hard work does not compensate for an absence of talent and intelligence. Work actualizes potential; it does not create it.
I would add that a person can only sustain a work ethic when it produces a measure of progress. There is a different between slogging your way forward and spinning your wheels.
As Lehrer points out, recent scientific research has shown that grit is a far better predictor of success than talent and intelligence.
This is another way of saying that character counts and strength of character keeps you working long after lesser souls have given up.
Lehrer identifies two ways that you can undermine a person's grit.
First, tell him that success comes from inspiration. Tell him that he need but await his next epiphany. Then the world will light up, the truth will be revealed, and it will all make sense.
People who belong to the inspiration/epiphany school of thought are more likely to give up sooner than those who believe that they must keep on working. They assume that if the epiphany is not there, no amount of work will force it to appear.
The second way to undermine a person's grit, thus his strength of character, is to keep telling him how brilliant he is.
When you tell someone that he is brilliant, that he has a gift from God, he will understand that he does not have to work very hard in order to succeed.
The same applies to beauty. People who are beautiful can attract attention for doing nothing more significant than smiling and winking. Thus, they are less likely to put in the time and the effort required to develop and sustain serious relationships.
What is there in the culture that undermines grit?
Lehrer names an educational system that has placed a single-minded focus on IQ and test scores, perhaps because they are so easily quantified. This emphasis gives children the impression that success is a function of an innate disposition, not of intense work over time.
But Lehrer's perspective assumes that we all accept that it is important to compete and to work to succeed. Clearly, there are important forces in the culture that want to devalue competition and success... because they feel that when one person succeeds another person fails. If failure makes anyone feel bad, it must be avoided.
Those who do not want success to be the goal emphasize the virtue of having a well-rounded personality.
Yet, as Lehrer says, well-roundedness tends to make us into professional dilettantes. It deprives us of the single-minded focus that would make us excel at an activity.
You cannot, he says, truly excel at piano if you spend half of your time playing the banjo.
If you are spending less time on a task than someone else of similar talent, the chances are good that he will do the best job.
Another contributing factor is our slavish adoration of wealthy people who seem to have succeeded while not appearing to work very hard. That is, celebrities.
When you make millions for playing make-believe, or for playing dress-up, you are offering proof that inspiration or good looks, in and of themselves, can be rewarded.
Many celebrities spend so little time working that they have all the time in the world to party and to shop.
With celebrities you have the largest disconnect between work and compensation. Nothing about how much work they put in could possibly justify the mega-compensation received by movie actors.
So, while our political class routinely trashes bankers and traders for their outsized bonuses, no one is wondering whether a rock star and a movie queen have truly earned their wealth.
If we as a country attempt to solve our financial crisis by emulating celebrities then we are in for a very long and dark night.
Obviously, intelligence and talent have something to do with it, but if you cannot stick with a project, if you do not put in the extra time and energy, you are far less likely to succeed.
Hard work does not compensate for an absence of talent and intelligence. Work actualizes potential; it does not create it.
I would add that a person can only sustain a work ethic when it produces a measure of progress. There is a different between slogging your way forward and spinning your wheels.
As Lehrer points out, recent scientific research has shown that grit is a far better predictor of success than talent and intelligence.
This is another way of saying that character counts and strength of character keeps you working long after lesser souls have given up.
Lehrer identifies two ways that you can undermine a person's grit.
First, tell him that success comes from inspiration. Tell him that he need but await his next epiphany. Then the world will light up, the truth will be revealed, and it will all make sense.
People who belong to the inspiration/epiphany school of thought are more likely to give up sooner than those who believe that they must keep on working. They assume that if the epiphany is not there, no amount of work will force it to appear.
The second way to undermine a person's grit, thus his strength of character, is to keep telling him how brilliant he is.
When you tell someone that he is brilliant, that he has a gift from God, he will understand that he does not have to work very hard in order to succeed.
The same applies to beauty. People who are beautiful can attract attention for doing nothing more significant than smiling and winking. Thus, they are less likely to put in the time and the effort required to develop and sustain serious relationships.
What is there in the culture that undermines grit?
Lehrer names an educational system that has placed a single-minded focus on IQ and test scores, perhaps because they are so easily quantified. This emphasis gives children the impression that success is a function of an innate disposition, not of intense work over time.
But Lehrer's perspective assumes that we all accept that it is important to compete and to work to succeed. Clearly, there are important forces in the culture that want to devalue competition and success... because they feel that when one person succeeds another person fails. If failure makes anyone feel bad, it must be avoided.
Those who do not want success to be the goal emphasize the virtue of having a well-rounded personality.
Yet, as Lehrer says, well-roundedness tends to make us into professional dilettantes. It deprives us of the single-minded focus that would make us excel at an activity.
You cannot, he says, truly excel at piano if you spend half of your time playing the banjo.
If you are spending less time on a task than someone else of similar talent, the chances are good that he will do the best job.
Another contributing factor is our slavish adoration of wealthy people who seem to have succeeded while not appearing to work very hard. That is, celebrities.
When you make millions for playing make-believe, or for playing dress-up, you are offering proof that inspiration or good looks, in and of themselves, can be rewarded.
Many celebrities spend so little time working that they have all the time in the world to party and to shop.
With celebrities you have the largest disconnect between work and compensation. Nothing about how much work they put in could possibly justify the mega-compensation received by movie actors.
So, while our political class routinely trashes bankers and traders for their outsized bonuses, no one is wondering whether a rock star and a movie queen have truly earned their wealth.
If we as a country attempt to solve our financial crisis by emulating celebrities then we are in for a very long and dark night.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Who Hires a Coach?
Who hires a coach? Well, Steven Rattner, for one.
Former New York Times reporter, former investment banker, former venture capitalist, and former Car Czar, Steven Rattner had once had a manner that was "distant and haughty." His colleagues did not like it.
Here is how New York Magazine described Rattner's effort to deal with the problem: "So Rattner hired an executive coach, Art Gingold, and worked with him for a couple of years until he left for Washington. It was essentially a likability course. 'He took the feedback as diligently as anybody I've coached,' says Gingold, who declined to discuss personal details. 'He studied it, almost memorized it. He really took it to heart. Gingold helped Rattner change his behavior, and gave him pointers. Now Rattner walked down to people's offices. In meetings, where he'd been business-only, he now opened with, 'Good morning, how was your weekend?' He took junior people to lunch. 'It sounds simple and obvious, but it wasn't [to him],' says Gingold."
Here is how Rattner approached his new position as Car Czar: "... he worked at getting along. While upending the car industry, Rattner tried out his new personality skills. This was a fresh start with people who didn't yet have a view of him, he told a friend, and he fought his tendency to be cool and remote. He was proud of himself; the guys really seemed to respect and to like him."
Link to New York Magazine article here.
Former New York Times reporter, former investment banker, former venture capitalist, and former Car Czar, Steven Rattner had once had a manner that was "distant and haughty." His colleagues did not like it.
Here is how New York Magazine described Rattner's effort to deal with the problem: "So Rattner hired an executive coach, Art Gingold, and worked with him for a couple of years until he left for Washington. It was essentially a likability course. 'He took the feedback as diligently as anybody I've coached,' says Gingold, who declined to discuss personal details. 'He studied it, almost memorized it. He really took it to heart. Gingold helped Rattner change his behavior, and gave him pointers. Now Rattner walked down to people's offices. In meetings, where he'd been business-only, he now opened with, 'Good morning, how was your weekend?' He took junior people to lunch. 'It sounds simple and obvious, but it wasn't [to him],' says Gingold."
Here is how Rattner approached his new position as Car Czar: "... he worked at getting along. While upending the car industry, Rattner tried out his new personality skills. This was a fresh start with people who didn't yet have a view of him, he told a friend, and he fought his tendency to be cool and remote. He was proud of himself; the guys really seemed to respect and to like him."
Link to New York Magazine article here.
Astrologers, Futurologists, and Other Prophets
The word from the fortune-telling world is not good. Slate.com is running a thought experiment on how America is going to end. Link here.
And Dan Dorfman reports on his interview with famed astrologer Bob Marks about what the stars and the planets have in store for us. The short answer is: cataclysmic doom. Link here.
You begin to think that some of these people forgot to take their optimism pills.
Of course, no one takes these predictions very seriously. And yet, we all make predictions, and some of the best minds in the financial world are renowned for their prophecies. I linked to Byron Wien's 2009 predictions in January. Link here.
And here are Doug Kass's 20 surprises for 2009. Link here.
Obviously, serious people do not believe in astrology. No one really believes that a planetary conjunction can have a transformational effect on our lives.
As we say these words, no small number of us will be looking up our horoscopes in the newspaper or on a website.
Astrology notwithstanding, we all project possible futures. You cannot make a plan without having some notion of what the future will look like.
Mostly, we think that the future will be more of the same. We believe that the past is destined to repeat itself, so that if we understand what happened yesterday we will be best prepared to deal with tomorrow.
People are debating whether the current financial crisis is a repeat of the 1930s or the 1970s.
It may not be true, but it is respectable. And if you imagine a future that has nothing to do with the past, a black swan, then you will surely be looked at askance.
Today, the mood is not as bleak as it was six months ago. And yet, the prophets of doom are still hard at work. And they are becoming more mainstream. According to contrary sentiment indicators, this is a good sign.
As long as pessimism is mainstream, the green shoots will grow and maybe even blossom. As soon as we all accept that the storm has passed, that the worst is over, and that these prophets of gloom are crackpots... then we are in for real trouble.
And Dan Dorfman reports on his interview with famed astrologer Bob Marks about what the stars and the planets have in store for us. The short answer is: cataclysmic doom. Link here.
You begin to think that some of these people forgot to take their optimism pills.
Of course, no one takes these predictions very seriously. And yet, we all make predictions, and some of the best minds in the financial world are renowned for their prophecies. I linked to Byron Wien's 2009 predictions in January. Link here.
And here are Doug Kass's 20 surprises for 2009. Link here.
Obviously, serious people do not believe in astrology. No one really believes that a planetary conjunction can have a transformational effect on our lives.
As we say these words, no small number of us will be looking up our horoscopes in the newspaper or on a website.
Astrology notwithstanding, we all project possible futures. You cannot make a plan without having some notion of what the future will look like.
Mostly, we think that the future will be more of the same. We believe that the past is destined to repeat itself, so that if we understand what happened yesterday we will be best prepared to deal with tomorrow.
People are debating whether the current financial crisis is a repeat of the 1930s or the 1970s.
It may not be true, but it is respectable. And if you imagine a future that has nothing to do with the past, a black swan, then you will surely be looked at askance.
Today, the mood is not as bleak as it was six months ago. And yet, the prophets of doom are still hard at work. And they are becoming more mainstream. According to contrary sentiment indicators, this is a good sign.
As long as pessimism is mainstream, the green shoots will grow and maybe even blossom. As soon as we all accept that the storm has passed, that the worst is over, and that these prophets of gloom are crackpots... then we are in for real trouble.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Executives Coaching
It may not be obvious, but CEOs must sometimes act as coaches to those who report to them. Surely, the same applies to anyone in an executive position.
According to Marshall Goldsmith many CEOs refrain from coaching because they feel that the people reporting to them-- their reports-- already know their jobs so well that it would demean them to imagine that they need guidance or encouragement. Especially from someone who might have less expertise in their area of responsibility. Link here.
That would be like saying that some athletes are so good that they do not need coaching. Yet, we know that the greater the athlete the more seriously he takes the coaching he receives. And he may even receive great coaching from someone who has far less ability than he does.
A mediocre player might be a great coach, while a great player might be a mediocre coach.
Goldsmith wants CEOs to learn how to coach. His first rule is worth close attention, especially for this blog: "...while successful people tend to resist negative feedback about the past, they almost always respond well to positive suggestions for the future."
This means that coaching is antithetical to many traditional forms of psychotherapy, which emphasize negative feedback about the past.
Thanks to Freud, much therapy has involved analyzing the patient's resistance to the therapist's negative and insulting interpretations about his past history.
Freud believed that these patients were resisting the truth and that their resistances had to be broken. Goldsmith, however, is saying that resistance to negative comments is normal in successful people.
After all, these people did not get where they are by belaboring the past. They succeeded by looking to the future. You cannot do both at the same time.
People who are less successful might be more apt to focus on the past-- sometimes they insist on it-- but that is not the solution. It is the problem. In those cases it is important for a coach to keep his or her client firmly focused on the future.
Goldsmith recommends that CEOs have quarterly coaching sessions. And he offers some good suggestions for how these meetings should be organized.
They must focus on the future, not the past. They should involve dialogue, not lecturing and dictating.
Also, the CEO should listen carefully to his report's ideas, should take them seriously, and should try to implement them.
This last is important. It is better to try to find what is good and worthy of implementation in an idea than to waste time trying to argue about why it is wrong.
A good CEO/coach should offer positive recognition for achievements; should solicit good news; and should provide the bases for moving forward. Even when things have gone wrong, he should not belabor the past but should try to work out the steps that need to be taken to improve performance in the future.
According to Marshall Goldsmith many CEOs refrain from coaching because they feel that the people reporting to them-- their reports-- already know their jobs so well that it would demean them to imagine that they need guidance or encouragement. Especially from someone who might have less expertise in their area of responsibility. Link here.
That would be like saying that some athletes are so good that they do not need coaching. Yet, we know that the greater the athlete the more seriously he takes the coaching he receives. And he may even receive great coaching from someone who has far less ability than he does.
A mediocre player might be a great coach, while a great player might be a mediocre coach.
Goldsmith wants CEOs to learn how to coach. His first rule is worth close attention, especially for this blog: "...while successful people tend to resist negative feedback about the past, they almost always respond well to positive suggestions for the future."
This means that coaching is antithetical to many traditional forms of psychotherapy, which emphasize negative feedback about the past.
Thanks to Freud, much therapy has involved analyzing the patient's resistance to the therapist's negative and insulting interpretations about his past history.
Freud believed that these patients were resisting the truth and that their resistances had to be broken. Goldsmith, however, is saying that resistance to negative comments is normal in successful people.
After all, these people did not get where they are by belaboring the past. They succeeded by looking to the future. You cannot do both at the same time.
People who are less successful might be more apt to focus on the past-- sometimes they insist on it-- but that is not the solution. It is the problem. In those cases it is important for a coach to keep his or her client firmly focused on the future.
Goldsmith recommends that CEOs have quarterly coaching sessions. And he offers some good suggestions for how these meetings should be organized.
They must focus on the future, not the past. They should involve dialogue, not lecturing and dictating.
Also, the CEO should listen carefully to his report's ideas, should take them seriously, and should try to implement them.
This last is important. It is better to try to find what is good and worthy of implementation in an idea than to waste time trying to argue about why it is wrong.
A good CEO/coach should offer positive recognition for achievements; should solicit good news; and should provide the bases for moving forward. Even when things have gone wrong, he should not belabor the past but should try to work out the steps that need to be taken to improve performance in the future.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Don't Take It Personally
How do you not take it personally when your husband of twenty years announces that he no longer loves you?
Great question. Great answer offered by Laura Munson's column in today's New York Times. Link here.
Without aid of therapy Munson figured out how to work her way through her husband's threat with unusual and impressive aplomb.
For those who have happily absorbed the slogan, but don't know what to do with it, her column offers a great view of how one woman dealt with a problem that a very large number of people would have taken very, very personally.
Great question. Great answer offered by Laura Munson's column in today's New York Times. Link here.
Without aid of therapy Munson figured out how to work her way through her husband's threat with unusual and impressive aplomb.
For those who have happily absorbed the slogan, but don't know what to do with it, her column offers a great view of how one woman dealt with a problem that a very large number of people would have taken very, very personally.
Exercise Treats Depression
Everyone knows that exercise is an excellent treatment for depression. Not everyone takes the advice to heart. We draw this conclusion from the sorry state of the average American's health and the number of prescriptions of anti-depressants that are written each year.
So, as a friendly reminder, I am linking an article that offers more scientific evidence to prove that if you want to improve your mood, markedly, and without even having to wait for a few weeks, then regular exercise is a great idea.
Link here.
So, as a friendly reminder, I am linking an article that offers more scientific evidence to prove that if you want to improve your mood, markedly, and without even having to wait for a few weeks, then regular exercise is a great idea.
Link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)